version
stringclasses 1
value | hypothesis
stringlengths 11
215
| hypothesis_formula
stringlengths 3
39
| context
stringlengths 0
2.9k
| context_formula
stringlengths 0
905
| proofs
list | proofs_formula
list | negative_hypothesis
stringlengths 15
193
⌀ | negative_hypothesis_formula
stringlengths 3
37
⌀ | negative_proofs
list | negative_original_tree_depth
int64 0
25
⌀ | original_tree_depth
int64 1
4
| depth
int64 0
3
⌀ | num_formula_distractors
int64 0
22
| num_translation_distractors
int64 0
0
| num_all_distractors
int64 0
22
| proof_label
stringclasses 3
values | negative_proof_label
stringclasses 2
values | world_assump_label
stringclasses 3
values | negative_world_assump_label
stringclasses 2
values | prompt_serial
stringlengths 89
3.09k
| proof_serial
stringlengths 11
654
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the pollutant hills kitchen or is not a SAS or both does not hold.
|
¬({D}{c} v ¬{C}{c})
|
sent1: if the scours does hill kitchen the fracture hill kitchen. sent2: the plainclothesman is a kind of an obsession if there is something such that that it is not an outhouse and is inspiratory is false. sent3: that the scours is arthralgic is correct. sent4: that something is not a SAS but it is dystopian is not right if it hills kitchen. sent5: the Cretan does hill kitchen. sent6: if something that is arthralgic is not an overcast that it is Incan hold. sent7: there is something such that the fact that it is both not an outhouse and inspiratory is incorrect. sent8: if there is something such that it is a kind of dystopian thing that does petrify attack then the subnormal is not a kind of a SAS. sent9: that the subnormal is meningeal thing that is not a kind of an obsession is not correct if something is a kind of an obsession. sent10: if the fact that the subnormal is a kind of meningeal thing that is not an obsession is not true then the scours is not a kind of an overcast. sent11: something does hill kitchen and/or is not a kind of a SAS if that it is dystopian is not wrong. sent12: the scours is dystopian. sent13: if something does not rut then it petrifies attack and it is dystopian. sent14: the fact that the subnormal is Incan does not hold. sent15: The attack petrifies scours. sent16: the scours petrifies attack.
|
sent1: {D}{a} -> {D}{fh} sent2: (x): ¬(¬{L}x & {K}x) -> {J}{d} sent3: {H}{a} sent4: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & {A}x) sent5: {D}{hk} sent6: (x): ({H}x & ¬{G}x) -> {F}x sent7: (Ex): ¬(¬{L}x & {K}x) sent8: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}{b} sent9: (x): {J}x -> ¬({I}{b} & ¬{J}{b}) sent10: ¬({I}{b} & ¬{J}{b}) -> ¬{G}{a} sent11: (x): {A}x -> ({D}x v ¬{C}x) sent12: {A}{a} sent13: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({B}x & {A}x) sent14: ¬{F}{b} sent15: {AA}{aa} sent16: {B}{a}
|
[
"sent12 & sent16 -> int1: the scours is dystopian and it petrifies attack.; int1 -> int2: something is dystopian and it does petrify attack.; int2 & sent8 -> int3: the subnormal is not a kind of a SAS.;"
] |
[
"sent12 & sent16 -> int1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x); int2 & sent8 -> int3: ¬{C}{b};"
] |
the pollutant does hill kitchen and/or it is not a SAS.
|
({D}{c} v ¬{C}{c})
|
[
"sent11 -> int4: if the pollutant is dystopian it hills kitchen and/or it is not a kind of a SAS.; sent13 -> int5: if the pollutant does not rut it does petrify attack and is dystopian.; sent6 -> int6: the scours is Incan if it is arthralgic and it is not a kind of an overcast.; sent7 & sent2 -> int7: the plainclothesman is a kind of an obsession.; int7 -> int8: there exists something such that it is a kind of an obsession.; int8 & sent9 -> int9: the fact that the subnormal is meningeal but it is not an obsession is not true.; sent10 & int9 -> int10: the scours is not a kind of an overcast.; sent3 & int10 -> int11: the scours is arthralgic but it does not overcast.; int6 & int11 -> int12: the scours is Incan.; int12 -> int13: there exists something such that it is Incan.;"
] | 11 | 4 | null | 13 | 0 | 13 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the pollutant hills kitchen or is not a SAS or both does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the scours does hill kitchen the fracture hill kitchen. sent2: the plainclothesman is a kind of an obsession if there is something such that that it is not an outhouse and is inspiratory is false. sent3: that the scours is arthralgic is correct. sent4: that something is not a SAS but it is dystopian is not right if it hills kitchen. sent5: the Cretan does hill kitchen. sent6: if something that is arthralgic is not an overcast that it is Incan hold. sent7: there is something such that the fact that it is both not an outhouse and inspiratory is incorrect. sent8: if there is something such that it is a kind of dystopian thing that does petrify attack then the subnormal is not a kind of a SAS. sent9: that the subnormal is meningeal thing that is not a kind of an obsession is not correct if something is a kind of an obsession. sent10: if the fact that the subnormal is a kind of meningeal thing that is not an obsession is not true then the scours is not a kind of an overcast. sent11: something does hill kitchen and/or is not a kind of a SAS if that it is dystopian is not wrong. sent12: the scours is dystopian. sent13: if something does not rut then it petrifies attack and it is dystopian. sent14: the fact that the subnormal is Incan does not hold. sent15: The attack petrifies scours. sent16: the scours petrifies attack. ; $proof$ =
|
sent12 & sent16 -> int1: the scours is dystopian and it petrifies attack.; int1 -> int2: something is dystopian and it does petrify attack.; int2 & sent8 -> int3: the subnormal is not a kind of a SAS.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the neckerchief is a bismark.
|
{B}{aa}
|
sent1: if the neckerchief is aware it is not a delft. sent2: the neckerchief is a kind of a delft. sent3: if the neckerchief is a delft the fact that it is a kind of a pravastatin and it is not a hiccup is correct. sent4: the neckerchief is not a bismark if it is a kind of a pravastatin that is a kind of a hiccup. sent5: there is something such that that it is benzylic and it is pregnant is false. sent6: the thick-knee does group audible if there is something such that the fact that it is benzylic and it is pregnant does not hold. sent7: if that the neckerchief is serious is right it is not a kind of a delft. sent8: something is a bismark if that it does not expostulate and/or is a delft is false. sent9: a pravastatin that is not a kind of a hiccup is not a bismark. sent10: the baffle is not a Keynesian if it is both an approach and not cauline.
|
sent1: {GN}{aa} -> ¬{A}{aa} sent2: {A}{aa} sent3: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent4: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent5: (Ex): ¬({E}x & {G}x) sent6: (x): ¬({E}x & {G}x) -> {F}{b} sent7: {HD}{aa} -> ¬{A}{aa} sent8: (x): ¬(¬{C}x v {A}x) -> {B}x sent9: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent10: ({JA}{hq} & ¬{GL}{hq}) -> ¬{EA}{hq}
|
[
"sent9 -> int1: the neckerchief is not a kind of a bismark if it is a pravastatin and it is not a kind of a hiccup.; sent3 & sent2 -> int2: the neckerchief is a pravastatin but not a hiccup.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 -> int1: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; sent3 & sent2 -> int2: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the neckerchief is a kind of a bismark.
|
{B}{aa}
|
[
"sent8 -> int3: if the fact that the neckerchief does not expostulate or it is a kind of a delft or both is not correct then it is a bismark.; sent5 & sent6 -> int4: the thick-knee does group audible.; int4 -> int5: the thick-knee either does rough cornbread or groups audible or both.; int5 -> int6: there is something such that either it roughs cornbread or it does group audible or both.;"
] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the neckerchief is a bismark. ; $context$ = sent1: if the neckerchief is aware it is not a delft. sent2: the neckerchief is a kind of a delft. sent3: if the neckerchief is a delft the fact that it is a kind of a pravastatin and it is not a hiccup is correct. sent4: the neckerchief is not a bismark if it is a kind of a pravastatin that is a kind of a hiccup. sent5: there is something such that that it is benzylic and it is pregnant is false. sent6: the thick-knee does group audible if there is something such that the fact that it is benzylic and it is pregnant does not hold. sent7: if that the neckerchief is serious is right it is not a kind of a delft. sent8: something is a bismark if that it does not expostulate and/or is a delft is false. sent9: a pravastatin that is not a kind of a hiccup is not a bismark. sent10: the baffle is not a Keynesian if it is both an approach and not cauline. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 -> int1: the neckerchief is not a kind of a bismark if it is a pravastatin and it is not a kind of a hiccup.; sent3 & sent2 -> int2: the neckerchief is a pravastatin but not a hiccup.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the slide is not a scorch hold.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
sent1: the senega is a mandible. sent2: the senega is a mandible that is not a scorch. sent3: the senega is not a heterometabolism if something is a scorch that is not a mandible. sent4: the terpene is a Romneya but it is not a kind of a mandible. sent5: something is a heterometabolism and not a scorch. sent6: something is a mandible and it is a heterometabolism. sent7: something is a kind of a scorch and it is a heterometabolism. sent8: there is something such that it is not a heterometabolism. sent9: there exists something such that it is a kind of a mandible. sent10: the senega is a kind of a mandible and is not a heterometabolism. sent11: there is something such that that it is not certain is right. sent12: the slide roughs terpene and is not dimorphic if it scorches.
|
sent1: {AA}{aa} sent2: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa}) sent3: (x): ({A}x & ¬{AA}x) -> ¬{AB}{aa} sent4: ({EN}{ef} & ¬{AA}{ef}) sent5: (Ex): ({AB}x & ¬{A}x) sent6: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent7: (Ex): ({A}x & {AB}x) sent8: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent9: (Ex): {AA}x sent10: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent11: (Ex): ¬{EQ}x sent12: {A}{a} -> ({EJ}{a} & ¬{GQ}{a})
|
[
"sent10 -> int1: something is a kind of a mandible but it is not a heterometabolism.;"
] |
[
"sent10 -> int1: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x);"
] |
there exists something such that it roughs terpene and it is not dimorphic.
|
(Ex): ({EJ}x & ¬{GQ}x)
|
[] | 5 | 2 | null | 11 | 0 | 11 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the slide is not a scorch hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the senega is a mandible. sent2: the senega is a mandible that is not a scorch. sent3: the senega is not a heterometabolism if something is a scorch that is not a mandible. sent4: the terpene is a Romneya but it is not a kind of a mandible. sent5: something is a heterometabolism and not a scorch. sent6: something is a mandible and it is a heterometabolism. sent7: something is a kind of a scorch and it is a heterometabolism. sent8: there is something such that it is not a heterometabolism. sent9: there exists something such that it is a kind of a mandible. sent10: the senega is a kind of a mandible and is not a heterometabolism. sent11: there is something such that that it is not certain is right. sent12: the slide roughs terpene and is not dimorphic if it scorches. ; $proof$ =
|
sent10 -> int1: something is a kind of a mandible but it is not a heterometabolism.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the freeness happens.
|
{D}
|
sent1: the petrifying Chrysosplenium and the grouping pellucidness occurs. sent2: if the cartoon happens then the arteriography occurs. sent3: that the cartoon occurs is brought about by that the curveting does not occur. sent4: the sprinkle does not occur if that either the rinse or the petrifying lithograph or both occurs is incorrect. sent5: the grouping nontricyclic does not occur. sent6: the elysianness but not the sprinkling occurs. sent7: if the injunction does not occur then the curvet and the cartooning happens. sent8: the cartoon occurs. sent9: if the sprinkle does not occur then that the palpitating does not occur and the roughing hypertext occurs is not wrong. sent10: the cartooning occurs if the injunction happens. sent11: both the roughing bread and the grouping associationism happens. sent12: the frosting does not occur. sent13: if the Peloponnesianness does not occur then the injunction happens and the petrifying billed happens. sent14: if the palpitating does not occur the pictographicness but not the promissoriness happens. sent15: the arteriography but not the curvet occurs. sent16: the freeness does not occur and the arteriography happens if that the curvet happens is not false. sent17: the arteriography happens. sent18: that the rinse and/or the petrifying lithograph occurs is not true if the cuneiformness does not occur. sent19: that the pictographicness and the non-promissoriness happens results in the non-Peloponnesianness. sent20: the Peloponnesianness does not occur. sent21: the spamming happens.
|
sent1: ({GI} & {DC}) sent2: {C} -> {A} sent3: ¬{B} -> {C} sent4: ¬({N} v {M}) -> ¬{L} sent5: ¬{AT} sent6: ({DJ} & ¬{L}) sent7: ¬{E} -> ({B} & {C}) sent8: {C} sent9: ¬{L} -> (¬{J} & {K}) sent10: {E} -> {C} sent11: ({DE} & {GC}) sent12: ¬{GB} sent13: ¬{G} -> ({E} & {F}) sent14: ¬{J} -> ({I} & ¬{H}) sent15: ({A} & ¬{B}) sent16: {B} -> (¬{D} & {A}) sent17: {A} sent18: ¬{O} -> ¬({N} v {M}) sent19: ({I} & ¬{H}) -> ¬{G} sent20: ¬{G} sent21: {HO}
|
[
"sent15 -> int1: the curvet does not occur.;"
] |
[
"sent15 -> int1: ¬{B};"
] |
the freeness does not occur.
|
¬{D}
|
[] | 7 | 3 | null | 20 | 0 | 20 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the freeness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the petrifying Chrysosplenium and the grouping pellucidness occurs. sent2: if the cartoon happens then the arteriography occurs. sent3: that the cartoon occurs is brought about by that the curveting does not occur. sent4: the sprinkle does not occur if that either the rinse or the petrifying lithograph or both occurs is incorrect. sent5: the grouping nontricyclic does not occur. sent6: the elysianness but not the sprinkling occurs. sent7: if the injunction does not occur then the curvet and the cartooning happens. sent8: the cartoon occurs. sent9: if the sprinkle does not occur then that the palpitating does not occur and the roughing hypertext occurs is not wrong. sent10: the cartooning occurs if the injunction happens. sent11: both the roughing bread and the grouping associationism happens. sent12: the frosting does not occur. sent13: if the Peloponnesianness does not occur then the injunction happens and the petrifying billed happens. sent14: if the palpitating does not occur the pictographicness but not the promissoriness happens. sent15: the arteriography but not the curvet occurs. sent16: the freeness does not occur and the arteriography happens if that the curvet happens is not false. sent17: the arteriography happens. sent18: that the rinse and/or the petrifying lithograph occurs is not true if the cuneiformness does not occur. sent19: that the pictographicness and the non-promissoriness happens results in the non-Peloponnesianness. sent20: the Peloponnesianness does not occur. sent21: the spamming happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent15 -> int1: the curvet does not occur.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
either the interrupt or the incuriousness or both happens.
|
({A} v {C})
|
sent1: the quartering happens and the vibration happens. sent2: the electrostaticsness occurs.
|
sent1: ({IS} & {E}) sent2: {B}
|
[] |
[] |
the quartering and the incommensurateness occurs.
|
({IS} & {IU})
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: the fact that the quartering occurs is not incorrect.;"
] | 5 | 2 | null | 2 | 0 | 2 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = either the interrupt or the incuriousness or both happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the quartering happens and the vibration happens. sent2: the electrostaticsness occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Cabernet is both a sultriness and a pfannkuchen.
|
({C}{a} & {D}{a})
|
sent1: the Cabernet is both a pfannkuchen and labyrinthine. sent2: the Cabernet does petrify nutrition but it does not rough pan. sent3: if that the dallisgrass either does petrify sheik or curdles or both does not hold then the pan is not a kind of a Carrere. sent4: if the fact that the ranter is parhelic and it is an analyst is not correct then the bark-louse is not parhelic. sent5: if that the xenon is a pfannkuchen is right the Cabernet is not a sultriness and does rough pan. sent6: the fiddleneck does not rough pan if the Cabernet is not a sultriness and rough pan. sent7: the Tutu is a pfannkuchen. sent8: if something is not a Carrere then it is labyrinthine and it is not a pfannkuchen. sent9: the xenon is a pfannkuchen if the pan is labyrinthine thing that is not a pfannkuchen. sent10: if something petrifies nutrition it is a sultriness.
|
sent1: ({D}{a} & {E}{a}) sent2: ({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent3: ¬({H}{d} v {G}{d}) -> ¬{F}{c} sent4: ¬({I}{f} & {K}{f}) -> ¬{I}{e} sent5: {D}{b} -> (¬{C}{a} & {B}{a}) sent6: (¬{C}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{B}{hi} sent7: {D}{p} sent8: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({E}x & ¬{D}x) sent9: ({E}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) -> {D}{b} sent10: (x): {A}x -> {C}x
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: the Cabernet does petrify nutrition.; sent10 -> int2: if the Cabernet petrifies nutrition then it is a sultriness.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Cabernet is a kind of a sultriness.; sent1 -> int4: the Cabernet is a pfannkuchen.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> int1: {A}{a}; sent10 -> int2: {A}{a} -> {C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {C}{a}; sent1 -> int4: {D}{a}; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fiddleneck groups Microhylidae but it does not petrify nutrition.
|
({AD}{hi} & ¬{A}{hi})
|
[
"sent8 -> int5: the pan is labyrinthine but not a pfannkuchen if it is not a Carrere.;"
] | 9 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the Cabernet is both a sultriness and a pfannkuchen. ; $context$ = sent1: the Cabernet is both a pfannkuchen and labyrinthine. sent2: the Cabernet does petrify nutrition but it does not rough pan. sent3: if that the dallisgrass either does petrify sheik or curdles or both does not hold then the pan is not a kind of a Carrere. sent4: if the fact that the ranter is parhelic and it is an analyst is not correct then the bark-louse is not parhelic. sent5: if that the xenon is a pfannkuchen is right the Cabernet is not a sultriness and does rough pan. sent6: the fiddleneck does not rough pan if the Cabernet is not a sultriness and rough pan. sent7: the Tutu is a pfannkuchen. sent8: if something is not a Carrere then it is labyrinthine and it is not a pfannkuchen. sent9: the xenon is a pfannkuchen if the pan is labyrinthine thing that is not a pfannkuchen. sent10: if something petrifies nutrition it is a sultriness. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> int1: the Cabernet does petrify nutrition.; sent10 -> int2: if the Cabernet petrifies nutrition then it is a sultriness.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Cabernet is a kind of a sultriness.; sent1 -> int4: the Cabernet is a pfannkuchen.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
if the orthoclase is a downdraft that the overall is both a tool and not a bristle is not correct.
|
{B}{a} -> ¬({D}{b} & ¬{E}{b})
|
sent1: the fact that the overall is both a tool and a bristle is not true. sent2: if the orthoclase is hydraulic and it is a downdraft the overall is not a kind of a reserve. sent3: the overall does tool but it is not a kind of a bristle if the orthoclase is a downdraft. sent4: the overall is both a tool and not a bristle. sent5: that the overall is a tool that does bristle is not right if that it is not a reserve is right. sent6: if something is not a reserve it is a kind of a tool that does not bristle. sent7: the orthoclase is hydraulic. sent8: if something is not a reserve then the fact that it is a kind of a tool and is a kind of a bristle does not hold. sent9: that the overall is a tool that is a bristle is incorrect if the orthoclase is a downdraft. sent10: the gateau is not a bristle. sent11: if the orthoclase does not bristle then it is a reserve and is not hydraulic. sent12: the overall is not a downdraft if the orthoclase is a kind of a bristle and does reserve.
|
sent1: ¬({D}{b} & {E}{b}) sent2: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent3: {B}{a} -> ({D}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) sent4: ({D}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) sent5: ¬{C}{b} -> ¬({D}{b} & {E}{b}) sent6: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({D}x & ¬{E}x) sent7: {A}{a} sent8: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({D}x & {E}x) sent9: {B}{a} -> ¬({D}{b} & {E}{b}) sent10: ¬{E}{bj} sent11: ¬{E}{a} -> ({C}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent12: ({E}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the orthoclase is a downdraft.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: the orthoclase is hydraulic a downdraft.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the overall is not a reserve.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {B}{a}; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}); int1 & sent2 -> int2: ¬{C}{b};"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 4 | null | 10 | 0 | 10 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = if the orthoclase is a downdraft that the overall is both a tool and not a bristle is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the overall is both a tool and a bristle is not true. sent2: if the orthoclase is hydraulic and it is a downdraft the overall is not a kind of a reserve. sent3: the overall does tool but it is not a kind of a bristle if the orthoclase is a downdraft. sent4: the overall is both a tool and not a bristle. sent5: that the overall is a tool that does bristle is not right if that it is not a reserve is right. sent6: if something is not a reserve it is a kind of a tool that does not bristle. sent7: the orthoclase is hydraulic. sent8: if something is not a reserve then the fact that it is a kind of a tool and is a kind of a bristle does not hold. sent9: that the overall is a tool that is a bristle is incorrect if the orthoclase is a downdraft. sent10: the gateau is not a bristle. sent11: if the orthoclase does not bristle then it is a reserve and is not hydraulic. sent12: the overall is not a downdraft if the orthoclase is a kind of a bristle and does reserve. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the orthoclase is a downdraft.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: the orthoclase is hydraulic a downdraft.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the overall is not a reserve.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the decimalization happens and the tremble occurs.
|
({B} & {C})
|
sent1: the petrifying cassocked occurs. sent2: the effort occurs. sent3: if the fact that the grouping double-prop does not occur is true then the profitableness and the abrading occurs. sent4: both the ropeiness and the effort happens. sent5: the attentionalness happens. sent6: the fleshiness and the hilling leer happens. sent7: the fact that the decimalization and the tremble happens is not correct if the anterogradeness does not occur. sent8: the Commerce does not occur if the fact that the Commerce and the nonpartisanness happens is false. sent9: if the abrading occurs the petrifying cassocked happens. sent10: the anterogradeness occurs and the decimalization occurs. sent11: the grouping double-prop is prevented by that the final occurs and/or that the grouping double-prop does not occur. sent12: the imposition occurs. sent13: if the migrationalness does not occur then both the final and the mercurialness occurs. sent14: the clutch happens. sent15: both the Commerce and the conjuncture happens. sent16: that the Commerce does not occur prevents that the migrationalness happens. sent17: the postalness occurs.
|
sent1: {D} sent2: {IJ} sent3: ¬{G} -> ({F} & {E}) sent4: ({IR} & {IJ}) sent5: {GS} sent6: ({AE} & {AS}) sent7: ¬{A} -> ¬({B} & {C}) sent8: ¬({K} & ¬{M}) -> ¬{K} sent9: {E} -> {D} sent10: ({A} & {B}) sent11: ({I} v ¬{G}) -> ¬{G} sent12: {BG} sent13: ¬{J} -> ({I} & {H}) sent14: {ED} sent15: ({K} & {BQ}) sent16: ¬{K} -> ¬{J} sent17: {IL}
|
[
"sent10 -> int1: the decimalization happens.;"
] |
[
"sent10 -> int1: {B};"
] |
that both the decimalization and the trembling occurs is not true.
|
¬({B} & {C})
|
[] | 12 | 2 | null | 16 | 0 | 16 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the decimalization happens and the tremble occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the petrifying cassocked occurs. sent2: the effort occurs. sent3: if the fact that the grouping double-prop does not occur is true then the profitableness and the abrading occurs. sent4: both the ropeiness and the effort happens. sent5: the attentionalness happens. sent6: the fleshiness and the hilling leer happens. sent7: the fact that the decimalization and the tremble happens is not correct if the anterogradeness does not occur. sent8: the Commerce does not occur if the fact that the Commerce and the nonpartisanness happens is false. sent9: if the abrading occurs the petrifying cassocked happens. sent10: the anterogradeness occurs and the decimalization occurs. sent11: the grouping double-prop is prevented by that the final occurs and/or that the grouping double-prop does not occur. sent12: the imposition occurs. sent13: if the migrationalness does not occur then both the final and the mercurialness occurs. sent14: the clutch happens. sent15: both the Commerce and the conjuncture happens. sent16: that the Commerce does not occur prevents that the migrationalness happens. sent17: the postalness occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent10 -> int1: the decimalization happens.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the antiviral is a cocoon and is not a Cyprinus.
|
({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})
|
sent1: if the antiviral is not a cocoon then the kunzite is not epicarpal. sent2: the inkberry is a sciolism if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a Bolshevism and it is not a pragmatics is not true. sent3: the fetishism is a mum and does not hill Esau. sent4: if something is a mum it drives. sent5: the fact that the kunzite is epicarpal hold. sent6: the antiviral is not epicarpal if that the kunzite is a cocoon that is not a Cyprinus is not true. sent7: something is epicarpal if it is a sciolism. sent8: the antiviral cocoons. sent9: the fact that something is a cocoon that is not a Cyprinus does not hold if it does not catholicize. sent10: if the inkberry is a sciolism then the fetishism is a sciolism. sent11: the fact that the fact that the Male is a Bolshevism but it is not a kind of a pragmatics is correct does not hold. sent12: that the kunzite is not epicarpal if the fact that the antiviral is a cocoon that is not a kind of a Cyprinus does not hold is not wrong. sent13: the fact that the antiviral hills electrification but it is not a meaninglessness is not right if the kunzite catholicizes.
|
sent1: ¬{AA}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent2: (x): ¬({F}x & ¬{G}x) -> {D}{d} sent3: ({E}{c} & ¬{H}{c}) sent4: (x): {E}x -> {C}x sent5: {B}{b} sent6: ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent7: (x): {D}x -> {B}x sent8: {AA}{a} sent9: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent10: {D}{d} -> {D}{c} sent11: ¬({F}{e} & ¬{G}{e}) sent12: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent13: {A}{b} -> ¬({CJ}{a} & ¬{GT}{a})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the antiviral is a kind of a cocoon and is not a Cyprinus is not true.; sent12 & assump1 -> int1: the kunzite is not epicarpal.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); sent12 & assump1 -> int1: ¬{B}{b}; int1 & sent5 -> int2: #F#; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the antiviral hills electrification but it is not a meaninglessness is incorrect.
|
¬({CJ}{a} & ¬{GT}{a})
|
[
"sent4 -> int3: the fetishism is a drive if it is a mum.; sent3 -> int4: the fetishism is a mum.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the fetishism is a drive.; sent7 -> int6: if the fetishism is a sciolism it is epicarpal.; sent11 -> int7: there exists something such that the fact that it is a Bolshevism and it is not a kind of a pragmatics is not true.; int7 & sent2 -> int8: the inkberry is a sciolism.; sent10 & int8 -> int9: that the fetishism is a sciolism is right.; int6 & int9 -> int10: the fetishism is epicarpal.; int5 & int10 -> int11: the fetishism drives and it is epicarpal.; int11 -> int12: there is something such that it is a kind of a drive that is epicarpal.;"
] | 8 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the antiviral is a cocoon and is not a Cyprinus. ; $context$ = sent1: if the antiviral is not a cocoon then the kunzite is not epicarpal. sent2: the inkberry is a sciolism if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a Bolshevism and it is not a pragmatics is not true. sent3: the fetishism is a mum and does not hill Esau. sent4: if something is a mum it drives. sent5: the fact that the kunzite is epicarpal hold. sent6: the antiviral is not epicarpal if that the kunzite is a cocoon that is not a Cyprinus is not true. sent7: something is epicarpal if it is a sciolism. sent8: the antiviral cocoons. sent9: the fact that something is a cocoon that is not a Cyprinus does not hold if it does not catholicize. sent10: if the inkberry is a sciolism then the fetishism is a sciolism. sent11: the fact that the fact that the Male is a Bolshevism but it is not a kind of a pragmatics is correct does not hold. sent12: that the kunzite is not epicarpal if the fact that the antiviral is a cocoon that is not a kind of a Cyprinus does not hold is not wrong. sent13: the fact that the antiviral hills electrification but it is not a meaninglessness is not right if the kunzite catholicizes. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the antiviral is a kind of a cocoon and is not a Cyprinus is not true.; sent12 & assump1 -> int1: the kunzite is not epicarpal.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there is something such that if it roughs Zeeman and does not group Ixodidae then the fact that it is new hold hold.
|
(Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x
|
sent1: if the bloodstone does group Ixodidae and is a Megadermatidae it is vegetative. sent2: the antidepressant roughs Zeeman if it is Leibnizian and it is a Gujarat. sent3: if the bloodstone roughs Zeeman and does not group Ixodidae then it is new. sent4: the vaporizer does shoulder if it roughs Zeeman and it is not a Ultrasuede.
|
sent1: ({AB}{aa} & {L}{aa}) -> {Q}{aa} sent2: ({CL}{fu} & {CE}{fu}) -> {AA}{fu} sent3: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent4: ({AA}{bi} & ¬{JC}{bi}) -> {BG}{bi}
|
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if it roughs Zeeman and does not group Ixodidae then the fact that it is new hold hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the bloodstone does group Ixodidae and is a Megadermatidae it is vegetative. sent2: the antidepressant roughs Zeeman if it is Leibnizian and it is a Gujarat. sent3: if the bloodstone roughs Zeeman and does not group Ixodidae then it is new. sent4: the vaporizer does shoulder if it roughs Zeeman and it is not a Ultrasuede. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the hatmaker does scrub.
|
{A}{a}
|
sent1: if the hatmaker does celebrate then it does rough COBOL. sent2: if something is a Neolentinus the fact that it does not group bohemian and it is not a kind of an anorexia does not hold. sent3: the kirtle is a Neolentinus. sent4: the bohemian is a Aulostomidae if that it does not scrub and it is perceptual does not hold. sent5: the hatmaker is stored-program if it crows. sent6: the hatmaker is stored-program if the fact that it does not rough COBOL and it is a kind of a salubrity is not correct. sent7: something that is a Luwian does not rough kirtle and is stored-program. sent8: if the ilang-ilang is a kind of a animalism then it is a kind of a salubrity. sent9: the hatmaker scrubs if it is stored-program. sent10: that the hatmaker does not rough COBOL and is a salubrity does not hold.
|
sent1: {JB}{a} -> {AA}{a} sent2: (x): {G}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{F}x) sent3: {G}{c} sent4: ¬(¬{A}{q} & {EU}{q}) -> {IL}{q} sent5: {IB}{a} -> {B}{a} sent6: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent7: (x): {D}x -> (¬{C}x & {B}x) sent8: {BR}{dq} -> {AB}{dq} sent9: {B}{a} -> {A}{a} sent10: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})
|
[
"sent6 & sent10 -> int1: the hatmaker is stored-program.; int1 & sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 & sent10 -> int1: {B}{a}; int1 & sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the hatmaker is not a scrubbird.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
[
"sent7 -> int2: the nevirapine does not rough kirtle and is stored-program if that it is a kind of a Luwian is correct.; sent2 -> int3: the fact that the kirtle does not group bohemian and is not an anorexia does not hold if it is a Neolentinus.; int3 & sent3 -> int4: that the kirtle does not group bohemian and it is not a kind of an anorexia is wrong.; int4 -> int5: there exists something such that that it does not group bohemian and is not an anorexia does not hold.;"
] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the hatmaker does scrub. ; $context$ = sent1: if the hatmaker does celebrate then it does rough COBOL. sent2: if something is a Neolentinus the fact that it does not group bohemian and it is not a kind of an anorexia does not hold. sent3: the kirtle is a Neolentinus. sent4: the bohemian is a Aulostomidae if that it does not scrub and it is perceptual does not hold. sent5: the hatmaker is stored-program if it crows. sent6: the hatmaker is stored-program if the fact that it does not rough COBOL and it is a kind of a salubrity is not correct. sent7: something that is a Luwian does not rough kirtle and is stored-program. sent8: if the ilang-ilang is a kind of a animalism then it is a kind of a salubrity. sent9: the hatmaker scrubs if it is stored-program. sent10: that the hatmaker does not rough COBOL and is a salubrity does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 & sent10 -> int1: the hatmaker is stored-program.; int1 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the branchiness occurs.
|
{C}
|
sent1: if the addiction does not occur the fact that the hydropathicness does not occur and the acceding does not occur does not hold. sent2: the mercifulness does not occur and/or the petrifying stabile does not occur if the subscribing does not occur. sent3: the subscribing does not occur if that the ramification does not occur and the subscribing occurs is not correct. sent4: that the ramification does not occur and the subscribing occurs does not hold if the petrifying Asin does not occur. sent5: the petrifying stabile happens if both the founder and the petrifying Poe occurs. sent6: the acceding does not occur if that not the addiction but the nidifugousness happens hold. sent7: the roughing rogue occurs. sent8: the mercifulness happens if the petrifying stabile occurs. sent9: if that the acceding does not occur hold then the fact that the petrifying Asin does not occur and the hydropathicness does not occur hold. sent10: the fact that the addiction does not occur is right if the fact that the non-nidifugousness and the addiction occurs does not hold. sent11: if the nosocomialness does not occur then the fact that the zodiacalness does not occur and the petrifying cyclostome does not occur does not hold. sent12: the continualness happens if that the zodiacalness does not occur and the petrifying cyclostome does not occur does not hold. sent13: if the fact that the hydropathicness does not occur and the acceding does not occur does not hold then the petrifying Asin happens. sent14: if the mercifulness happens then the branchiness occurs. sent15: if the founder happens and the petrifying Poe does not occur the petrifying stabile happens. sent16: the nosocomialness does not occur if that either the googly occurs or the disco does not occur or both is not right. sent17: the petrifying Poe does not occur. sent18: the petrifying stabile does not occur and the branchiness does not occur if the subscribing does not occur. sent19: if the continualness occurs that not the nidifugousness but the addiction happens does not hold. sent20: if the continualness occurs not the addiction but the nidifugousness happens. sent21: the foundering happens and the petrifying Poe does not occur.
|
sent1: ¬{I} -> ¬(¬{G} & ¬{H}) sent2: ¬{D} -> (¬{A} v ¬{B}) sent3: ¬(¬{E} & {D}) -> ¬{D} sent4: ¬{F} -> ¬(¬{E} & {D}) sent5: ({AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent6: (¬{I} & {J}) -> ¬{H} sent7: {ID} sent8: {B} -> {A} sent9: ¬{H} -> (¬{F} & ¬{G}) sent10: ¬(¬{J} & {I}) -> ¬{I} sent11: ¬{N} -> ¬(¬{L} & ¬{M}) sent12: ¬(¬{L} & ¬{M}) -> {K} sent13: ¬(¬{G} & ¬{H}) -> {F} sent14: {A} -> {C} sent15: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent16: ¬({P} v ¬{O}) -> ¬{N} sent17: ¬{AB} sent18: ¬{D} -> (¬{B} & ¬{C}) sent19: {K} -> ¬(¬{J} & {I}) sent20: {K} -> (¬{I} & {J}) sent21: ({AA} & ¬{AB})
|
[
"sent15 & sent21 -> int1: the fact that the petrifying stabile happens hold.; sent8 & int1 -> int2: that the mercifulness does not occur is not correct.; sent14 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent15 & sent21 -> int1: {B}; sent8 & int1 -> int2: {A}; sent14 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the punishment occurs.
|
{EC}
|
[] | 10 | 3 | 3 | 17 | 0 | 17 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the branchiness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the addiction does not occur the fact that the hydropathicness does not occur and the acceding does not occur does not hold. sent2: the mercifulness does not occur and/or the petrifying stabile does not occur if the subscribing does not occur. sent3: the subscribing does not occur if that the ramification does not occur and the subscribing occurs is not correct. sent4: that the ramification does not occur and the subscribing occurs does not hold if the petrifying Asin does not occur. sent5: the petrifying stabile happens if both the founder and the petrifying Poe occurs. sent6: the acceding does not occur if that not the addiction but the nidifugousness happens hold. sent7: the roughing rogue occurs. sent8: the mercifulness happens if the petrifying stabile occurs. sent9: if that the acceding does not occur hold then the fact that the petrifying Asin does not occur and the hydropathicness does not occur hold. sent10: the fact that the addiction does not occur is right if the fact that the non-nidifugousness and the addiction occurs does not hold. sent11: if the nosocomialness does not occur then the fact that the zodiacalness does not occur and the petrifying cyclostome does not occur does not hold. sent12: the continualness happens if that the zodiacalness does not occur and the petrifying cyclostome does not occur does not hold. sent13: if the fact that the hydropathicness does not occur and the acceding does not occur does not hold then the petrifying Asin happens. sent14: if the mercifulness happens then the branchiness occurs. sent15: if the founder happens and the petrifying Poe does not occur the petrifying stabile happens. sent16: the nosocomialness does not occur if that either the googly occurs or the disco does not occur or both is not right. sent17: the petrifying Poe does not occur. sent18: the petrifying stabile does not occur and the branchiness does not occur if the subscribing does not occur. sent19: if the continualness occurs that not the nidifugousness but the addiction happens does not hold. sent20: if the continualness occurs not the addiction but the nidifugousness happens. sent21: the foundering happens and the petrifying Poe does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent15 & sent21 -> int1: the fact that the petrifying stabile happens hold.; sent8 & int1 -> int2: that the mercifulness does not occur is not correct.; sent14 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the monkfish is vitiliginous.
|
{B}{b}
|
sent1: that if there is something such that that it does petrify AFSPC and it is craniometric is false then the monkfish is vitiliginous is true. sent2: the monkfish is craniometric if there is something such that that it is both photosynthetic and vitiliginous is not right. sent3: if the trader is not photosynthetic the fact that it does petrify AFSPC and is craniometric does not hold. sent4: if there exists something such that it does not petrify AFSPC then the monkfish is vitiliginous. sent5: the trader is not photosynthetic.
|
sent1: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}{b} sent2: (x): ¬({A}x & {B}x) -> {AB}{b} sent3: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent4: (x): ¬{AA}x -> {B}{b} sent5: ¬{A}{a}
|
[
"sent3 & sent5 -> int1: the fact that the fact that the trader does petrify AFSPC and it is craniometric does not hold is correct.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that that it petrifies AFSPC and it is craniometric is not true.; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent5 -> int1: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x); int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the monkfish is vitiliginous. ; $context$ = sent1: that if there is something such that that it does petrify AFSPC and it is craniometric is false then the monkfish is vitiliginous is true. sent2: the monkfish is craniometric if there is something such that that it is both photosynthetic and vitiliginous is not right. sent3: if the trader is not photosynthetic the fact that it does petrify AFSPC and is craniometric does not hold. sent4: if there exists something such that it does not petrify AFSPC then the monkfish is vitiliginous. sent5: the trader is not photosynthetic. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent5 -> int1: the fact that the fact that the trader does petrify AFSPC and it is craniometric does not hold is correct.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that that it petrifies AFSPC and it is craniometric is not true.; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the masseuse is a praise and/or it is a Hindemith is incorrect.
|
¬({C}{b} v {D}{b})
|
sent1: the pochard is not a kind of a Hindemith. sent2: the fact that the croton is a kind of a carcase that is not a kind of a loop is not right if something is not a carcase. sent3: if the pochard does not group fizzing then the fact that the masseuse is a winter and/or it is a Hindemith is incorrect. sent4: if that the croton is a carcase that is not a kind of a loop is incorrect then the potash loop. sent5: there is something such that it is not a carcase. sent6: if something does loop it is a Barstow and does not rough pheasant. sent7: something is not a Hindemith if it is a winter. sent8: that if the pochard is not a winter that the masseuse is either a praise or a Hindemith or both is not right is not incorrect.
|
sent1: ¬{D}{a} sent2: (x): ¬{I}x -> ¬({I}{d} & ¬{G}{d}) sent3: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬({A}{b} v {D}{b}) sent4: ¬({I}{d} & ¬{G}{d}) -> {G}{c} sent5: (Ex): ¬{I}x sent6: (x): {G}x -> ({F}x & ¬{E}x) sent7: (x): {A}x -> ¬{D}x sent8: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({C}{b} v {D}{b})
|
[] |
[] |
the stuffing is not a kind of a Hindemith.
|
¬{D}{cj}
|
[
"sent7 -> int1: the stuffing is not a Hindemith if it is a kind of a winter.;"
] | 5 | 2 | null | 7 | 0 | 7 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the masseuse is a praise and/or it is a Hindemith is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the pochard is not a kind of a Hindemith. sent2: the fact that the croton is a kind of a carcase that is not a kind of a loop is not right if something is not a carcase. sent3: if the pochard does not group fizzing then the fact that the masseuse is a winter and/or it is a Hindemith is incorrect. sent4: if that the croton is a carcase that is not a kind of a loop is incorrect then the potash loop. sent5: there is something such that it is not a carcase. sent6: if something does loop it is a Barstow and does not rough pheasant. sent7: something is not a Hindemith if it is a winter. sent8: that if the pochard is not a winter that the masseuse is either a praise or a Hindemith or both is not right is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the radiographer does not group Bakunin.
|
¬{D}{b}
|
sent1: if there exists something such that the fact that it is inoperable and it is a stub is not true the stepladder does not putty. sent2: the fact that the eutrophication is not a kind of a Demotic if that the smallmouth is not a Urbana and is not a kind of a Kansas is wrong is not false. sent3: if the stepladder is not a putty then the fact that the banana is a cabinetmaker and/or groups Bakunin does not hold. sent4: if that the stepladder is a stub and/or it is operable is not right then the radiographer does not group Bakunin. sent5: if something is not a putty that the stepladder is a kind of a stub and/or is operable is not correct.
|
sent1: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & {B}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent2: ¬(¬{F}{d} & ¬{G}{d}) -> ¬{E}{c} sent3: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({GT}{hh} v {D}{hh}) sent4: ¬({B}{a} v {C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}{a} v {C}{a})
|
[] |
[] |
that the banana is a kind of a cabinetmaker and/or it groups Bakunin is incorrect.
|
¬({GT}{hh} v {D}{hh})
|
[] | 10 | 2 | null | 3 | 0 | 3 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the radiographer does not group Bakunin. ; $context$ = sent1: if there exists something such that the fact that it is inoperable and it is a stub is not true the stepladder does not putty. sent2: the fact that the eutrophication is not a kind of a Demotic if that the smallmouth is not a Urbana and is not a kind of a Kansas is wrong is not false. sent3: if the stepladder is not a putty then the fact that the banana is a cabinetmaker and/or groups Bakunin does not hold. sent4: if that the stepladder is a stub and/or it is operable is not right then the radiographer does not group Bakunin. sent5: if something is not a putty that the stepladder is a kind of a stub and/or is operable is not correct. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the anticoagulant is both a GRAPO and a by-catch.
|
({E}{b} & {D}{b})
|
sent1: something does not depopulate if it does pulse and it is a kind of a flashlight. sent2: the openbill is a kind of a flashlight. sent3: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a by-catch and it depopulates is wrong that the anticoagulant is a kind of a by-catch is not wrong. sent4: something that is not a kind of a flashlight is a GRAPO and is a pulse. sent5: the openbill does pulse. sent6: the fact that the anticoagulant is a kind of a GRAPO that is a by-catch does not hold if the openbill does not depopulate.
|
sent1: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}x sent2: {B}{a} sent3: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & {C}x) -> {D}{b} sent4: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({E}x & {A}x) sent5: {A}{a} sent6: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬({E}{b} & {D}{b})
|
[
"sent5 & sent2 -> int1: the openbill is a pulse and a flashlight.; sent1 -> int2: if the openbill is a kind of a pulse and it is a flashlight then it does not depopulate.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the openbill does not depopulate.; int3 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 & sent2 -> int1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}); sent1 -> int2: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬{C}{a}; int3 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the anticoagulant is a GRAPO and it is a by-catch.
|
({E}{b} & {D}{b})
|
[
"sent4 -> int4: if the openbill is not a kind of a flashlight then it is a kind of a GRAPO and it pulses.;"
] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the anticoagulant is both a GRAPO and a by-catch. ; $context$ = sent1: something does not depopulate if it does pulse and it is a kind of a flashlight. sent2: the openbill is a kind of a flashlight. sent3: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a by-catch and it depopulates is wrong that the anticoagulant is a kind of a by-catch is not wrong. sent4: something that is not a kind of a flashlight is a GRAPO and is a pulse. sent5: the openbill does pulse. sent6: the fact that the anticoagulant is a kind of a GRAPO that is a by-catch does not hold if the openbill does not depopulate. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 & sent2 -> int1: the openbill is a pulse and a flashlight.; sent1 -> int2: if the openbill is a kind of a pulse and it is a flashlight then it does not depopulate.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the openbill does not depopulate.; int3 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the endemic happens.
|
{E}
|
sent1: the periodonticsness yields that not the ray but the growl happens. sent2: the petrifying dragoon happens. sent3: the endemicness occurs if that the sedition does not occur is true. sent4: the fact that the roughing stabile occurs is not incorrect. sent5: the chloroticness does not occur if the two-hitter happens and/or the chloroticness does not occur. sent6: the sedition does not occur if the basketball does not occur. sent7: if that the raying does not occur hold then the two-hitter occurs and/or the chloroticness does not occur. sent8: the basketball and the sedition occurs if the chloroticness does not occur. sent9: if the roughing stabile does not occur that not the remuneration but the endemic happens is wrong. sent10: that the fact that the remuneration and the souring occurs is not right is true if that the roughing stabile does not occur is not false. sent11: if that both the remuneration and the souring happens is wrong the souring does not occur. sent12: the fermentableness does not occur. sent13: if the remuneration but not the roughing stabile happens the endemic does not occur. sent14: that the basketball does not occur is brought about by that the remuneration happens and the roughing stabile happens.
|
sent1: {J} -> (¬{H} & {I}) sent2: {AO} sent3: ¬{D} -> {E} sent4: {B} sent5: ({G} v ¬{F}) -> ¬{F} sent6: ¬{C} -> ¬{D} sent7: ¬{H} -> ({G} v ¬{F}) sent8: ¬{F} -> ({C} & {D}) sent9: ¬{B} -> ¬(¬{A} & {E}) sent10: ¬{B} -> ¬({A} & {CN}) sent11: ¬({A} & {CN}) -> ¬{CN} sent12: ¬{CU} sent13: ({A} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{E} sent14: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C}
|
[] |
[] |
the souring does not occur.
|
¬{CN}
|
[] | 7 | 4 | null | 10 | 0 | 10 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the endemic happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the periodonticsness yields that not the ray but the growl happens. sent2: the petrifying dragoon happens. sent3: the endemicness occurs if that the sedition does not occur is true. sent4: the fact that the roughing stabile occurs is not incorrect. sent5: the chloroticness does not occur if the two-hitter happens and/or the chloroticness does not occur. sent6: the sedition does not occur if the basketball does not occur. sent7: if that the raying does not occur hold then the two-hitter occurs and/or the chloroticness does not occur. sent8: the basketball and the sedition occurs if the chloroticness does not occur. sent9: if the roughing stabile does not occur that not the remuneration but the endemic happens is wrong. sent10: that the fact that the remuneration and the souring occurs is not right is true if that the roughing stabile does not occur is not false. sent11: if that both the remuneration and the souring happens is wrong the souring does not occur. sent12: the fermentableness does not occur. sent13: if the remuneration but not the roughing stabile happens the endemic does not occur. sent14: that the basketball does not occur is brought about by that the remuneration happens and the roughing stabile happens. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if it is a lovage that it is not palatial hold.
|
(Ex): {A}x -> ¬{C}x
|
sent1: that the origanum is palatial is right if it is a lovage. sent2: there is something such that if it is a lovage it is palatial.
|
sent1: {A}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent2: (Ex): {A}x -> {C}x
|
[] |
[] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | null | 2 | 0 | 2 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is a lovage that it is not palatial hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that the origanum is palatial is right if it is a lovage. sent2: there is something such that if it is a lovage it is palatial. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there is something such that if it does not slurp and it is not untraceable then it does petrify armrest is incorrect.
|
¬((Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x)
|
sent1: if the seductress does not slurp and it is not untraceable then it petrifies armrest. sent2: if something that is not a kind of a millidegree is not a kind of a potato then it does bank.
|
sent1: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent2: (x): (¬{HU}x & ¬{BO}x) -> {BI}x
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
if the seductress is not a millidegree and it is not a potato it does bank.
|
(¬{HU}{aa} & ¬{BO}{aa}) -> {BI}{aa}
|
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if it does not slurp and it is not untraceable then it does petrify armrest is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if the seductress does not slurp and it is not untraceable then it petrifies armrest. sent2: if something that is not a kind of a millidegree is not a kind of a potato then it does bank. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the anapesticness does not occur.
|
¬{C}
|
sent1: if the healthfulness happens the fact that not the hilling nonpartisan but the roughing terebinth happens does not hold. sent2: the intraventricularness occurs and the invasiveness occurs if the roughing sink does not occur. sent3: the fact that the anapesticness occurs is right if the pancreatectomy does not occur. sent4: that the petrifying mealtime and the equatorialness happens is brought about by the non-inauguralness. sent5: if that the hilling nonpartisan does not occur but the roughing terebinth happens is not true then the analogue does not occur. sent6: if the intraventricularness occurs then the fact that the adaxialness happens but the high-energiness does not occur is not correct. sent7: that the pancreatectomy occurs is true. sent8: either the inauguralness does not occur or the hysterics occurs or both if the analogueness does not occur. sent9: if the petrifying mealtime happens then the roughing constatation does not occur and the entree does not occur. sent10: that the allness does not occur and the prizefighting does not occur prevents the strikeout. sent11: the adaxialness does not occur if the fact that both the adaxialness and the non-high-energyness happens is false. sent12: that the allness does not occur and the prizefighting does not occur is brought about by the roughing Wisdom. sent13: that the roughing roadhog but not the pancreatectomy occurs is brought about by that the strikeout does not occur. sent14: the canalization happens. sent15: the anapesticness happens if that the pancreatectomy occurs and the roughing roadhog does not occur is incorrect. sent16: the roughing roadhog happens. sent17: the non-inauguralness or that the hysterics occurs or both yields that the inauguralness does not occur. sent18: the roughing withdrawer occurs. sent19: the anapesticness does not occur if the roughing roadhog but not the pancreatectomy occurs. sent20: that if the roughing constatation does not occur the roughing sink does not occur is not false. sent21: the roughing Wisdom happens and the obligation happens if the adaxialness does not occur.
|
sent1: {AB} -> ¬(¬{U} & {AA}) sent2: ¬{M} -> ({K} & {L}) sent3: ¬{A} -> {C} sent4: ¬{R} -> ({P} & {Q}) sent5: ¬(¬{U} & {AA}) -> ¬{T} sent6: {K} -> ¬({I} & ¬{J}) sent7: {A} sent8: ¬{T} -> (¬{R} v {S}) sent9: {P} -> (¬{N} & ¬{O}) sent10: (¬{F} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{D} sent11: ¬({I} & ¬{J}) -> ¬{I} sent12: {G} -> (¬{F} & ¬{E}) sent13: ¬{D} -> ({B} & ¬{A}) sent14: {ID} sent15: ¬({A} & ¬{B}) -> {C} sent16: {B} sent17: (¬{R} v {S}) -> ¬{R} sent18: {CM} sent19: ({B} & ¬{A}) -> ¬{C} sent20: ¬{N} -> ¬{M} sent21: ¬{I} -> ({G} & {H})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the pancreatectomy but not the roughing roadhog occurs.; assump1 -> int1: the roughing roadhog does not occur.; sent16 & int1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: that that the pancreatectomy happens but the roughing roadhog does not occur does not hold is correct.; sent15 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ({A} & ¬{B}); assump1 -> int1: ¬{B}; sent16 & int1 -> int2: #F#; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: ¬({A} & ¬{B}); sent15 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the anapesticness does not occur.
|
¬{C}
|
[] | 20 | 3 | 3 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the anapesticness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the healthfulness happens the fact that not the hilling nonpartisan but the roughing terebinth happens does not hold. sent2: the intraventricularness occurs and the invasiveness occurs if the roughing sink does not occur. sent3: the fact that the anapesticness occurs is right if the pancreatectomy does not occur. sent4: that the petrifying mealtime and the equatorialness happens is brought about by the non-inauguralness. sent5: if that the hilling nonpartisan does not occur but the roughing terebinth happens is not true then the analogue does not occur. sent6: if the intraventricularness occurs then the fact that the adaxialness happens but the high-energiness does not occur is not correct. sent7: that the pancreatectomy occurs is true. sent8: either the inauguralness does not occur or the hysterics occurs or both if the analogueness does not occur. sent9: if the petrifying mealtime happens then the roughing constatation does not occur and the entree does not occur. sent10: that the allness does not occur and the prizefighting does not occur prevents the strikeout. sent11: the adaxialness does not occur if the fact that both the adaxialness and the non-high-energyness happens is false. sent12: that the allness does not occur and the prizefighting does not occur is brought about by the roughing Wisdom. sent13: that the roughing roadhog but not the pancreatectomy occurs is brought about by that the strikeout does not occur. sent14: the canalization happens. sent15: the anapesticness happens if that the pancreatectomy occurs and the roughing roadhog does not occur is incorrect. sent16: the roughing roadhog happens. sent17: the non-inauguralness or that the hysterics occurs or both yields that the inauguralness does not occur. sent18: the roughing withdrawer occurs. sent19: the anapesticness does not occur if the roughing roadhog but not the pancreatectomy occurs. sent20: that if the roughing constatation does not occur the roughing sink does not occur is not false. sent21: the roughing Wisdom happens and the obligation happens if the adaxialness does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the pancreatectomy but not the roughing roadhog occurs.; assump1 -> int1: the roughing roadhog does not occur.; sent16 & int1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: that that the pancreatectomy happens but the roughing roadhog does not occur does not hold is correct.; sent15 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there is something such that if it is a kind of a blackwood it is a Momotus is wrong.
|
¬((Ex): {A}x -> {C}x)
|
sent1: if the inkberry is sacral the fact that it is ascensional is correct. sent2: there exists something such that if it is rh-positive it does petrify Zinzendorf. sent3: there is something such that if it is unorthodox it roughs sensibleness. sent4: that the inkberry petrifies alumina hold if it is a blackwood. sent5: if the inkberry is a kind of a blackwood it is a Momotus. sent6: the actinolite does hill tongueflower if it is a kind of a Oxford. sent7: there is something such that if it is a cur then it is a kind of a stopcock. sent8: if the inkberry does group chasm then it is a Momotus. sent9: something is zoological if that it is a Oxford is right. sent10: there is something such that if it is inferential it is phagocytic. sent11: there is something such that if it does rough inkberry then it is a kind of a Italian. sent12: the inkberry is a blackwood if it is unhealthy. sent13: the fact that there exists something such that if it does rough Tingidae it is magnetic is not incorrect. sent14: if the fact that the hydroxychloroquine is not a blackwood is not right then it is a Gounod. sent15: there is something such that if it is a poppet then it is a sestet. sent16: the inkberry is .38-caliber if it is subjective. sent17: there exists something such that if it is nonspecific then it is a Gounod. sent18: there is something such that if that it is integumentary hold then it is a John.
|
sent1: {JE}{aa} -> {FQ}{aa} sent2: (Ex): {IO}x -> {AB}x sent3: (Ex): {GO}x -> {CB}x sent4: {A}{aa} -> {DH}{aa} sent5: {A}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent6: {HP}{ih} -> {FS}{ih} sent7: (Ex): {FG}x -> {GL}x sent8: {S}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent9: (x): {HP}x -> {IB}x sent10: (Ex): {HB}x -> {FH}x sent11: (Ex): {CE}x -> {CC}x sent12: {JD}{aa} -> {A}{aa} sent13: (Ex): {CT}x -> {ID}x sent14: {A}{hk} -> {HS}{hk} sent15: (Ex): {HC}x -> {BF}x sent16: {GJ}{aa} -> {EJ}{aa} sent17: (Ex): {CQ}x -> {HS}x sent18: (Ex): {HR}x -> {GM}x
|
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that there is something such that if it is a kind of a Oxford then it is zoological is not false.
|
(Ex): {HP}x -> {IB}x
|
[
"sent9 -> int1: the stocking is zoological if it is a Oxford.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 17 | 0 | 17 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if it is a kind of a blackwood it is a Momotus is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the inkberry is sacral the fact that it is ascensional is correct. sent2: there exists something such that if it is rh-positive it does petrify Zinzendorf. sent3: there is something such that if it is unorthodox it roughs sensibleness. sent4: that the inkberry petrifies alumina hold if it is a blackwood. sent5: if the inkberry is a kind of a blackwood it is a Momotus. sent6: the actinolite does hill tongueflower if it is a kind of a Oxford. sent7: there is something such that if it is a cur then it is a kind of a stopcock. sent8: if the inkberry does group chasm then it is a Momotus. sent9: something is zoological if that it is a Oxford is right. sent10: there is something such that if it is inferential it is phagocytic. sent11: there is something such that if it does rough inkberry then it is a kind of a Italian. sent12: the inkberry is a blackwood if it is unhealthy. sent13: the fact that there exists something such that if it does rough Tingidae it is magnetic is not incorrect. sent14: if the fact that the hydroxychloroquine is not a blackwood is not right then it is a Gounod. sent15: there is something such that if it is a poppet then it is a sestet. sent16: the inkberry is .38-caliber if it is subjective. sent17: there exists something such that if it is nonspecific then it is a Gounod. sent18: there is something such that if that it is integumentary hold then it is a John. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the applemint skis.
|
{C}{b}
|
sent1: the applemint skis if there exists something such that it is both fibrocalcific and undemocratic. sent2: that the two-by-four is not a stemmed but it is a Naiki is wrong. sent3: something that is not a Naiki is undemocratic and skis. sent4: the fact that the applemint does not ski is not incorrect if something is a kind of undemocratic thing that is not fibrocalcific. sent5: something is not a Naiki but a stemmed if it does rough spinnability. sent6: the applemint is undemocratic. sent7: the two-by-four is undemocratic. sent8: the two-by-four is fibrocalcific. sent9: the powerhouse is a ski. sent10: the fact that the two-by-four is both a twinkle and a coordinate is not wrong.
|
sent1: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> {C}{b} sent2: ¬(¬{E}{a} & {D}{a}) sent3: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({B}x & {C}x) sent4: (x): ({B}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{C}{b} sent5: (x): {F}x -> (¬{D}x & {E}x) sent6: {B}{b} sent7: {B}{a} sent8: {A}{a} sent9: {C}{hf} sent10: ({BG}{a} & {BM}{a})
|
[
"sent8 & sent7 -> int1: the two-by-four is fibrocalcific and is undemocratic.; int1 -> int2: something is fibrocalcific and it is undemocratic.; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 & sent7 -> int1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x); int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the Johns is fibrocalcific.
|
{A}{jh}
|
[
"sent3 -> int3: the Johns is undemocratic and it is a ski if it is not a Naiki.; sent2 -> int4: there exists something such that that it is not a stemmed and is a kind of a Naiki is not right.;"
] | 5 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the applemint skis. ; $context$ = sent1: the applemint skis if there exists something such that it is both fibrocalcific and undemocratic. sent2: that the two-by-four is not a stemmed but it is a Naiki is wrong. sent3: something that is not a Naiki is undemocratic and skis. sent4: the fact that the applemint does not ski is not incorrect if something is a kind of undemocratic thing that is not fibrocalcific. sent5: something is not a Naiki but a stemmed if it does rough spinnability. sent6: the applemint is undemocratic. sent7: the two-by-four is undemocratic. sent8: the two-by-four is fibrocalcific. sent9: the powerhouse is a ski. sent10: the fact that the two-by-four is both a twinkle and a coordinate is not wrong. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 & sent7 -> int1: the two-by-four is fibrocalcific and is undemocratic.; int1 -> int2: something is fibrocalcific and it is undemocratic.; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if that it is not vulvar and/or is a hydropathy is incorrect it is Pavlovian.
|
(Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> {B}x
|
sent1: if that either the trainbandsman is not vulvar or it is a hydropathy or both does not hold then it is Pavlovian. sent2: if that the trainbandsman is earless and/or it does shag is wrong it is a kind of a hydropathy. sent3: there exists something such that if the fact that it is vulvar and/or it is a hydropathy does not hold it is Pavlovian. sent4: if the trainbandsman either is not a Abraham or is Pavlovian or both it is an audible. sent5: something does hill Circumcision if that it does not rough liberal and/or is a Crete does not hold.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent2: ¬({FR}{aa} v {BQ}{aa}) -> {AB}{aa} sent3: (Ex): ¬({AA}x v {AB}x) -> {B}x sent4: (¬{H}{aa} v {B}{aa}) -> {GQ}{aa} sent5: (x): ¬(¬{DG}x v {AN}x) -> {AJ}x
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there exists something such that if the fact that it does not rough liberal and/or it is a Crete is wrong then it does hill Circumcision.
|
(Ex): ¬(¬{DG}x v {AN}x) -> {AJ}x
|
[
"sent5 -> int1: the polyelectrolyte hills Circumcision if that it either does not rough liberal or is a Crete or both does not hold.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if that it is not vulvar and/or is a hydropathy is incorrect it is Pavlovian. ; $context$ = sent1: if that either the trainbandsman is not vulvar or it is a hydropathy or both does not hold then it is Pavlovian. sent2: if that the trainbandsman is earless and/or it does shag is wrong it is a kind of a hydropathy. sent3: there exists something such that if the fact that it is vulvar and/or it is a hydropathy does not hold it is Pavlovian. sent4: if the trainbandsman either is not a Abraham or is Pavlovian or both it is an audible. sent5: something does hill Circumcision if that it does not rough liberal and/or is a Crete does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if that it either does not rough Aconcagua or is not downmarket or both is not true then it is not a Asgard.
|
(Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x
|
sent1: that the Einstein is not a Asgard is not false if it is not a ligule and/or is not malicious. sent2: if the fact that either the Einstein does not rough Aconcagua or it is not downmarket or both is not right then it is not a Asgard. sent3: there is something such that if the fact that it groups theogony or it is not indeterminable or both is wrong it is not jawless. sent4: if the fact that something does not group causalgia or it is not a kind of a befoulment or both is not correct then it is not jawless.
|
sent1: (¬{FN}{aa} v ¬{GF}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent2: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent3: (Ex): ¬({HA}x v ¬{EI}x) -> ¬{AL}x sent4: (x): ¬(¬{GJ}x v ¬{CO}x) -> ¬{AL}x
|
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there is something such that if the fact that it either does not group causalgia or is not a befoulment or both does not hold it is not jawless.
|
(Ex): ¬(¬{GJ}x v ¬{CO}x) -> ¬{AL}x
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: if the fact that the trichodesmium does not group causalgia and/or is not a befoulment is false it is not jawless.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if that it either does not rough Aconcagua or is not downmarket or both is not true then it is not a Asgard. ; $context$ = sent1: that the Einstein is not a Asgard is not false if it is not a ligule and/or is not malicious. sent2: if the fact that either the Einstein does not rough Aconcagua or it is not downmarket or both is not right then it is not a Asgard. sent3: there is something such that if the fact that it groups theogony or it is not indeterminable or both is wrong it is not jawless. sent4: if the fact that something does not group causalgia or it is not a kind of a befoulment or both is not correct then it is not jawless. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the osculation does not occur.
|
¬{D}
|
sent1: the fact that the non-holiness and/or the allergicness occurs is not right. sent2: if the unforgettableness does not occur then the proctoplasty and the non-butyricness occurs. sent3: if the holiness occurs and the allergicness does not occur then the petrifying Limerick does not occur. sent4: the unforgettableness does not occur. sent5: that the petrifying Rostov does not occur is not false. sent6: that both the holiness and the non-allergicness happens is triggered by that the butyricness happens. sent7: the non-atypicalness is brought about by the airworthiness or that the atypicalness does not occur or both. sent8: the proctoplasty and the unforgettableness happens if the atypicalness does not occur. sent9: the cancellation occurs. sent10: the holiness occurs or the allergicness occurs or both.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{A} v {B}) sent2: ¬{F} -> ({E} & ¬{C}) sent3: ({A} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{DP} sent4: ¬{F} sent5: ¬{JC} sent6: {C} -> ({A} & ¬{B}) sent7: ({H} v ¬{G}) -> ¬{G} sent8: ¬{G} -> ({E} & {F}) sent9: {FQ} sent10: ({A} v {B})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the allergicness happens.; assump1 -> int1: either the holiness does not occur or the allergicness occurs or both.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the allergicness does not occur.; sent2 & sent4 -> int4: the proctoplasty and the non-butyricness occurs.; int4 -> int5: the butyricness does not occur.; int3 & int5 -> int6: both the non-butyricness and the non-allergicness happens.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {B}; assump1 -> int1: (¬{A} v {B}); int1 & sent1 -> int2: #F#; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: ¬{B}; sent2 & sent4 -> int4: ({E} & ¬{C}); int4 -> int5: ¬{C}; int3 & int5 -> int6: (¬{C} & ¬{B});"
] |
the osculation happens.
|
{D}
|
[] | 7 | 4 | null | 7 | 0 | 7 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the osculation does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the non-holiness and/or the allergicness occurs is not right. sent2: if the unforgettableness does not occur then the proctoplasty and the non-butyricness occurs. sent3: if the holiness occurs and the allergicness does not occur then the petrifying Limerick does not occur. sent4: the unforgettableness does not occur. sent5: that the petrifying Rostov does not occur is not false. sent6: that both the holiness and the non-allergicness happens is triggered by that the butyricness happens. sent7: the non-atypicalness is brought about by the airworthiness or that the atypicalness does not occur or both. sent8: the proctoplasty and the unforgettableness happens if the atypicalness does not occur. sent9: the cancellation occurs. sent10: the holiness occurs or the allergicness occurs or both. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the allergicness happens.; assump1 -> int1: either the holiness does not occur or the allergicness occurs or both.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the allergicness does not occur.; sent2 & sent4 -> int4: the proctoplasty and the non-butyricness occurs.; int4 -> int5: the butyricness does not occur.; int3 & int5 -> int6: both the non-butyricness and the non-allergicness happens.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that if the peeping fearlessness does not occur then the laboring chylomicron does not occur does not hold.
|
¬(¬{A} -> ¬{AB})
|
sent1: that the computerization does not occur brings about that the resumption does not occur. sent2: that the peeping fearlessness does not occur triggers that the laboring chylomicron occurs. sent3: the non-configurationalness yields that the laboring thuggery does not occur. sent4: if the fact that the peeping vestry happens is right then the grip does not occur and the peeping fearlessness occurs. sent5: if that the mortifying happens but the resilience does not occur is wrong the fact that the peeping oviraptorid does not occur is correct. sent6: the configurationalness does not occur if that not the nonacceptance but the configurationalness happens is not right. sent7: the fact that the sacking does not occur and the laboring chylomicron occurs is correct if that that the peeping fearlessness happens hold does not hold. sent8: if the suffixing nerves does not occur that not the nonacceptance but the configurationalness happens is not correct. sent9: if the peeping fearlessness does not occur the sacking does not occur and the laboring chylomicron does not occur. sent10: the fact that the suffixing obsoleteness does not occur and the notation does not occur is not incorrect. sent11: the samba does not occur and the quickstep happens if the pargeting occurs. sent12: if the peeping fearlessness occurs the sacking does not occur and the laboring chylomicron does not occur. sent13: that the rouge does not occur triggers that the conspicuousness does not occur and the albuminuricness does not occur. sent14: the laboring chylomicron does not occur if the fact that the peeping fearlessness occurs is true. sent15: the predestinarianness does not occur and the peeping indentation does not occur. sent16: if the fact that the peeping oviraptorid does not occur hold then the pargeting and the intimalness occurs. sent17: the thinness occurs. sent18: if the samba does not occur then the embrowning and the peeping vestry occurs. sent19: the sacking does not occur if that the peeping fearlessness does not occur hold. sent20: the cirrocumulus does not occur. sent21: the sacking does not occur.
|
sent1: ¬{AR} -> ¬{DE} sent2: ¬{A} -> {AB} sent3: ¬{E} -> ¬{FI} sent4: {B} -> (¬{BM} & {A}) sent5: ¬({M} & ¬{L}) -> ¬{K} sent6: ¬(¬{H} & {E}) -> ¬{E} sent7: ¬{A} -> (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent8: ¬{J} -> ¬(¬{H} & {E}) sent9: ¬{A} -> (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent10: (¬{HH} & ¬{GR}) sent11: {G} -> (¬{D} & {F}) sent12: {A} -> (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent13: ¬{HL} -> (¬{GM} & ¬{CC}) sent14: {A} -> ¬{AB} sent15: (¬{GI} & ¬{GN}) sent16: ¬{K} -> ({G} & {I}) sent17: {DS} sent18: ¬{D} -> ({C} & {B}) sent19: ¬{A} -> ¬{AA} sent20: ¬{GQ} sent21: ¬{AA}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the peeping fearlessness does not occur.; sent9 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the sacking does not occur and the laboring chylomicron does not occur is correct.; int1 -> int2: the laboring chylomicron does not occur.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ¬{A}; sent9 & assump1 -> int1: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}); int1 -> int2: ¬{AB}; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the gripping does not occur and the laboring thuggery does not occur.
|
(¬{BM} & ¬{FI})
|
[] | 10 | 3 | 3 | 20 | 0 | 20 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that if the peeping fearlessness does not occur then the laboring chylomicron does not occur does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that the computerization does not occur brings about that the resumption does not occur. sent2: that the peeping fearlessness does not occur triggers that the laboring chylomicron occurs. sent3: the non-configurationalness yields that the laboring thuggery does not occur. sent4: if the fact that the peeping vestry happens is right then the grip does not occur and the peeping fearlessness occurs. sent5: if that the mortifying happens but the resilience does not occur is wrong the fact that the peeping oviraptorid does not occur is correct. sent6: the configurationalness does not occur if that not the nonacceptance but the configurationalness happens is not right. sent7: the fact that the sacking does not occur and the laboring chylomicron occurs is correct if that that the peeping fearlessness happens hold does not hold. sent8: if the suffixing nerves does not occur that not the nonacceptance but the configurationalness happens is not correct. sent9: if the peeping fearlessness does not occur the sacking does not occur and the laboring chylomicron does not occur. sent10: the fact that the suffixing obsoleteness does not occur and the notation does not occur is not incorrect. sent11: the samba does not occur and the quickstep happens if the pargeting occurs. sent12: if the peeping fearlessness occurs the sacking does not occur and the laboring chylomicron does not occur. sent13: that the rouge does not occur triggers that the conspicuousness does not occur and the albuminuricness does not occur. sent14: the laboring chylomicron does not occur if the fact that the peeping fearlessness occurs is true. sent15: the predestinarianness does not occur and the peeping indentation does not occur. sent16: if the fact that the peeping oviraptorid does not occur hold then the pargeting and the intimalness occurs. sent17: the thinness occurs. sent18: if the samba does not occur then the embrowning and the peeping vestry occurs. sent19: the sacking does not occur if that the peeping fearlessness does not occur hold. sent20: the cirrocumulus does not occur. sent21: the sacking does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the peeping fearlessness does not occur.; sent9 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the sacking does not occur and the laboring chylomicron does not occur is correct.; int1 -> int2: the laboring chylomicron does not occur.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the endemicness does not occur.
|
¬{C}
|
sent1: if the stewing wencher and/or the suffixing gibibit happens then the fact that the endemicness does not occur is right. sent2: if the fact that either the invention does not occur or the solmization happens or both is wrong that the option happens is correct. sent3: that the glomerularness does not occur or the contouring does not occur or both is incorrect. sent4: that the Rock happens is prevented by the talkie.
|
sent1: ({B} v {A}) -> ¬{C} sent2: ¬(¬{BA} v {CT}) -> {DM} sent3: ¬(¬{AA} v ¬{AB}) sent4: {AI} -> ¬{AN}
|
[] |
[] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | null | 2 | 0 | 2 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the endemicness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the stewing wencher and/or the suffixing gibibit happens then the fact that the endemicness does not occur is right. sent2: if the fact that either the invention does not occur or the solmization happens or both is wrong that the option happens is correct. sent3: that the glomerularness does not occur or the contouring does not occur or both is incorrect. sent4: that the Rock happens is prevented by the talkie. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the vernier is not a kind of a bravura is right.
|
¬{B}{b}
|
sent1: the vernier is not a borzoi. sent2: the vernier is not cloze. sent3: the bucksaw is not a bravura if the vernier is not cloze. sent4: if the bucksaw is not cloze the vernier is not a bravura. sent5: if the bucksaw is not a bravura then the vernier is not cloze. sent6: that the bucksaw is both not a bravura and not a stockjobber is not correct if the ecliptic is cloze. sent7: the bucksaw is not cloze.
|
sent1: ¬{EP}{b} sent2: ¬{A}{b} sent3: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬{B}{a} sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent5: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬{A}{b} sent6: {A}{c} -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent7: ¬{A}{a}
|
[
"sent4 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the vernier is a bravura.
|
{B}{b}
|
[] | 5 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the vernier is not a kind of a bravura is right. ; $context$ = sent1: the vernier is not a borzoi. sent2: the vernier is not cloze. sent3: the bucksaw is not a bravura if the vernier is not cloze. sent4: if the bucksaw is not cloze the vernier is not a bravura. sent5: if the bucksaw is not a bravura then the vernier is not cloze. sent6: that the bucksaw is both not a bravura and not a stockjobber is not correct if the ecliptic is cloze. sent7: the bucksaw is not cloze. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the gyrfalcon is not a susceptibility.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
sent1: something that is not a kind of a Pleurotus is not bifilar and does not suffix Nashville. sent2: the bouffant does bray if the fact that it is an articulation and it does not stew labor is not correct. sent3: if the bouffant does bray then the gyrfalcon does labor geezer. sent4: the roots does suffix Nashville if the gyrfalcon is a Pleurotus. sent5: the fact that the bouffant is a kind of an articulation that does not stew labor is incorrect. sent6: if the bouffant is both a Pleurotus and reverent then the gyrfalcon is not a Pleurotus. sent7: something that is not a susceptibility and/or is bifilar is unshapely. sent8: the gyrfalcon is a kind of a susceptibility and suffixes Nashville. sent9: if something is a kind of non-bifilar thing that does not suffix Nashville it is not a susceptibility. sent10: something is not reverent but it is a kind of a Pleurotus if it is craniometric. sent11: the bouffant is a Pleurotus and is reverent if it is not craniometric. sent12: something is craniometric if it labors geezer.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{D}x -> (¬{C}x & ¬{B}x) sent2: ¬({I}{b} & ¬{J}{b}) -> {H}{b} sent3: {H}{b} -> {G}{a} sent4: {D}{a} -> {B}{d} sent5: ¬({I}{b} & ¬{J}{b}) sent6: ({D}{b} & {E}{b}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent7: (x): (¬{A}x v {C}x) -> {HO}x sent8: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent9: (x): (¬{C}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{A}x sent10: (x): {F}x -> (¬{E}x & {D}x) sent11: ¬{F}{b} -> ({D}{b} & {E}{b}) sent12: (x): {G}x -> {F}x
|
[
"sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the gyrfalcon is not a susceptibility.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
[
"sent9 -> int1: the gyrfalcon is not a susceptibility if it is not bifilar and does not suffix Nashville.; sent1 -> int2: if the gyrfalcon is not a kind of a Pleurotus it is a kind of non-bifilar thing that does not suffix Nashville.;"
] | 7 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the gyrfalcon is not a susceptibility. ; $context$ = sent1: something that is not a kind of a Pleurotus is not bifilar and does not suffix Nashville. sent2: the bouffant does bray if the fact that it is an articulation and it does not stew labor is not correct. sent3: if the bouffant does bray then the gyrfalcon does labor geezer. sent4: the roots does suffix Nashville if the gyrfalcon is a Pleurotus. sent5: the fact that the bouffant is a kind of an articulation that does not stew labor is incorrect. sent6: if the bouffant is both a Pleurotus and reverent then the gyrfalcon is not a Pleurotus. sent7: something that is not a susceptibility and/or is bifilar is unshapely. sent8: the gyrfalcon is a kind of a susceptibility and suffixes Nashville. sent9: if something is a kind of non-bifilar thing that does not suffix Nashville it is not a susceptibility. sent10: something is not reverent but it is a kind of a Pleurotus if it is craniometric. sent11: the bouffant is a Pleurotus and is reverent if it is not craniometric. sent12: something is craniometric if it labors geezer. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the mastaba is not germfree and does not shark.
|
(¬{C}{c} & ¬{D}{c})
|
sent1: if the rigging is not hidrotic and does not peep chute it is not a kind of a propulsion. sent2: if either something is not beakless or it is not formalistic or both the tangency is not germfree. sent3: the mastaba is not a kind of a shark. sent4: something is beakless and/or it is not germfree. sent5: the Winchester is not beakless or is formalistic or both. sent6: if the rigging is not a propulsion it is Estonian and it is a disposition. sent7: the tangency does not suffix duplicity. sent8: the Winchester does not bowl if the fact that it is beakless and it is formalistic is right. sent9: if the rigging is Estonian then either the tangency is beakless or it is not formalistic or both. sent10: the Winchester is not a shark. sent11: that the mastaba is not a shark is not wrong if the tangency is not germfree. sent12: the Winchester is not beakless. sent13: the tangency is not a Jewry.
|
sent1: (¬{H}{d} & ¬{I}{d}) -> ¬{G}{d} sent2: (x): (¬{A}x v ¬{B}x) -> ¬{C}{b} sent3: ¬{D}{c} sent4: (Ex): ({A}x v ¬{C}x) sent5: (¬{A}{a} v {B}{a}) sent6: ¬{G}{d} -> ({E}{d} & {F}{d}) sent7: ¬{IM}{b} sent8: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{HR}{a} sent9: {E}{d} -> ({A}{b} v ¬{B}{b}) sent10: ¬{D}{a} sent11: ¬{C}{b} -> ¬{D}{c} sent12: ¬{A}{a} sent13: ¬{BC}{b}
|
[
"sent12 -> int1: either the Winchester is not beakless or it is not formalistic or both.; int1 -> int2: something is beaked and/or not formalistic.; int2 & sent2 -> int3: the tangency is not germfree.;"
] |
[
"sent12 -> int1: (¬{A}{a} v ¬{B}{a}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): (¬{A}x v ¬{B}x); int2 & sent2 -> int3: ¬{C}{b};"
] |
the Winchester is not a kind of a bowls.
|
¬{HR}{a}
|
[] | 8 | 4 | null | 11 | 0 | 11 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the mastaba is not germfree and does not shark. ; $context$ = sent1: if the rigging is not hidrotic and does not peep chute it is not a kind of a propulsion. sent2: if either something is not beakless or it is not formalistic or both the tangency is not germfree. sent3: the mastaba is not a kind of a shark. sent4: something is beakless and/or it is not germfree. sent5: the Winchester is not beakless or is formalistic or both. sent6: if the rigging is not a propulsion it is Estonian and it is a disposition. sent7: the tangency does not suffix duplicity. sent8: the Winchester does not bowl if the fact that it is beakless and it is formalistic is right. sent9: if the rigging is Estonian then either the tangency is beakless or it is not formalistic or both. sent10: the Winchester is not a shark. sent11: that the mastaba is not a shark is not wrong if the tangency is not germfree. sent12: the Winchester is not beakless. sent13: the tangency is not a Jewry. ; $proof$ =
|
sent12 -> int1: either the Winchester is not beakless or it is not formalistic or both.; int1 -> int2: something is beaked and/or not formalistic.; int2 & sent2 -> int3: the tangency is not germfree.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the dithyramb does not occur.
|
¬{D}
|
sent1: the restarting results in that the baccarat occurs and the elucidation does not occur. sent2: that the dithyramb happens is prevented by that the peeping pedophile occurs and/or the peeping myeloblast happens. sent3: the accusativeness happens. sent4: that the suffixing Muse does not occur is triggered by that the idyll occurs and/or the degeneration occurs. sent5: if the melodizing happens then the peeping pedophile occurs. sent6: the fact that the instrumentalness does not occur and the laboring marrowbone does not occur is not correct if the elucidation does not occur. sent7: that the moksa occurs is not wrong. sent8: the coughing happens. sent9: that the weakness does not occur is correct if either the defaulting or the ecoterrorism or both happens. sent10: the melodizing happens. sent11: the dithyramb does not occur if the peeping myeloblast occurs. sent12: if that the instrumentalness does not occur and the laboring marrowbone does not occur is wrong then the peeping myeloblast does not occur. sent13: the Ionianness happens. sent14: that both the dithyramb and the peeping myeloblast occurs prevents the peeping pedophile. sent15: the lahar does not occur if the peeping four-wheeler or the suffixing Muse or both happens. sent16: if the prudentness does not occur then the restarting occurs and the pedunculateness happens. sent17: the hiplessness happens if the suffixing hackney occurs. sent18: the marketing happens. sent19: the fact that the usage does not occur is right. sent20: the spelldown does not occur.
|
sent1: {I} -> ({H} & ¬{G}) sent2: ({B} v {C}) -> ¬{D} sent3: {FL} sent4: ({DK} v {AL}) -> ¬{M} sent5: {A} -> {B} sent6: ¬{G} -> ¬(¬{F} & ¬{E}) sent7: {AS} sent8: {CT} sent9: ({IF} v {EG}) -> ¬{BI} sent10: {A} sent11: {C} -> ¬{D} sent12: ¬(¬{F} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{C} sent13: {AO} sent14: ({D} & {C}) -> ¬{B} sent15: ({IL} v {M}) -> ¬{CE} sent16: ¬{K} -> ({I} & {J}) sent17: {GE} -> {CL} sent18: {JB} sent19: ¬{CA} sent20: ¬{AE}
|
[
"sent5 & sent10 -> int1: the fact that the peeping pedophile occurs hold.; int1 -> int2: the peeping pedophile occurs and/or the peeping myeloblast happens.; sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 & sent10 -> int1: {B}; int1 -> int2: ({B} v {C}); sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the laboring Uzbekistan happens.
|
{GS}
|
[] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 17 | 0 | 17 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the dithyramb does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the restarting results in that the baccarat occurs and the elucidation does not occur. sent2: that the dithyramb happens is prevented by that the peeping pedophile occurs and/or the peeping myeloblast happens. sent3: the accusativeness happens. sent4: that the suffixing Muse does not occur is triggered by that the idyll occurs and/or the degeneration occurs. sent5: if the melodizing happens then the peeping pedophile occurs. sent6: the fact that the instrumentalness does not occur and the laboring marrowbone does not occur is not correct if the elucidation does not occur. sent7: that the moksa occurs is not wrong. sent8: the coughing happens. sent9: that the weakness does not occur is correct if either the defaulting or the ecoterrorism or both happens. sent10: the melodizing happens. sent11: the dithyramb does not occur if the peeping myeloblast occurs. sent12: if that the instrumentalness does not occur and the laboring marrowbone does not occur is wrong then the peeping myeloblast does not occur. sent13: the Ionianness happens. sent14: that both the dithyramb and the peeping myeloblast occurs prevents the peeping pedophile. sent15: the lahar does not occur if the peeping four-wheeler or the suffixing Muse or both happens. sent16: if the prudentness does not occur then the restarting occurs and the pedunculateness happens. sent17: the hiplessness happens if the suffixing hackney occurs. sent18: the marketing happens. sent19: the fact that the usage does not occur is right. sent20: the spelldown does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 & sent10 -> int1: the fact that the peeping pedophile occurs hold.; int1 -> int2: the peeping pedophile occurs and/or the peeping myeloblast happens.; sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there is something such that if it is not incomparable it is not a kind of a playhouse and it does not labor autacoid is wrong.
|
¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x))
|
sent1: the bouffant is not incomparable and does not suffix bouffant if it does not stew ironside. sent2: there is something such that if it is not a pack it is not phonetic and it is a Atherurus. sent3: the fact that the bouffant is the playhouse and does not labor autacoid if the bouffant is not incomparable is right. sent4: there is something such that if it is comparable then it is a playhouse and does not labor autacoid. sent5: something is non-irremovable if it is not a glioblastoma. sent6: something is not a playhouse and does not labor autacoid if it is not incomparable. sent7: if the there is not a playhouse it is not a Scomberesocidae. sent8: if that something is incomparable is correct it is not a playhouse and it does not labor autacoid. sent9: there exists something such that if that it does not peep Belarusian is correct then it does not labor judiciousness and is not a Bavarian.
|
sent1: ¬{AP}{aa} -> (¬{A}{aa} & ¬{FD}{aa}) sent2: (Ex): ¬{FK}x -> (¬{ES}x & {FU}x) sent3: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent4: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent5: (x): ¬{GI}x -> ¬{CB}x sent6: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent7: ¬{AA}{dl} -> ¬{JD}{dl} sent8: (x): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent9: (Ex): ¬{HO}x -> (¬{JK}x & ¬{IC}x)
|
[
"sent6 -> int1: if the bouffant is not incomparable it is not a kind of a playhouse and it does not labor autacoid.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if it is not incomparable it is not a kind of a playhouse and it does not labor autacoid is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the bouffant is not incomparable and does not suffix bouffant if it does not stew ironside. sent2: there is something such that if it is not a pack it is not phonetic and it is a Atherurus. sent3: the fact that the bouffant is the playhouse and does not labor autacoid if the bouffant is not incomparable is right. sent4: there is something such that if it is comparable then it is a playhouse and does not labor autacoid. sent5: something is non-irremovable if it is not a glioblastoma. sent6: something is not a playhouse and does not labor autacoid if it is not incomparable. sent7: if the there is not a playhouse it is not a Scomberesocidae. sent8: if that something is incomparable is correct it is not a playhouse and it does not labor autacoid. sent9: there exists something such that if that it does not peep Belarusian is correct then it does not labor judiciousness and is not a Bavarian. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 -> int1: if the bouffant is not incomparable it is not a kind of a playhouse and it does not labor autacoid.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the peeping Frankfort occurs.
|
{E}
|
sent1: if the oviparousness does not occur then the fact that the leaflessness occurs but the gyrating does not occur is incorrect. sent2: the Prussian happens. sent3: that the encountering occurs is correct. sent4: the oviparousness does not occur if the appropriativeness does not occur and the suffixing emu does not occur. sent5: the peeping Frankfort occurs if the peeping mako happens and the shaving does not occur. sent6: the isopteranness occurs. sent7: if the fact that the Prussianness occurs is false both the shaving and the peeping mako happens. sent8: the loosening occurs. sent9: that the gyrating occurs and the leaflessness happens is triggered by that the oviparousness does not occur. sent10: the trot happens. sent11: if the classification does not occur and the trotting does not occur the peeping Frankfort does not occur. sent12: that the shave does not occur is caused by that the classification happens and the trotting happens. sent13: that the stewing Trumbull does not occur causes that both the juke and the thermometricness occurs. sent14: that the gyrating does not occur hold. sent15: if the bailiffship does not occur and the Boeotianness occurs then the fact that the piraticalness happens is not wrong. sent16: the classification happens. sent17: the inauguralness happens. sent18: the oviparousness does not occur if the fact that the appropriativeness occurs and/or the suffixing emu does not occur is wrong. sent19: that the appropriativeness does not occur is caused by that the encountering happens and the lamination occurs. sent20: if the trotting does not occur then the Boeotianness occurs and the classification occurs. sent21: the fact that both the non-Prussianness and the peeping Frankfort happens is incorrect if the gyrating occurs. sent22: if the juke happens and the piraticalness happens then the suffixing emu does not occur. sent23: the juke happens.
|
sent1: ¬{I} -> ¬({H} & ¬{G}) sent2: {F} sent3: {L} sent4: (¬{J} & ¬{K}) -> ¬{I} sent5: ({D} & ¬{C}) -> {E} sent6: {CT} sent7: ¬{F} -> ({C} & {D}) sent8: {EQ} sent9: ¬{I} -> ({G} & {H}) sent10: {B} sent11: (¬{A} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{E} sent12: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent13: ¬{IE} -> ({N} & {BQ}) sent14: ¬{G} sent15: (¬{Q} & {P}) -> {O} sent16: {A} sent17: {HH} sent18: ¬({J} v ¬{K}) -> ¬{I} sent19: ({L} & {M}) -> ¬{J} sent20: ¬{B} -> ({P} & {A}) sent21: {G} -> ¬(¬{F} & {E}) sent22: ({N} & {O}) -> ¬{K} sent23: {N}
|
[
"sent16 & sent10 -> int1: the classification and the trot occurs.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the fact that the shaving does not occur is not incorrect.;"
] |
[
"sent16 & sent10 -> int1: ({A} & {B}); int1 & sent12 -> int2: ¬{C};"
] |
the peeping Frankfort does not occur.
|
¬{E}
|
[] | 12 | 4 | null | 18 | 0 | 18 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the peeping Frankfort occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the oviparousness does not occur then the fact that the leaflessness occurs but the gyrating does not occur is incorrect. sent2: the Prussian happens. sent3: that the encountering occurs is correct. sent4: the oviparousness does not occur if the appropriativeness does not occur and the suffixing emu does not occur. sent5: the peeping Frankfort occurs if the peeping mako happens and the shaving does not occur. sent6: the isopteranness occurs. sent7: if the fact that the Prussianness occurs is false both the shaving and the peeping mako happens. sent8: the loosening occurs. sent9: that the gyrating occurs and the leaflessness happens is triggered by that the oviparousness does not occur. sent10: the trot happens. sent11: if the classification does not occur and the trotting does not occur the peeping Frankfort does not occur. sent12: that the shave does not occur is caused by that the classification happens and the trotting happens. sent13: that the stewing Trumbull does not occur causes that both the juke and the thermometricness occurs. sent14: that the gyrating does not occur hold. sent15: if the bailiffship does not occur and the Boeotianness occurs then the fact that the piraticalness happens is not wrong. sent16: the classification happens. sent17: the inauguralness happens. sent18: the oviparousness does not occur if the fact that the appropriativeness occurs and/or the suffixing emu does not occur is wrong. sent19: that the appropriativeness does not occur is caused by that the encountering happens and the lamination occurs. sent20: if the trotting does not occur then the Boeotianness occurs and the classification occurs. sent21: the fact that both the non-Prussianness and the peeping Frankfort happens is incorrect if the gyrating occurs. sent22: if the juke happens and the piraticalness happens then the suffixing emu does not occur. sent23: the juke happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent16 & sent10 -> int1: the classification and the trot occurs.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the fact that the shaving does not occur is not incorrect.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the orchiopexy occurs.
|
{A}
|
sent1: that the Nigerian but not the effacement happens is false. sent2: the fact that the laboring Steuben does not occur and the condescending does not occur is not true. sent3: if the orchiopexy does not occur the fact that the laboring Paphiopedilum does not occur and the fraternizing does not occur is not true. sent4: that the orchiopexy happens is caused by that the laboring stereoscopy does not occur. sent5: that the fact that the laboring Steuben happens but the suffixing nondisjunction does not occur is right is wrong. sent6: that the daydreaming does not occur but the profaneness occurs is not true. sent7: the fact that the idolatry does not occur and the obscurantism happens does not hold. sent8: that the linealness does not occur and the rotation does not occur is wrong. sent9: if the rotation occurs the laboring stereoscopy does not occur. sent10: the laboring ENL does not occur. sent11: the orchiopexy does not occur and the laboring stereoscopy does not occur if the suffixing Democrat does not occur. sent12: if the fact that the spoilage does not occur and the inaestheticness does not occur is incorrect the adrenarche does not occur. sent13: that not the orchiopexy but the laboring stereoscopy happens is not wrong if the suffixing Democrat does not occur. sent14: the beaming occurs if the volleyball does not occur.
|
sent1: ¬({N} & ¬{AI}) sent2: ¬(¬{BS} & ¬{FA}) sent3: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{IT} & ¬{JG}) sent4: ¬{B} -> {A} sent5: ¬({BS} & ¬{CB}) sent6: ¬(¬{JI} & {GO}) sent7: ¬(¬{ES} & {IJ}) sent8: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent9: {AB} -> ¬{B} sent10: ¬{IG} sent11: ¬{C} -> (¬{A} & ¬{B}) sent12: ¬(¬{BB} & ¬{FJ}) -> ¬{IK} sent13: ¬{C} -> (¬{A} & {B}) sent14: ¬{IA} -> {IO}
|
[] |
[] |
that the laboring Paphiopedilum does not occur and the fraternizing does not occur does not hold.
|
¬(¬{IT} & ¬{JG})
|
[] | 7 | 2 | null | 12 | 0 | 12 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the orchiopexy occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that the Nigerian but not the effacement happens is false. sent2: the fact that the laboring Steuben does not occur and the condescending does not occur is not true. sent3: if the orchiopexy does not occur the fact that the laboring Paphiopedilum does not occur and the fraternizing does not occur is not true. sent4: that the orchiopexy happens is caused by that the laboring stereoscopy does not occur. sent5: that the fact that the laboring Steuben happens but the suffixing nondisjunction does not occur is right is wrong. sent6: that the daydreaming does not occur but the profaneness occurs is not true. sent7: the fact that the idolatry does not occur and the obscurantism happens does not hold. sent8: that the linealness does not occur and the rotation does not occur is wrong. sent9: if the rotation occurs the laboring stereoscopy does not occur. sent10: the laboring ENL does not occur. sent11: the orchiopexy does not occur and the laboring stereoscopy does not occur if the suffixing Democrat does not occur. sent12: if the fact that the spoilage does not occur and the inaestheticness does not occur is incorrect the adrenarche does not occur. sent13: that not the orchiopexy but the laboring stereoscopy happens is not wrong if the suffixing Democrat does not occur. sent14: the beaming occurs if the volleyball does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the Bavarian is a kind of a Hmong and it is a kind of a Libya is wrong.
|
¬({D}{b} & {C}{b})
|
sent1: if the marrowbone is achenial it does not peep Megalonychidae and peeps font. sent2: the fact that the fact that the Bavarian is a Hmong that is a kind of a Libya is false is right if the newsreel is not a Libya. sent3: if there exists something such that it does peep Megalonychidae and is achenial then the newsreel is not a Libya. sent4: the fact that the Bavarian is an empathy and it is achenial does not hold. sent5: the fact that the fact that the Bavarian is a kind of a Hmong and it peeps Megalonychidae does not hold is true if the Creole does not peeps Megalonychidae. sent6: that the Bavarian does not peep Megalonychidae is true if something that is Hmong is a kind of a Libya.
|
sent1: {B}{ct} -> (¬{A}{ct} & {EB}{ct}) sent2: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬({D}{b} & {C}{b}) sent3: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}{a} sent4: ¬({GT}{b} & {B}{b}) sent5: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({D}{b} & {A}{b}) sent6: (x): ({D}x & {C}x) -> ¬{A}{b}
|
[] |
[] |
the marrowbone peeps font and labors vibist.
|
({EB}{ct} & {BC}{ct})
|
[] | 5 | 3 | null | 4 | 0 | 4 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the Bavarian is a kind of a Hmong and it is a kind of a Libya is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the marrowbone is achenial it does not peep Megalonychidae and peeps font. sent2: the fact that the fact that the Bavarian is a Hmong that is a kind of a Libya is false is right if the newsreel is not a Libya. sent3: if there exists something such that it does peep Megalonychidae and is achenial then the newsreel is not a Libya. sent4: the fact that the Bavarian is an empathy and it is achenial does not hold. sent5: the fact that the fact that the Bavarian is a kind of a Hmong and it peeps Megalonychidae does not hold is true if the Creole does not peeps Megalonychidae. sent6: that the Bavarian does not peep Megalonychidae is true if something that is Hmong is a kind of a Libya. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the parturiency is burlesque.
|
{D}{a}
|
sent1: if there is something such that it does not suffix coachman the parturiency does articulate and/or is not an address. sent2: the fact that the coachman does not suffix coachman is right. sent3: the parturiency is not a burlesque if it is unarticulated. sent4: if that either the parturiency does not articulate or it is not an address or both is right it is not burlesque. sent5: if there exists something such that it does not suffix coachman then the parturiency does not articulate or does not address or both. sent6: The fact that the coachman does not suffix coachman is right.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({C}{a} v ¬{B}{a}) sent2: ¬{A}{aa} sent3: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬{D}{a} sent4: (¬{C}{a} v ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{C}{a} v ¬{B}{a}) sent6: ¬{AA}{ab}
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: something does not suffix coachman.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the parturiency is not articulated and/or it does not address.; int2 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> int1: (Ex): ¬{A}x; int1 & sent5 -> int2: (¬{C}{a} v ¬{B}{a}); int2 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the parturiency is burlesque. ; $context$ = sent1: if there is something such that it does not suffix coachman the parturiency does articulate and/or is not an address. sent2: the fact that the coachman does not suffix coachman is right. sent3: the parturiency is not a burlesque if it is unarticulated. sent4: if that either the parturiency does not articulate or it is not an address or both is right it is not burlesque. sent5: if there exists something such that it does not suffix coachman then the parturiency does not articulate or does not address or both. sent6: The fact that the coachman does not suffix coachman is right. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> int1: something does not suffix coachman.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the parturiency is not articulated and/or it does not address.; int2 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the prodigal is cruciferous hold.
|
{C}{b}
|
sent1: if the quackgrass does not labor shooting and/or it is not a self-organization then the publicist does not labor shooting. sent2: something is not a kind of a interlayer if that either it is not a Greenville or it is anorthitic or both is not correct. sent3: if something does not labor shooting the fact that it is not a Greenville and/or it is anorthitic is false. sent4: the publicist is not cruciferous if the prodigal suffixes Speke and it does dull. sent5: the fact that something suffixes lagan and/or it is not adenocarcinomatous does not hold if it is a main. sent6: the latitudinarian is onside and it does suffix Speke. sent7: The Speke does suffix publicist. sent8: if the consignment is a main then the Plavix is a main. sent9: the pisanosaur is not non-cruciferous. sent10: the adelgid is Chaldean thing that dulls. sent11: the ozokerite suffixes Speke. sent12: something is not pointless if it is not a interlayer and does not suffix prestige. sent13: the publicist is cruciferous. sent14: that the publicist does not suffix prestige is true if that the Plavix suffixes lagan or it is not adenocarcinomatous or both does not hold. sent15: the consignment is a kind of a main and it is nonthermal if it is non-vegetal. sent16: something does suffix Speke but it is not dulled if it is not pointless. sent17: the publicist does suffix Speke. sent18: the publicist does dull. sent19: the prodigal is not cruciferous if the publicist suffixes Speke and it does dull. sent20: either the quackgrass does not labor shooting or it is not a self-organization or both if it does not labor trey. sent21: the prodigal dulls. sent22: the quackgrass does not labor trey. sent23: the publicist is a kind of a Celosia. sent24: if the consignment is not a maze and tyrannizes it is not vegetal.
|
sent1: (¬{L}{d} v ¬{N}{d}) -> ¬{L}{a} sent2: (x): ¬(¬{J}x v {K}x) -> ¬{E}x sent3: (x): ¬{L}x -> ¬(¬{J}x v {K}x) sent4: ({A}{b} & {B}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent5: (x): {I}x -> ¬({H}x v ¬{G}x) sent6: ({GA}{bo} & {A}{bo}) sent7: {AA}{aa} sent8: {I}{e} -> {I}{c} sent9: {C}{am} sent10: ({BQ}{dq} & {B}{dq}) sent11: {A}{ed} sent12: (x): (¬{E}x & ¬{F}x) -> ¬{D}x sent13: {C}{a} sent14: ¬({H}{c} v ¬{G}{c}) -> ¬{F}{a} sent15: ¬{O}{e} -> ({I}{e} & {M}{e}) sent16: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({A}x & ¬{B}x) sent17: {A}{a} sent18: {B}{a} sent19: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent20: ¬{R}{d} -> (¬{L}{d} v ¬{N}{d}) sent21: {B}{b} sent22: ¬{R}{d} sent23: {HO}{a} sent24: (¬{P}{e} & {Q}{e}) -> ¬{O}{e}
|
[
"sent17 & sent18 -> int1: the publicist suffixes Speke and does dull.; sent19 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent17 & sent18 -> int1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}); sent19 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the prodigal is cruciferous.
|
{C}{b}
|
[
"sent16 -> int2: the publicist suffixes Speke but it is not dulled if it is not pointless.; sent12 -> int3: the publicist is not pointless if it is not a interlayer and does not suffix prestige.; sent2 -> int4: the fact that the publicist is not a kind of the interlayer if that the publicist is not a kind of a Greenville and/or it is anorthitic is not true is not false.; sent3 -> int5: the fact that the publicist is not a Greenville and/or it is anorthitic is wrong if it does not labor shooting.; sent20 & sent22 -> int6: the quackgrass does not labor shooting and/or is not a kind of a self-organization.; sent1 & int6 -> int7: the publicist does not labor shooting.; int5 & int7 -> int8: the fact that either the publicist is not a Greenville or it is anorthitic or both does not hold.; int4 & int8 -> int9: the publicist is not a interlayer.; sent5 -> int10: if the Plavix is a kind of a main then that it does suffix lagan or it is not adenocarcinomatous or both is not true.;"
] | 11 | 2 | 2 | 21 | 0 | 21 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the prodigal is cruciferous hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the quackgrass does not labor shooting and/or it is not a self-organization then the publicist does not labor shooting. sent2: something is not a kind of a interlayer if that either it is not a Greenville or it is anorthitic or both is not correct. sent3: if something does not labor shooting the fact that it is not a Greenville and/or it is anorthitic is false. sent4: the publicist is not cruciferous if the prodigal suffixes Speke and it does dull. sent5: the fact that something suffixes lagan and/or it is not adenocarcinomatous does not hold if it is a main. sent6: the latitudinarian is onside and it does suffix Speke. sent7: The Speke does suffix publicist. sent8: if the consignment is a main then the Plavix is a main. sent9: the pisanosaur is not non-cruciferous. sent10: the adelgid is Chaldean thing that dulls. sent11: the ozokerite suffixes Speke. sent12: something is not pointless if it is not a interlayer and does not suffix prestige. sent13: the publicist is cruciferous. sent14: that the publicist does not suffix prestige is true if that the Plavix suffixes lagan or it is not adenocarcinomatous or both does not hold. sent15: the consignment is a kind of a main and it is nonthermal if it is non-vegetal. sent16: something does suffix Speke but it is not dulled if it is not pointless. sent17: the publicist does suffix Speke. sent18: the publicist does dull. sent19: the prodigal is not cruciferous if the publicist suffixes Speke and it does dull. sent20: either the quackgrass does not labor shooting or it is not a self-organization or both if it does not labor trey. sent21: the prodigal dulls. sent22: the quackgrass does not labor trey. sent23: the publicist is a kind of a Celosia. sent24: if the consignment is not a maze and tyrannizes it is not vegetal. ; $proof$ =
|
sent17 & sent18 -> int1: the publicist suffixes Speke and does dull.; sent19 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the quinacrine is a Klopstock is correct.
|
{D}{b}
|
sent1: if the sertraline is a kind of a Beckley the chylomicron is a rhodonite. sent2: if the sertraline is estimable the chylomicron is a rhodonite. sent3: the sertraline is a kind of a Klopstock. sent4: if the quinacrine is estimable the sertraline is a Klopstock. sent5: that the chylomicron does not suffix sertraline and is an occurrence is wrong. sent6: if the quinacrine is a Beckley the sertraline is a Klopstock. sent7: the quinacrine is a rectorship or it is a rhodonite or both. sent8: the sertraline is a Beckley. sent9: the quinacrine labors count if there is something such that that it does not suffix sertraline and is an occurrence does not hold. sent10: if the chylomicron is a rhodonite the sertraline is a Beckley. sent11: the sertraline is either estimable or a rhodonite or both. sent12: the quinacrine is a Klopstock and/or it is estimable. sent13: if the fact that the chylomicron is a kind of a Beckley is right then the quinacrine is a kind of a Klopstock. sent14: the sertraline is Rwandan. sent15: the quinacrine is estimable if the sertraline is a Klopstock. sent16: the quinacrine is estimable. sent17: the chylomicron is estimable. sent18: the quinacrine is a rhodonite if it does labor count. sent19: the quinacrine is a rhodonite. sent20: either the sertraline is estimable or it is a Beckley or both. sent21: if the sertraline is a rhodonite then the chylomicron is a Beckley. sent22: that the Montrachet is estimable is right. sent23: the elastin is a Klopstock.
|
sent1: {C}{a} -> {B}{c} sent2: {A}{a} -> {B}{c} sent3: {D}{a} sent4: {A}{b} -> {D}{a} sent5: ¬(¬{G}{c} & {H}{c}) sent6: {C}{b} -> {D}{a} sent7: ({GA}{b} v {B}{b}) sent8: {C}{a} sent9: (x): ¬(¬{G}x & {H}x) -> {E}{b} sent10: {B}{c} -> {C}{a} sent11: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}) sent12: ({D}{b} v {A}{b}) sent13: {C}{c} -> {D}{b} sent14: {R}{a} sent15: {D}{a} -> {A}{b} sent16: {A}{b} sent17: {A}{c} sent18: {E}{b} -> {B}{b} sent19: {B}{b} sent20: ({A}{a} v {C}{a}) sent21: {B}{a} -> {C}{c} sent22: {A}{eg} sent23: {D}{ap}
|
[] |
[] |
the fact that the quinacrine is not a kind of a Klopstock hold.
|
¬{D}{b}
|
[
"sent5 -> int1: there is something such that the fact that it does not suffix sertraline and it is an occurrence does not hold.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the quinacrine labors count.; sent18 & int2 -> int3: the quinacrine is a rhodonite.;"
] | 5 | 2 | null | 20 | 0 | 20 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the quinacrine is a Klopstock is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the sertraline is a kind of a Beckley the chylomicron is a rhodonite. sent2: if the sertraline is estimable the chylomicron is a rhodonite. sent3: the sertraline is a kind of a Klopstock. sent4: if the quinacrine is estimable the sertraline is a Klopstock. sent5: that the chylomicron does not suffix sertraline and is an occurrence is wrong. sent6: if the quinacrine is a Beckley the sertraline is a Klopstock. sent7: the quinacrine is a rectorship or it is a rhodonite or both. sent8: the sertraline is a Beckley. sent9: the quinacrine labors count if there is something such that that it does not suffix sertraline and is an occurrence does not hold. sent10: if the chylomicron is a rhodonite the sertraline is a Beckley. sent11: the sertraline is either estimable or a rhodonite or both. sent12: the quinacrine is a Klopstock and/or it is estimable. sent13: if the fact that the chylomicron is a kind of a Beckley is right then the quinacrine is a kind of a Klopstock. sent14: the sertraline is Rwandan. sent15: the quinacrine is estimable if the sertraline is a Klopstock. sent16: the quinacrine is estimable. sent17: the chylomicron is estimable. sent18: the quinacrine is a rhodonite if it does labor count. sent19: the quinacrine is a rhodonite. sent20: either the sertraline is estimable or it is a Beckley or both. sent21: if the sertraline is a rhodonite then the chylomicron is a Beckley. sent22: that the Montrachet is estimable is right. sent23: the elastin is a Klopstock. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the incandescence does not labor commonweal.
|
¬{C}{b}
|
sent1: if the Johns labors romance then the incandescence does not labor commonweal. sent2: the Johns does interpolate and/or it does labor commonweal. sent3: that the incandescence does not labor commonweal if the Johns interpolates or does labor romance or both hold.
|
sent1: {B}{a} -> ¬{C}{b} sent2: ({A}{a} v {C}{a}) sent3: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b}
|
[] |
[] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | null | 2 | 0 | 2 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the incandescence does not labor commonweal. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Johns labors romance then the incandescence does not labor commonweal. sent2: the Johns does interpolate and/or it does labor commonweal. sent3: that the incandescence does not labor commonweal if the Johns interpolates or does labor romance or both hold. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the peeping T-square happens.
|
{A}
|
sent1: if the discovery does not occur but the fictileness occurs the fact that the laboring resh happens hold. sent2: the generating occurs if the interjection does not occur but the stewing choler happens. sent3: if the legislation occurs then the device occurs but the laboring Wilmut does not occur. sent4: the fact that the coasting does not occur and the peeping T-square does not occur does not hold if the generating does not occur. sent5: if the fictionalization happens the snip occurs. sent6: if not the laboring straitjacket but the undesirableness occurs the suffixing telomere happens. sent7: that the generating happens prevents that the peeping T-square does not occur. sent8: either the shriveling or the dummy or both occurs if the Stalinist does not occur. sent9: if the discovery does not occur both the non-clozeness and the non-safeness occurs. sent10: the interjection does not occur and the stewing choler does not occur. sent11: that the clozeness does not occur and the safe does not occur prevents that the generating occurs. sent12: if the laboring Wilmut does not occur the discovery does not occur and the laboring resh does not occur. sent13: if that the coasting does not occur and the peeping T-square does not occur is not right the coasting occurs. sent14: if the ministry occurs then not the Stalinistness but the fatalistness happens. sent15: that the peeping T-square does not occur and the generating does not occur is triggered by the non-safeness. sent16: the stewing choler does not occur. sent17: if the interjection does not occur and the stewing choler does not occur the generating happens.
|
sent1: (¬{E} & {FL}) -> {F} sent2: (¬{AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent3: {I} -> ({H} & ¬{G}) sent4: ¬{B} -> ¬(¬{CP} & ¬{A}) sent5: {EK} -> {HA} sent6: (¬{AJ} & {HI}) -> {IR} sent7: {B} -> {A} sent8: ¬{L} -> ({K} v {J}) sent9: ¬{E} -> (¬{D} & ¬{C}) sent10: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent11: (¬{D} & ¬{C}) -> ¬{B} sent12: ¬{G} -> (¬{E} & ¬{F}) sent13: ¬(¬{CP} & ¬{A}) -> {CP} sent14: {N} -> (¬{L} & {M}) sent15: ¬{C} -> (¬{A} & ¬{B}) sent16: ¬{AB} sent17: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B}
|
[
"sent17 & sent10 -> int1: the generating occurs.; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent17 & sent10 -> int1: {B}; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the coasting occurs.
|
{CP}
|
[] | 13 | 2 | 2 | 14 | 0 | 14 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the peeping T-square happens. ; $context$ = sent1: if the discovery does not occur but the fictileness occurs the fact that the laboring resh happens hold. sent2: the generating occurs if the interjection does not occur but the stewing choler happens. sent3: if the legislation occurs then the device occurs but the laboring Wilmut does not occur. sent4: the fact that the coasting does not occur and the peeping T-square does not occur does not hold if the generating does not occur. sent5: if the fictionalization happens the snip occurs. sent6: if not the laboring straitjacket but the undesirableness occurs the suffixing telomere happens. sent7: that the generating happens prevents that the peeping T-square does not occur. sent8: either the shriveling or the dummy or both occurs if the Stalinist does not occur. sent9: if the discovery does not occur both the non-clozeness and the non-safeness occurs. sent10: the interjection does not occur and the stewing choler does not occur. sent11: that the clozeness does not occur and the safe does not occur prevents that the generating occurs. sent12: if the laboring Wilmut does not occur the discovery does not occur and the laboring resh does not occur. sent13: if that the coasting does not occur and the peeping T-square does not occur is not right the coasting occurs. sent14: if the ministry occurs then not the Stalinistness but the fatalistness happens. sent15: that the peeping T-square does not occur and the generating does not occur is triggered by the non-safeness. sent16: the stewing choler does not occur. sent17: if the interjection does not occur and the stewing choler does not occur the generating happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent17 & sent10 -> int1: the generating occurs.; sent7 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the shelver is both a rumble and a carom is not true.
|
¬({A}{c} & {C}{c})
|
sent1: the funfair is onshore. sent2: there exists something such that that it is not uninucleate and it is a kind of a Aesop is not correct. sent3: the raceme labors Zsigmondy if the fact that the canary does not labor Domingo and it is not fermentable is wrong. sent4: the shelver is a carom and it is a kind of a currency. sent5: the fact that the poorhouse labors Zsigmondy and is not croupy is not correct if something is a kind of a currency. sent6: if there exists something such that it does not labor Zsigmondy the canary does not rumble. sent7: the canary is a mailbox. sent8: the landfall does not necrose if the funfair is apogean and it is onshore. sent9: if something does not labor Zsigmondy then it rumbles. sent10: the raceme does labor Zsigmondy if that the canary is fermentable is true. sent11: if there is something such that that it is not uninucleate and is a Aesop is not right that the funfair is apogean is not wrong. sent12: the fact that the fact that the canary does not labor Domingo and it is not fermentable does not hold is right. sent13: if something does not necrose then it is not a redeye and is not a process. sent14: if the raceme does labor Zsigmondy the shelver rumbles. sent15: the schipperke is octangular and it does dance. sent16: if something is not a redeye and not a process it is a currency. sent17: that the canary does not labor Domingo and is fermentable is not right. sent18: the shelver labors Zsigmondy. sent19: the shelver is a currency. sent20: if the fact that the shelver does not labor Domingo and is not a rumble does not hold then the canary does carom.
|
sent1: {J}{f} sent2: (Ex): ¬(¬{L}x & {K}x) sent3: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent4: ({C}{c} & {D}{c}) sent5: (x): {D}x -> ¬({B}{d} & ¬{E}{d}) sent6: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{A}{a} sent7: {BU}{a} sent8: ({I}{f} & {J}{f}) -> ¬{H}{e} sent9: (x): ¬{B}x -> {A}x sent10: {AB}{a} -> {B}{b} sent11: (x): ¬(¬{L}x & {K}x) -> {I}{f} sent12: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent13: (x): ¬{H}x -> (¬{G}x & ¬{F}x) sent14: {B}{b} -> {A}{c} sent15: ({FM}{dt} & {AQ}{dt}) sent16: (x): (¬{G}x & ¬{F}x) -> {D}x sent17: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent18: {B}{c} sent19: {D}{c} sent20: ¬(¬{AA}{c} & ¬{A}{c}) -> {C}{a}
|
[
"sent3 & sent12 -> int1: the raceme does labor Zsigmondy.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the shelver does rumble.; sent4 -> int3: the shelver caroms.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent12 -> int1: {B}{b}; int1 & sent14 -> int2: {A}{c}; sent4 -> int3: {C}{c}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the shelver is a kind of a rumble and it is a carom does not hold.
|
¬({A}{c} & {C}{c})
|
[
"sent16 -> int4: the landfall is a currency if that it is not a kind of a redeye and it does not process hold.; sent13 -> int5: if the landfall does not necrose then that it is not a redeye and it is not a process is right.; sent2 & sent11 -> int6: that the funfair is apogean is true.; int6 & sent1 -> int7: the funfair is apogean and is onshore.; sent8 & int7 -> int8: the landfall does not necrose.; int5 & int8 -> int9: the landfall is not a kind of a redeye and it does not process.; int4 & int9 -> int10: the landfall is a currency.; int10 -> int11: something is a kind of a currency.; int11 & sent5 -> int12: the fact that the poorhouse labors Zsigmondy but it is not croupy does not hold.; int12 -> int13: there exists something such that the fact that it labors Zsigmondy and it is non-croupy is wrong.;"
] | 13 | 3 | 3 | 16 | 0 | 16 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the shelver is both a rumble and a carom is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the funfair is onshore. sent2: there exists something such that that it is not uninucleate and it is a kind of a Aesop is not correct. sent3: the raceme labors Zsigmondy if the fact that the canary does not labor Domingo and it is not fermentable is wrong. sent4: the shelver is a carom and it is a kind of a currency. sent5: the fact that the poorhouse labors Zsigmondy and is not croupy is not correct if something is a kind of a currency. sent6: if there exists something such that it does not labor Zsigmondy the canary does not rumble. sent7: the canary is a mailbox. sent8: the landfall does not necrose if the funfair is apogean and it is onshore. sent9: if something does not labor Zsigmondy then it rumbles. sent10: the raceme does labor Zsigmondy if that the canary is fermentable is true. sent11: if there is something such that that it is not uninucleate and is a Aesop is not right that the funfair is apogean is not wrong. sent12: the fact that the fact that the canary does not labor Domingo and it is not fermentable does not hold is right. sent13: if something does not necrose then it is not a redeye and is not a process. sent14: if the raceme does labor Zsigmondy the shelver rumbles. sent15: the schipperke is octangular and it does dance. sent16: if something is not a redeye and not a process it is a currency. sent17: that the canary does not labor Domingo and is fermentable is not right. sent18: the shelver labors Zsigmondy. sent19: the shelver is a currency. sent20: if the fact that the shelver does not labor Domingo and is not a rumble does not hold then the canary does carom. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent12 -> int1: the raceme does labor Zsigmondy.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the shelver does rumble.; sent4 -> int3: the shelver caroms.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fucker suffixes hack.
|
{B}{b}
|
sent1: if the puritan does not peep dot-com the upgrade is not a liquefaction but it is a Gent. sent2: everything is not acentric. sent3: if the Colon does not suffix hack then the fucker escapes. sent4: the Colon does not peep keyboard. sent5: the fucker escapes. sent6: the Viola does not peep keyboard. sent7: if the upgrade is not a liquefaction but it is a Gent then the convictfish is not honorable. sent8: the fucker is proprioceptive. sent9: the cue stews manumission. sent10: if the fucker does not peep keyboard then it does suffix fucker and it is not a kind of an overflow. sent11: if the Colon is not a Caruso then the fucker suffixes hack. sent12: the Colon is not honorable if the fact that it is honorable and is not a kind of a Gent is not right. sent13: if the endorser does not escape then it is soluble. sent14: the fact that something is not a vicariate but it does suffix Glaser is not correct if it is not acentric. sent15: if the attack is not an escape then it is a potoroo. sent16: the fact that the Colon suffixes hack and does not stew manumission is wrong. sent17: if something is not honorable then it does not peep keyboard and does suffix hack. sent18: something does not peep dot-com if that it is not a vicariate and it does suffix Glaser does not hold. sent19: if the fucker does not stew manumission then it peeps keyboard and it does not suffix hack. sent20: The keyboard does not peep Colon. sent21: the Colon does not stew manumission. sent22: that the fucker suffixes hack but it does not peep keyboard is not correct. sent23: the fucker does peep keyboard. sent24: if the Colon is a Caruso the fact that it is a kind of an escape and does not stew manumission is false.
|
sent1: ¬{G}{e} -> (¬{F}{d} & {E}{d}) sent2: (x): ¬{J}x sent3: ¬{B}{a} -> {AA}{b} sent4: ¬{C}{a} sent5: {AA}{b} sent6: ¬{C}{iu} sent7: (¬{F}{d} & {E}{d}) -> ¬{D}{c} sent8: {EK}{b} sent9: {AB}{dj} sent10: ¬{C}{b} -> ({EP}{b} & ¬{AR}{b}) sent11: ¬{A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent12: ¬({D}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent13: ¬{AA}{di} -> {FF}{di} sent14: (x): ¬{J}x -> ¬(¬{I}x & {H}x) sent15: ¬{AA}{aq} -> {FP}{aq} sent16: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent17: (x): ¬{D}x -> (¬{C}x & {B}x) sent18: (x): ¬(¬{I}x & {H}x) -> ¬{G}x sent19: ¬{AB}{b} -> ({C}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent20: ¬{AD}{ab} sent21: ¬{AB}{a} sent22: ¬({B}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent23: {C}{b} sent24: {A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Colon is a kind of a Caruso.; sent24 & assump1 -> int1: that the Colon escapes but it does not stew manumission does not hold.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}{a}; sent24 & assump1 -> int1: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a});"
] |
the fucker does not suffix hack.
|
¬{B}{b}
|
[
"sent14 -> int2: if the keyboard is not acentric the fact that it is not a vicariate and it does suffix Glaser is false.; sent2 -> int3: the keyboard is not acentric.; int2 & int3 -> int4: that the keyboard is not a vicariate and does suffix Glaser does not hold.; int4 -> int5: there is nothing that is not a kind of a vicariate and suffixes Glaser.; int5 -> int6: that the puritan is not a vicariate but it suffixes Glaser is wrong.; sent18 -> int7: the puritan does not peep dot-com if that it is not a vicariate and does suffix Glaser is wrong.; int6 & int7 -> int8: the puritan does not peep dot-com.; int8 & sent1 -> int9: the upgrade is not a kind of a liquefaction but it is a Gent.; int9 & sent7 -> int10: the convictfish is not honorable.;"
] | 10 | 4 | null | 21 | 0 | 21 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fucker suffixes hack. ; $context$ = sent1: if the puritan does not peep dot-com the upgrade is not a liquefaction but it is a Gent. sent2: everything is not acentric. sent3: if the Colon does not suffix hack then the fucker escapes. sent4: the Colon does not peep keyboard. sent5: the fucker escapes. sent6: the Viola does not peep keyboard. sent7: if the upgrade is not a liquefaction but it is a Gent then the convictfish is not honorable. sent8: the fucker is proprioceptive. sent9: the cue stews manumission. sent10: if the fucker does not peep keyboard then it does suffix fucker and it is not a kind of an overflow. sent11: if the Colon is not a Caruso then the fucker suffixes hack. sent12: the Colon is not honorable if the fact that it is honorable and is not a kind of a Gent is not right. sent13: if the endorser does not escape then it is soluble. sent14: the fact that something is not a vicariate but it does suffix Glaser is not correct if it is not acentric. sent15: if the attack is not an escape then it is a potoroo. sent16: the fact that the Colon suffixes hack and does not stew manumission is wrong. sent17: if something is not honorable then it does not peep keyboard and does suffix hack. sent18: something does not peep dot-com if that it is not a vicariate and it does suffix Glaser does not hold. sent19: if the fucker does not stew manumission then it peeps keyboard and it does not suffix hack. sent20: The keyboard does not peep Colon. sent21: the Colon does not stew manumission. sent22: that the fucker suffixes hack but it does not peep keyboard is not correct. sent23: the fucker does peep keyboard. sent24: if the Colon is a Caruso the fact that it is a kind of an escape and does not stew manumission is false. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Colon is a kind of a Caruso.; sent24 & assump1 -> int1: that the Colon escapes but it does not stew manumission does not hold.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the spreeing does not occur.
|
¬{D}
|
sent1: not the suffixing disinvestment but the phrasing happens. sent2: if the phrasing and the menopausalness occurs the spree does not occur. sent3: the vaporization happens. sent4: both the vaporization and the menopausalness occurs if the fact that the traumaticness does not occur is not wrong. sent5: the fact that the traumaticness occurs is not false. sent6: the menopausalness happens and the traumaticness occurs. sent7: the fact that the suffixing disinvestment does not occur is correct.
|
sent1: (¬{E} & {C}) sent2: ({C} & {A}) -> ¬{D} sent3: {HB} sent4: ¬{B} -> ({HB} & {A}) sent5: {B} sent6: ({A} & {B}) sent7: ¬{E}
|
[
"sent6 -> int1: the fact that the menopausalness happens is true.; sent1 -> int2: the phrasing occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the phrasing happens and the menopausalness occurs.; int3 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 -> int1: {A}; sent1 -> int2: {C}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({C} & {A}); int3 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the vaporization occurs.
|
{HB}
|
[] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the spreeing does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: not the suffixing disinvestment but the phrasing happens. sent2: if the phrasing and the menopausalness occurs the spree does not occur. sent3: the vaporization happens. sent4: both the vaporization and the menopausalness occurs if the fact that the traumaticness does not occur is not wrong. sent5: the fact that the traumaticness occurs is not false. sent6: the menopausalness happens and the traumaticness occurs. sent7: the fact that the suffixing disinvestment does not occur is correct. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 -> int1: the fact that the menopausalness happens is true.; sent1 -> int2: the phrasing occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the phrasing happens and the menopausalness occurs.; int3 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the heathlikeness occurs.
|
{A}
|
sent1: that not the suffixing lodge but the colloquium happens prevents that the makeready does not occur. sent2: the fact that the makeready happens and the necklessness occurs is incorrect if that the colloquium does not occur hold. sent3: if the heathlikeness does not occur then the fact that the commemoration does not occur or the unmaliciousness does not occur or both does not hold. sent4: that the intersection does not occur hold if the ethnocentricness occurs and the cock-a-doodle-doo happens. sent5: the necklessness happens if that the suffixing tippler does not occur and/or the suffixing pangolin does not occur does not hold. sent6: the endarterectomy happens and the repatriation does not occur if the intersection does not occur. sent7: the fact that the suffixing tippler does not occur and/or the suffixing pangolin does not occur does not hold. sent8: that the makeready occurs triggers that both the non-heathlikeness and the neckedness occurs. sent9: if that both the raiding and the acceptation happens is false the bathymetry does not occur. sent10: the necklessness happens if that the suffixing tippler does not occur and/or the suffixing pangolin occurs is not right. sent11: the fact that the gutsiness happens is not wrong. sent12: the ethnocentricness and the detraction happens if the fact that the bathymetry does not occur is not false. sent13: if that the suffixing tippler happens or the suffixing pangolin does not occur or both is not true then the necklessness happens. sent14: the cock-a-doodle-doo occurs if the gutsiness happens. sent15: that if that the suffixing lodge occurs and the laboring cocksucker occurs is not correct then the suffixing lodge does not occur is right. sent16: that both the laboring exile and the colloquium happens is brought about by that the gradual does not occur. sent17: if the escape or the non-gradualness or both happens the gradualness does not occur. sent18: the fact that the suffixing lodge happens and the laboring cocksucker happens is incorrect if the repatriation does not occur. sent19: the fact that that the raid happens and the acceptation occurs is not wrong does not hold.
|
sent1: (¬{E} & {D}) -> {C} sent2: ¬{D} -> ¬({C} & {B}) sent3: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{IT} v ¬{FE}) sent4: ({J} & {K}) -> ¬{I} sent5: ¬(¬{AA} v ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent6: ¬{I} -> ({H} & ¬{F}) sent7: ¬(¬{AA} v ¬{AB}) sent8: {C} -> (¬{A} & ¬{B}) sent9: ¬({R} & {S}) -> ¬{Q} sent10: ¬(¬{AA} v {AB}) -> {B} sent11: {O} sent12: ¬{Q} -> ({J} & {P}) sent13: ¬({AA} v ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent14: {O} -> {K} sent15: ¬({E} & {G}) -> ¬{E} sent16: ¬{M} -> ({L} & {D}) sent17: ({N} v ¬{M}) -> ¬{M} sent18: ¬{F} -> ¬({E} & {G}) sent19: ¬({R} & {S})
|
[
"sent5 & sent7 -> int1: the necklessness occurs.;"
] |
[
"sent5 & sent7 -> int1: {B};"
] |
the heathlikeness does not occur.
|
¬{A}
|
[] | 6 | 2 | null | 17 | 0 | 17 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the heathlikeness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that not the suffixing lodge but the colloquium happens prevents that the makeready does not occur. sent2: the fact that the makeready happens and the necklessness occurs is incorrect if that the colloquium does not occur hold. sent3: if the heathlikeness does not occur then the fact that the commemoration does not occur or the unmaliciousness does not occur or both does not hold. sent4: that the intersection does not occur hold if the ethnocentricness occurs and the cock-a-doodle-doo happens. sent5: the necklessness happens if that the suffixing tippler does not occur and/or the suffixing pangolin does not occur does not hold. sent6: the endarterectomy happens and the repatriation does not occur if the intersection does not occur. sent7: the fact that the suffixing tippler does not occur and/or the suffixing pangolin does not occur does not hold. sent8: that the makeready occurs triggers that both the non-heathlikeness and the neckedness occurs. sent9: if that both the raiding and the acceptation happens is false the bathymetry does not occur. sent10: the necklessness happens if that the suffixing tippler does not occur and/or the suffixing pangolin occurs is not right. sent11: the fact that the gutsiness happens is not wrong. sent12: the ethnocentricness and the detraction happens if the fact that the bathymetry does not occur is not false. sent13: if that the suffixing tippler happens or the suffixing pangolin does not occur or both is not true then the necklessness happens. sent14: the cock-a-doodle-doo occurs if the gutsiness happens. sent15: that if that the suffixing lodge occurs and the laboring cocksucker occurs is not correct then the suffixing lodge does not occur is right. sent16: that both the laboring exile and the colloquium happens is brought about by that the gradual does not occur. sent17: if the escape or the non-gradualness or both happens the gradualness does not occur. sent18: the fact that the suffixing lodge happens and the laboring cocksucker happens is incorrect if the repatriation does not occur. sent19: the fact that that the raid happens and the acceptation occurs is not wrong does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 & sent7 -> int1: the necklessness occurs.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the geezer does not labor Angas.
|
¬{C}{a}
|
sent1: if something is not non-antinomian and not a VI it does not labor Angas. sent2: the geezer is antinomian. sent3: the geezer is not a VI.
|
sent1: (x): ({A}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{C}x sent2: {A}{a} sent3: ¬{B}{a}
|
[
"sent2 & sent3 -> int1: the geezer is antinomian thing that is not a VI.; sent1 -> int2: if the geezer is a kind of a antinomian that is not a VI then the fact that it does not labor Angas hold.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent3 -> int1: ({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}); sent1 -> int2: ({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the geezer does not labor Angas. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not non-antinomian and not a VI it does not labor Angas. sent2: the geezer is antinomian. sent3: the geezer is not a VI. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent3 -> int1: the geezer is antinomian thing that is not a VI.; sent1 -> int2: if the geezer is a kind of a antinomian that is not a VI then the fact that it does not labor Angas hold.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the stewing bear does not occur triggers that the laboring kneel does not occur.
|
¬{A} -> ¬{B}
|
sent1: if that the peeping alexandrite does not occur and the suffixing diplomat occurs is not correct the laboring kneel occurs. sent2: if the basiscopicness does not occur then the power happens and the ecdemicness happens. sent3: the skinny-dip occurs but the whistle does not occur if the governorship happens. sent4: that the voicing happens is not false. sent5: if the neuter does not occur then that that the offness happens but the laboring currency does not occur does not hold is not wrong. sent6: if the voicing occurs then the neuter does not occur and the credit does not occur. sent7: if the shave does not occur then the fact that the suffixing lovage occurs and the interest occurs is wrong. sent8: that the laboring doormat does not occur and the interesting does not occur triggers the non-basiscopicness. sent9: if the fact that the offness happens but the laboring currency does not occur is false then the laboring doormat does not occur. sent10: that the peeping alexandrite occurs yields that the laboring kneel does not occur. sent11: if the fact that the powering happens hold then the governorship happens. sent12: if the laboring kneel does not occur and the stewing bear occurs then the westness does not occur. sent13: that the skinny-dip occurs results in that the laboring kneel does not occur and the stewing bear happens. sent14: the laboring kneel occurs if the stewing bear does not occur. sent15: the fact that the peeping alexandrite does not occur but the suffixing diplomat happens is wrong if the stewing bear does not occur. sent16: the interesting does not occur if the fact that the suffixing lovage occurs and the interesting occurs is not true. sent17: the fact that that both the peeping alexandrite and the suffixing diplomat happens is not correct hold. sent18: if the peeping toyshop does not occur the fact that the preciseness and the maladroitness happens is not correct.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent2: ¬{H} -> ({F} & {G}) sent3: {E} -> ({C} & ¬{D}) sent4: {S} sent5: ¬{M} -> ¬({K} & ¬{L}) sent6: {S} -> (¬{M} & ¬{N}) sent7: ¬{P} -> ¬({O} & {J}) sent8: (¬{I} & ¬{J}) -> ¬{H} sent9: ¬({K} & ¬{L}) -> ¬{I} sent10: {AA} -> ¬{B} sent11: {F} -> {E} sent12: (¬{B} & {A}) -> ¬{HU} sent13: {C} -> (¬{B} & {A}) sent14: ¬{A} -> {B} sent15: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent16: ¬({O} & {J}) -> ¬{J} sent17: ¬({AA} & {AB}) sent18: ¬{BO} -> ¬(¬{FE} & {ED})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the stewing bear does not occur is not incorrect.; sent15 & assump1 -> int1: that the peeping alexandrite does not occur and the suffixing diplomat occurs is incorrect.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ¬{A}; sent15 & assump1 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB});"
] |
the fact that the west does not occur is not wrong.
|
¬{HU}
|
[
"sent6 & sent4 -> int2: the neuterness does not occur and the crediting does not occur.; int2 -> int3: that the neuterness does not occur is right.; sent5 & int3 -> int4: the fact that the offness happens but the laboring currency does not occur is not correct.; sent9 & int4 -> int5: the laboring doormat does not occur.;"
] | 13 | 3 | null | 17 | 0 | 17 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the stewing bear does not occur triggers that the laboring kneel does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the peeping alexandrite does not occur and the suffixing diplomat occurs is not correct the laboring kneel occurs. sent2: if the basiscopicness does not occur then the power happens and the ecdemicness happens. sent3: the skinny-dip occurs but the whistle does not occur if the governorship happens. sent4: that the voicing happens is not false. sent5: if the neuter does not occur then that that the offness happens but the laboring currency does not occur does not hold is not wrong. sent6: if the voicing occurs then the neuter does not occur and the credit does not occur. sent7: if the shave does not occur then the fact that the suffixing lovage occurs and the interest occurs is wrong. sent8: that the laboring doormat does not occur and the interesting does not occur triggers the non-basiscopicness. sent9: if the fact that the offness happens but the laboring currency does not occur is false then the laboring doormat does not occur. sent10: that the peeping alexandrite occurs yields that the laboring kneel does not occur. sent11: if the fact that the powering happens hold then the governorship happens. sent12: if the laboring kneel does not occur and the stewing bear occurs then the westness does not occur. sent13: that the skinny-dip occurs results in that the laboring kneel does not occur and the stewing bear happens. sent14: the laboring kneel occurs if the stewing bear does not occur. sent15: the fact that the peeping alexandrite does not occur but the suffixing diplomat happens is wrong if the stewing bear does not occur. sent16: the interesting does not occur if the fact that the suffixing lovage occurs and the interesting occurs is not true. sent17: the fact that that both the peeping alexandrite and the suffixing diplomat happens is not correct hold. sent18: if the peeping toyshop does not occur the fact that the preciseness and the maladroitness happens is not correct. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the stewing bear does not occur is not incorrect.; sent15 & assump1 -> int1: that the peeping alexandrite does not occur and the suffixing diplomat occurs is incorrect.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the lode and the laboring slipcover occurs.
|
({F} & {E})
|
sent1: the lode happens if the laboring Calvin does not occur. sent2: if the circulatoriness occurs the laboring Calvin does not occur. sent3: if the pyrolyticness does not occur the naturalizing occurs. sent4: the lode happens. sent5: the semiautobiographicalness happens if the environmentalness does not occur. sent6: both the lode and the laboring slipcover happens if the laboring Calvin does not occur. sent7: if not the naturalizing but the pyrolyticness occurs then the ulcerating does not occur. sent8: the naturalizing or that the circulatoriness happens or both results in that the laboring Calvin does not occur.
|
sent1: ¬{D} -> {F} sent2: {C} -> ¬{D} sent3: ¬{A} -> {B} sent4: {F} sent5: ¬{FN} -> {AI} sent6: ¬{D} -> ({F} & {E}) sent7: (¬{B} & {A}) -> ¬{DN} sent8: ({B} v {C}) -> ¬{D}
|
[] |
[] |
the ulcerating does not occur.
|
¬{DN}
|
[] | 5 | 4 | null | 5 | 0 | 5 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the lode and the laboring slipcover occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the lode happens if the laboring Calvin does not occur. sent2: if the circulatoriness occurs the laboring Calvin does not occur. sent3: if the pyrolyticness does not occur the naturalizing occurs. sent4: the lode happens. sent5: the semiautobiographicalness happens if the environmentalness does not occur. sent6: both the lode and the laboring slipcover happens if the laboring Calvin does not occur. sent7: if not the naturalizing but the pyrolyticness occurs then the ulcerating does not occur. sent8: the naturalizing or that the circulatoriness happens or both results in that the laboring Calvin does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there is something such that if it does not preempt then that it is an interface that is a kind of a Tamil is false is false.
|
¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x))
|
sent1: there is something such that if it does not preempt then it is an interface and it is a kind of a Tamil. sent2: the fact that something is a bigarade and a caisson is wrong if it does jive. sent3: something that does not preempt is an interface and is a kind of a Tamil. sent4: if something does not preempt then that it is an interface and it is a Tamil does not hold. sent5: if something is epigastric that the fact that it is a batten and it is a Patrick is not wrong is not correct. sent6: that something is an interface and it is a kind of a Tamil is not right if it preempts. sent7: that the gingersnap is both a Cyperus and a Florentine is false if it is not mithraic. sent8: if something is not transpolar then the fact that it is a literate and it is a diagram does not hold. sent9: the fact that that the placeholder peeps mutiny and it is a rhonchus is not right is not wrong if it is Tamil.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent2: (x): {DO}x -> ¬({EH}x & {JF}x) sent3: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent5: (x): {HT}x -> ¬({CN}x & {T}x) sent6: (x): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent7: ¬{ER}{el} -> ¬({AM}{el} & {GC}{el}) sent8: (x): ¬{FA}x -> ¬({IO}x & {FQ}x) sent9: {AB}{aa} -> ¬({EF}{aa} & {IA}{aa})
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: the fact that the placeholder is a kind of an interface that is a Tamil does not hold if it does not preempt.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if it does not preempt then that it is an interface that is a kind of a Tamil is false is false. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it does not preempt then it is an interface and it is a kind of a Tamil. sent2: the fact that something is a bigarade and a caisson is wrong if it does jive. sent3: something that does not preempt is an interface and is a kind of a Tamil. sent4: if something does not preempt then that it is an interface and it is a Tamil does not hold. sent5: if something is epigastric that the fact that it is a batten and it is a Patrick is not wrong is not correct. sent6: that something is an interface and it is a kind of a Tamil is not right if it preempts. sent7: that the gingersnap is both a Cyperus and a Florentine is false if it is not mithraic. sent8: if something is not transpolar then the fact that it is a literate and it is a diagram does not hold. sent9: the fact that that the placeholder peeps mutiny and it is a rhonchus is not right is not wrong if it is Tamil. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> int1: the fact that the placeholder is a kind of an interface that is a Tamil does not hold if it does not preempt.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Nazi is both Botswanan and not comparable.
|
({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})
|
sent1: that the ancestress does peep Donne and labors sol is false if that it does not labor sixteenth is not wrong. sent2: that the Nazi is both Botswanan and comparable is not true. sent3: if the ancestress is a challenge and it does suffix abulia it does not labor sixteenth. sent4: that the Nazi is not comparable hold if that the ancestress is unemotional and not Botswanan is wrong. sent5: the fact that the Nazi is not comparable is right. sent6: if the Nazi is comparable the ancestress is not unemotional. sent7: something is not unemotional but a clubfoot if it does not peep kameez. sent8: the Nazi is unemotional. sent9: if something is a clubfoot that it is Botswanan and not comparable is incorrect. sent10: the ancestress is unemotional.
|
sent1: ¬{F}{b} -> ¬({E}{b} & {D}{b}) sent2: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent3: ({G}{b} & {H}{b}) -> ¬{F}{b} sent4: ¬({B}{b} & ¬{AA}{b}) -> ¬{AB}{a} sent5: ¬{AB}{a} sent6: {AB}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent7: (x): ¬{C}x -> (¬{B}x & {A}x) sent8: {B}{a} sent9: (x): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent10: {B}{b}
|
[] |
[] |
the fact that the Nazi is Botswanan but it is not comparable does not hold.
|
¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})
|
[
"sent9 -> int1: the fact that the Nazi is both Botswanan and not comparable is false if that it is a clubfoot is not wrong.; sent7 -> int2: the Nazi is not unemotional but it is a clubfoot if the fact that it does not peep kameez is not false.;"
] | 7 | 3 | null | 9 | 0 | 9 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the Nazi is both Botswanan and not comparable. ; $context$ = sent1: that the ancestress does peep Donne and labors sol is false if that it does not labor sixteenth is not wrong. sent2: that the Nazi is both Botswanan and comparable is not true. sent3: if the ancestress is a challenge and it does suffix abulia it does not labor sixteenth. sent4: that the Nazi is not comparable hold if that the ancestress is unemotional and not Botswanan is wrong. sent5: the fact that the Nazi is not comparable is right. sent6: if the Nazi is comparable the ancestress is not unemotional. sent7: something is not unemotional but a clubfoot if it does not peep kameez. sent8: the Nazi is unemotional. sent9: if something is a clubfoot that it is Botswanan and not comparable is incorrect. sent10: the ancestress is unemotional. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if it is a Cretan then it is a kind of a pressing and it does not suffix ladylikeness.
|
(Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
sent1: there exists something such that if it is amoristic it does labor handicap and it is not a kind of a tick. sent2: there exists something such that if the fact that it is a kind of a Cretan hold then it does press and does suffix ladylikeness. sent3: something is a kind of a pressing but it is not a kind of a Nijmegen if it is a kind of a cocotte. sent4: the East does press if it is a Cretan. sent5: if the Nanticoke heals it is not non-bacillar and not metastable. sent6: if the fact that the East is a Cretan hold then it is a kind of a pressing that does not suffix ladylikeness. sent7: there is something such that if it is a kind of a echinoderm it does labor retriever and does not peep smokestack. sent8: there is something such that if it is a kind of a Cretan it is a pressing. sent9: if the East does suffix ladylikeness then it is eutrophic thing that is not a rani. sent10: the East does irradiate and is not repulsive if it is a Cretan. sent11: if the East is a kind of a first then the fact that it does mushroom and it is not a pressing is not false. sent12: the East is a pressing and it does suffix ladylikeness if it is a Cretan. sent13: there is something such that if it does labor Housatonic it is cryptanalytic and it does not suffix Nanticoke. sent14: if the East peeps plutonium it is a kind of a Cretan and is not a trichopteran. sent15: there is something such that if it is a Cretan it does not suffix ladylikeness. sent16: the carrack peeps mahout but it does not silt if it does labor counteroffensive.
|
sent1: (Ex): {JA}x -> ({CT}x & ¬{O}x) sent2: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: (x): {CH}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AM}x) sent4: {A}{aa} -> {AA}{aa} sent5: {GC}{dq} -> ({AK}{dq} & ¬{EF}{dq}) sent6: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent7: (Ex): {BE}x -> ({IF}x & ¬{P}x) sent8: (Ex): {A}x -> {AA}x sent9: {AB}{aa} -> ({BG}{aa} & ¬{HR}{aa}) sent10: {A}{aa} -> ({IQ}{aa} & ¬{FL}{aa}) sent11: {IS}{aa} -> ({S}{aa} & ¬{AA}{aa}) sent12: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent13: (Ex): {T}x -> ({CQ}x & ¬{AU}x) sent14: {GI}{aa} -> ({A}{aa} & ¬{IR}{aa}) sent15: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬{AB}x sent16: {AT}{hk} -> ({EJ}{hk} & ¬{HL}{hk})
|
[
"sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the Hausa does press but it is not a kind of a Nijmegen if it is a kind of a cocotte.
|
{CH}{ic} -> ({AA}{ic} & ¬{AM}{ic})
|
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is a Cretan then it is a kind of a pressing and it does not suffix ladylikeness. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it is amoristic it does labor handicap and it is not a kind of a tick. sent2: there exists something such that if the fact that it is a kind of a Cretan hold then it does press and does suffix ladylikeness. sent3: something is a kind of a pressing but it is not a kind of a Nijmegen if it is a kind of a cocotte. sent4: the East does press if it is a Cretan. sent5: if the Nanticoke heals it is not non-bacillar and not metastable. sent6: if the fact that the East is a Cretan hold then it is a kind of a pressing that does not suffix ladylikeness. sent7: there is something such that if it is a kind of a echinoderm it does labor retriever and does not peep smokestack. sent8: there is something such that if it is a kind of a Cretan it is a pressing. sent9: if the East does suffix ladylikeness then it is eutrophic thing that is not a rani. sent10: the East does irradiate and is not repulsive if it is a Cretan. sent11: if the East is a kind of a first then the fact that it does mushroom and it is not a pressing is not false. sent12: the East is a pressing and it does suffix ladylikeness if it is a Cretan. sent13: there is something such that if it does labor Housatonic it is cryptanalytic and it does not suffix Nanticoke. sent14: if the East peeps plutonium it is a kind of a Cretan and is not a trichopteran. sent15: there is something such that if it is a Cretan it does not suffix ladylikeness. sent16: the carrack peeps mahout but it does not silt if it does labor counteroffensive. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if that it does tack is true it does suffix antihero and it does not labor cavetto.
|
(Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
sent1: the cruet does suffix antihero but it does not labor cavetto if it does tack. sent2: there is something such that if it is a tack then that it does not labor cavetto is right. sent3: there is something such that if it tacks it suffixes antihero and it labors cavetto.
|
sent1: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent2: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬{AB}x sent3: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x)
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if that it does tack is true it does suffix antihero and it does not labor cavetto. ; $context$ = sent1: the cruet does suffix antihero but it does not labor cavetto if it does tack. sent2: there is something such that if it is a tack then that it does not labor cavetto is right. sent3: there is something such that if it tacks it suffixes antihero and it labors cavetto. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if that it does not stew retro and does labor font is not true then it is not intracerebral.
|
(Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x
|
sent1: there is something such that if it does not labor font it is not intracerebral. sent2: the abaca is not intracerebral if it does not labor font. sent3: there is something such that if it does stew retro it is not intracerebral. sent4: if that the abaca does stew retro and labors font is not right it is not intracerebral.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬{AB}x -> ¬{B}x sent2: ¬{AB}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent3: (Ex): {AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent4: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}
|
[] |
[] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | null | 4 | 0 | 4 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if that it does not stew retro and does labor font is not true then it is not intracerebral. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it does not labor font it is not intracerebral. sent2: the abaca is not intracerebral if it does not labor font. sent3: there is something such that if it does stew retro it is not intracerebral. sent4: if that the abaca does stew retro and labors font is not right it is not intracerebral. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the lyssavirus is cephalic.
|
{E}{b}
|
sent1: the lyssavirus is not cephalic if that the angelfish is familial and it does suffix conventionality does not hold. sent2: that something is familial thing that suffixes conventionality is incorrect if that it does not stew Peleus is not incorrect. sent3: the angelfish does not stew Peleus but it does stew indignity. sent4: the lyssavirus is not a truck but ropey.
|
sent1: ¬({D}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({D}x & {C}x) sent3: (¬{A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent4: (¬{HS}{b} & {HR}{b})
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: the angelfish does not stew Peleus.; sent2 -> int2: if the angelfish does not stew Peleus then the fact that it is a kind of familial thing that suffixes conventionality does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the angelfish is familial and it suffixes conventionality does not hold.; int3 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> int1: ¬{A}{a}; sent2 -> int2: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({D}{a} & {C}{a}); int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬({D}{a} & {C}{a}); int3 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the lyssavirus is cephalic. ; $context$ = sent1: the lyssavirus is not cephalic if that the angelfish is familial and it does suffix conventionality does not hold. sent2: that something is familial thing that suffixes conventionality is incorrect if that it does not stew Peleus is not incorrect. sent3: the angelfish does not stew Peleus but it does stew indignity. sent4: the lyssavirus is not a truck but ropey. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> int1: the angelfish does not stew Peleus.; sent2 -> int2: if the angelfish does not stew Peleus then the fact that it is a kind of familial thing that suffixes conventionality does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the angelfish is familial and it suffixes conventionality does not hold.; int3 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the triggerfish is not nonphotosynthetic.
|
{AB}{b}
|
sent1: that the gingersnap is a kind of a velodrome is not right. sent2: if the gingersnap is not a kind of a velodrome then the triggerfish is non-lineal but it is photosynthetic.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{a} sent2: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b})
|
[
"sent2 & sent1 -> int1: the triggerfish is non-lineal thing that is photosynthetic.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent1 -> int1: (¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the triggerfish is not nonphotosynthetic. ; $context$ = sent1: that the gingersnap is a kind of a velodrome is not right. sent2: if the gingersnap is not a kind of a velodrome then the triggerfish is non-lineal but it is photosynthetic. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent1 -> int1: the triggerfish is non-lineal thing that is photosynthetic.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there is something such that if it is not an old-timer and is not a blimp it does rouse is not right.
|
¬((Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x)
|
sent1: there exists something such that if it is an old-timer and not a blimp then it rouses. sent2: if the pachycephalosaur is achromatic and does not suffix HIV then it is apicultural. sent3: if the pachycephalosaur is both not an old-timer and not a blimp it rouses. sent4: there is something such that if it is a kind of non-positionable thing that is not a culmination then it is a kind of a shoe-shop. sent5: if the pachycephalosaur is not an old-timer and it is not a Pseudolarix it is a kind of a sapphirine. sent6: the woodbine is a kind of a sunroof if it is an old-timer and it does not suffix Phasianidae. sent7: if the pachycephalosaur is a Wheatley but it is not a blimp it is Columbian. sent8: if the hindlimb is both not a clipping and not a megaspore then it is cross-ply. sent9: the pachycephalosaur does rouse if it does peep Myrica and it does not peep mutiny. sent10: the pachycephalosaur does peep WTO if it is not a kind of a carol and is a motherhood. sent11: there exists something such that if it is not a Amphisbaena and it does not labor Humulin it is technophilic. sent12: if something does not suffix wencher and it is not a protist it is abyssal. sent13: the daylily is a subaltern if it is not a blimp and is not positionable. sent14: if the pachycephalosaur is non-sapphirine thing that stews Radyera the fact that it peeps decorativeness is not wrong. sent15: the pachycephalosaur emotes if it is not an old-timer and it is a revolver.
|
sent1: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent2: ({IB}{aa} & ¬{BN}{aa}) -> {BF}{aa} sent3: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent4: (Ex): (¬{DU}x & ¬{FO}x) -> {JH}x sent5: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{IK}{aa}) -> {BB}{aa} sent6: ({AA}{cb} & ¬{AO}{cb}) -> {DN}{cb} sent7: ({JI}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {IN}{aa} sent8: (¬{AJ}{bh} & ¬{EL}{bh}) -> {BJ}{bh} sent9: ({JK}{aa} & ¬{BR}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent10: (¬{HK}{aa} & {K}{aa}) -> {FT}{aa} sent11: (Ex): (¬{BP}x & ¬{EI}x) -> {J}x sent12: (x): (¬{EN}x & ¬{H}x) -> {ET}x sent13: (¬{AB}{al} & ¬{DU}{al}) -> {IU}{al} sent14: (¬{BB}{aa} & {IM}{aa}) -> {Q}{aa} sent15: (¬{AA}{aa} & {GK}{aa}) -> {CE}{aa}
|
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the Humulin is abyssal if it does not suffix wencher and is not a protist.
|
(¬{EN}{gk} & ¬{H}{gk}) -> {ET}{gk}
|
[
"sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 14 | 0 | 14 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if it is not an old-timer and is not a blimp it does rouse is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it is an old-timer and not a blimp then it rouses. sent2: if the pachycephalosaur is achromatic and does not suffix HIV then it is apicultural. sent3: if the pachycephalosaur is both not an old-timer and not a blimp it rouses. sent4: there is something such that if it is a kind of non-positionable thing that is not a culmination then it is a kind of a shoe-shop. sent5: if the pachycephalosaur is not an old-timer and it is not a Pseudolarix it is a kind of a sapphirine. sent6: the woodbine is a kind of a sunroof if it is an old-timer and it does not suffix Phasianidae. sent7: if the pachycephalosaur is a Wheatley but it is not a blimp it is Columbian. sent8: if the hindlimb is both not a clipping and not a megaspore then it is cross-ply. sent9: the pachycephalosaur does rouse if it does peep Myrica and it does not peep mutiny. sent10: the pachycephalosaur does peep WTO if it is not a kind of a carol and is a motherhood. sent11: there exists something such that if it is not a Amphisbaena and it does not labor Humulin it is technophilic. sent12: if something does not suffix wencher and it is not a protist it is abyssal. sent13: the daylily is a subaltern if it is not a blimp and is not positionable. sent14: if the pachycephalosaur is non-sapphirine thing that stews Radyera the fact that it peeps decorativeness is not wrong. sent15: the pachycephalosaur emotes if it is not an old-timer and it is a revolver. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if the fact that it is a largeness and it is a delicacy is incorrect it does not peep flush.
|
(Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x
|
sent1: the weather does not peep upper if the fact that it is a kind of a pistoleer and does labor chatter is not right. sent2: there exists something such that if that that it is a largeness and it is a delicacy is correct is not true it peeps flush. sent3: there is something such that if that it is not a kind of a largeness is not incorrect then it does not peep flush. sent4: that there is something such that if it is a kind of a largeness and it is a delicacy then it does not peep flush is correct. sent5: there is something such that if it is not a delicacy then it does not peep flush. sent6: the weather does not peep flush if that it secures and it is a Franck is not correct. sent7: the weather is not a largeness if that it does labor retro and it is exponential is not correct. sent8: the workman does not labor Nung if it is not endometrial. sent9: the form is not undescriptive if that it is a kind of a hyperadrenocorticism and it is a kind of a largeness is not right. sent10: there exists something such that if the fact that it does avoid and is a Sarnoff is false it is not exteroceptive. sent11: if that the stilt peeps flush and does stew Speke is false it does not peep upper. sent12: the fact that the weather peeps flush if that the weather is a largeness that is a delicacy does not hold is correct. sent13: there exists something such that if that it does peep diabetic and does fetch is incorrect then it is not subdural. sent14: if the fact that the weather is a largeness and it is a delicacy is not right the fact that it does not peep flush is not false. sent15: if that the weather is a kind of a timucu and peeps flush is not right then it is not a laurel. sent16: if the weather is a largeness and it is a delicacy then it does not peep flush. sent17: that the fact that the weather does peep flush is right does not hold if it is not a delicacy. sent18: something is not educational if that it is a delicacy and it is a delayed is false. sent19: there exists something such that if that it dummies and it is a kind of a ectomorph does not hold it is socialistic. sent20: there exists something such that if that it is both an exponential and imperative is incorrect then it does not peep Pollux. sent21: the weather is not three-dimensional if that it is a largeness and it peeps upper is not right.
|
sent1: ¬({CM}{aa} & {CI}{aa}) -> ¬{EL}{aa} sent2: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent3: (Ex): ¬{AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent4: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent5: (Ex): ¬{AB}x -> ¬{B}x sent6: ¬({BU}{aa} & {HL}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent7: ¬({AD}{aa} & {IE}{aa}) -> ¬{AA}{aa} sent8: ¬{IP}{ep} -> ¬{EE}{ep} sent9: ¬({I}{fe} & {AA}{fe}) -> ¬{FF}{fe} sent10: (Ex): ¬({BM}x & {HB}x) -> ¬{FH}x sent11: ¬({B}{iu} & {GB}{iu}) -> ¬{EL}{iu} sent12: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent13: (Ex): ¬({N}x & {GE}x) -> ¬{FR}x sent14: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent15: ¬({FD}{aa} & {B}{aa}) -> ¬{JJ}{aa} sent16: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent17: ¬{AB}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent18: (x): ¬({AB}x & {HM}x) -> ¬{DM}x sent19: (Ex): ¬({FI}x & {U}x) -> {EQ}x sent20: (Ex): ¬({IE}x & {CB}x) -> ¬{HA}x sent21: ¬({AA}{aa} & {EL}{aa}) -> ¬{GH}{aa}
|
[
"sent14 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent14 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the weather is not educational if that it is a delicacy and it is a delayed is not correct.
|
¬({AB}{aa} & {HM}{aa}) -> ¬{DM}{aa}
|
[
"sent18 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 20 | 0 | 20 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if the fact that it is a largeness and it is a delicacy is incorrect it does not peep flush. ; $context$ = sent1: the weather does not peep upper if the fact that it is a kind of a pistoleer and does labor chatter is not right. sent2: there exists something such that if that that it is a largeness and it is a delicacy is correct is not true it peeps flush. sent3: there is something such that if that it is not a kind of a largeness is not incorrect then it does not peep flush. sent4: that there is something such that if it is a kind of a largeness and it is a delicacy then it does not peep flush is correct. sent5: there is something such that if it is not a delicacy then it does not peep flush. sent6: the weather does not peep flush if that it secures and it is a Franck is not correct. sent7: the weather is not a largeness if that it does labor retro and it is exponential is not correct. sent8: the workman does not labor Nung if it is not endometrial. sent9: the form is not undescriptive if that it is a kind of a hyperadrenocorticism and it is a kind of a largeness is not right. sent10: there exists something such that if the fact that it does avoid and is a Sarnoff is false it is not exteroceptive. sent11: if that the stilt peeps flush and does stew Speke is false it does not peep upper. sent12: the fact that the weather peeps flush if that the weather is a largeness that is a delicacy does not hold is correct. sent13: there exists something such that if that it does peep diabetic and does fetch is incorrect then it is not subdural. sent14: if the fact that the weather is a largeness and it is a delicacy is not right the fact that it does not peep flush is not false. sent15: if that the weather is a kind of a timucu and peeps flush is not right then it is not a laurel. sent16: if the weather is a largeness and it is a delicacy then it does not peep flush. sent17: that the fact that the weather does peep flush is right does not hold if it is not a delicacy. sent18: something is not educational if that it is a delicacy and it is a delayed is false. sent19: there exists something such that if that it dummies and it is a kind of a ectomorph does not hold it is socialistic. sent20: there exists something such that if that it is both an exponential and imperative is incorrect then it does not peep Pollux. sent21: the weather is not three-dimensional if that it is a largeness and it peeps upper is not right. ; $proof$ =
|
sent14 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the polystyrene is non-glad.
|
¬{B}{aa}
|
sent1: the ilium flickers if the fact that it does peep climax and it is not a zebibit is incorrect. sent2: the polystyrene is not a Anacyclus. sent3: the fact that the polystyrene labors positivist and is not a zebibit is not right if it is not a Anacyclus. sent4: if the fact that something does labor positivist but it is not a kind of a zebibit does not hold then it is glad.
|
sent1: ¬({EK}{dr} & ¬{AB}{dr}) -> {GN}{dr} sent2: ¬{A}{aa} sent3: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent4: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: if the fact that the polystyrene does labor positivist but it is not a zebibit does not hold then it is glad.; sent3 & sent2 -> int2: the fact that the polystyrene labors positivist but it is not a zebibit is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> int1: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}; sent3 & sent2 -> int2: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the polystyrene is non-glad. ; $context$ = sent1: the ilium flickers if the fact that it does peep climax and it is not a zebibit is incorrect. sent2: the polystyrene is not a Anacyclus. sent3: the fact that the polystyrene labors positivist and is not a zebibit is not right if it is not a Anacyclus. sent4: if the fact that something does labor positivist but it is not a kind of a zebibit does not hold then it is glad. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> int1: if the fact that the polystyrene does labor positivist but it is not a zebibit does not hold then it is glad.; sent3 & sent2 -> int2: the fact that the polystyrene labors positivist but it is not a zebibit is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there is something such that if that it is a kind of an herbal that does not suffix Zulu is false then it is destructible is not true.
|
¬((Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x)
|
sent1: something diffracts if that it is nonfictional and is non-pectic is not correct. sent2: if that the lister is herbal and is not non-false does not hold then it is an integument. sent3: there is something such that if it is gerundial and does not fructify it does labor lister. sent4: if that the lister is a kind of an herbal but it does not suffix Zulu is false then it is destructible.
|
sent1: (x): ¬({EN}x & ¬{GU}x) -> {AC}x sent2: ¬({AA}{aa} & {HF}{aa}) -> {CE}{aa} sent3: (Ex): ({HL}x & ¬{GF}x) -> {HC}x sent4: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}
|
[
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there is something such that if that it is a kind of nonfictional thing that is not pectic does not hold it diffracts.
|
(Ex): ¬({EN}x & ¬{GU}x) -> {AC}x
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: if the fact that the icefall is both nonfictional and not pectic is not true it does diffract.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if that it is a kind of an herbal that does not suffix Zulu is false then it is destructible is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: something diffracts if that it is nonfictional and is non-pectic is not correct. sent2: if that the lister is herbal and is not non-false does not hold then it is an integument. sent3: there is something such that if it is gerundial and does not fructify it does labor lister. sent4: if that the lister is a kind of an herbal but it does not suffix Zulu is false then it is destructible. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the swiftlet is a whoop.
|
{A}{a}
|
sent1: there is something such that it is a endameba. sent2: if the Walker is not a kind of a deist then that it is not integrative and is not a kind of a Woolworth is not true. sent3: the fact that the Walker is not a deist hold if the consignment does not drug and it is not deist. sent4: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not integrative and it is not a Woolworth is incorrect the bars is not a kind of a cutin. sent5: the consignment is not a drug and it is not deist if there is something such that it is a endameba. sent6: if the fact that something fluctuates and does peep bowls is not correct then it does not whoop. sent7: the swiftlet does peep bowls. sent8: the fact that the swiftlet is a kind of a whoop and it does peep bowls hold.
|
sent1: (Ex): {I}x sent2: ¬{G}{d} -> ¬(¬{F}{d} & ¬{E}{d}) sent3: (¬{H}{e} & ¬{G}{e}) -> ¬{G}{d} sent4: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{E}x) -> ¬{D}{c} sent5: (x): {I}x -> (¬{H}{e} & ¬{G}{e}) sent6: (x): ¬({C}x & {B}x) -> ¬{A}x sent7: {B}{a} sent8: ({A}{a} & {B}{a})
|
[
"sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the swiftlet is not a kind of a whoop.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
[
"sent6 -> int1: the swiftlet is not a kind of a whoop if the fact that it does fluctuate and peeps bowls is false.; sent1 & sent5 -> int2: the consignment is not a kind of a drug and it is not deist.; sent3 & int2 -> int3: the Walker is not deist.; sent2 & int3 -> int4: that the Walker is disintegrative thing that is not a Woolworth is not true.; int4 -> int5: there is something such that that it is a kind of disintegrative thing that is not a Woolworth is incorrect.; int5 & sent4 -> int6: the bars is not a cutin.; int6 -> int7: there exists something such that it is not a cutin.;"
] | 10 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the swiftlet is a whoop. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it is a endameba. sent2: if the Walker is not a kind of a deist then that it is not integrative and is not a kind of a Woolworth is not true. sent3: the fact that the Walker is not a deist hold if the consignment does not drug and it is not deist. sent4: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not integrative and it is not a Woolworth is incorrect the bars is not a kind of a cutin. sent5: the consignment is not a drug and it is not deist if there is something such that it is a endameba. sent6: if the fact that something fluctuates and does peep bowls is not correct then it does not whoop. sent7: the swiftlet does peep bowls. sent8: the fact that the swiftlet is a kind of a whoop and it does peep bowls hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the dogmatist is not unsocial.
|
¬{B}{b}
|
sent1: something is not erythroid if it does not stew till. sent2: if the deep-freeze is an incumbency then it is a kind of a applique or it is not purgatorial or both. sent3: something is not a kind of an incumbency if that it is autologous and an incumbency is not right. sent4: either the deep-freeze is not a applique or it is not purgatorial or both if it is an incumbency. sent5: if the neurobiologist is nonwoody it does not stew till or it is not a cocksucker or both. sent6: the deep-freeze does applique and/or it is non-purgatorial. sent7: the deep-freeze is an incumbency. sent8: the dogmatist is unsocial if either the deep-freeze is not a kind of a applique or it is non-purgatorial or both. sent9: the deep-freeze either is not a kind of a applique or is purgatorial or both. sent10: the neurobiologist is nonwoody.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬{D}x sent2: {A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent3: (x): ¬({C}x & {A}x) -> ¬{A}x sent4: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent5: {G}{c} -> (¬{E}{c} v ¬{F}{c}) sent6: ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent7: {A}{a} sent8: (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent9: (¬{AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent10: {G}{c}
|
[
"sent4 & sent7 -> int1: the deep-freeze is not a applique and/or it is not purgatorial.; sent8 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 & sent7 -> int1: (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}); sent8 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that either the deep-freeze does not stew provitamin or it is not unsocial or both is correct.
|
(¬{CB}{a} v ¬{B}{a})
|
[
"sent3 -> int2: the dogmatist is not an incumbency if the fact that it is autologous and is an incumbency is not right.; sent5 & sent10 -> int3: the neurobiologist does not stew till and/or it is not a kind of a cocksucker.; sent1 -> int4: if the neurobiologist does not stew till it is not erythroid.;"
] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the dogmatist is not unsocial. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not erythroid if it does not stew till. sent2: if the deep-freeze is an incumbency then it is a kind of a applique or it is not purgatorial or both. sent3: something is not a kind of an incumbency if that it is autologous and an incumbency is not right. sent4: either the deep-freeze is not a applique or it is not purgatorial or both if it is an incumbency. sent5: if the neurobiologist is nonwoody it does not stew till or it is not a cocksucker or both. sent6: the deep-freeze does applique and/or it is non-purgatorial. sent7: the deep-freeze is an incumbency. sent8: the dogmatist is unsocial if either the deep-freeze is not a kind of a applique or it is non-purgatorial or both. sent9: the deep-freeze either is not a kind of a applique or is purgatorial or both. sent10: the neurobiologist is nonwoody. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 & sent7 -> int1: the deep-freeze is not a applique and/or it is not purgatorial.; sent8 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the rep does suffix Bullfinch is not wrong.
|
{B}{a}
|
sent1: something does suffix Bullfinch if it does not labor Steuben. sent2: if the fact that something procrastinates and/or is not a kind of a Dasypus is not right then it is not mandibulate. sent3: if that something is a kind of atherosclerotic thing that does not stew management is wrong it is a viomycin. sent4: the rep is a kind of a stationmaster. sent5: the fact that something is a soap but it is non-vitreous is false if it is a kind of a bigarade. sent6: the fact that the rep is invulnerable but it is not an objective is wrong if it is busy. sent7: if the fact that something suffixes lunchroom and is not a Dasypus is wrong then it is a herbicide. sent8: if the fact that something is a much but it is not an objective is wrong then it does suffix republicanism. sent9: that the fact that the lunchroom is not a bigarade but it does soap does not hold is true. sent10: the lister is both a bigarade and a bag if the fact that it does not suffix leatherwood is not incorrect. sent11: the rep is not vitreous if that the lunchroom is not a kind of a bigarade but it does soap is not correct. sent12: the rep does not suffix Bullfinch if the fact that the lunchroom does not suffix Bullfinch but it is a stationmaster is true. sent13: if the rep does not labor Steuben it suffixes Bullfinch. sent14: if that the lister is a soap but it is not vitreous is not correct then the lunchroom is not a kind of a Dasypus. sent15: if the fact that something does labor Steuben and does not busy is not right then it does suffix Bullfinch. sent16: something that is mandibulate does not suffix Bullfinch and is a stationmaster. sent17: if that the proliferation is busy thing that does not procrastinate does not hold it is megakaryocytic. sent18: something is mandibulate and it procrastinates if that it is not a kind of a Dasypus is right. sent19: the fact that the rep is a kind of a battle and is not a stew is not correct if it does busy.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{AA}x -> {B}x sent2: (x): ¬({D}x v ¬{E}x) -> ¬{C}x sent3: (x): ¬({HM}x & ¬{II}x) -> {HD}x sent4: {A}{a} sent5: (x): {H}x -> ¬({G}x & ¬{F}x) sent6: {AB}{a} -> ¬({Q}{a} & ¬{IL}{a}) sent7: (x): ¬({BR}x & ¬{E}x) -> {GK}x sent8: (x): ¬({DK}x & ¬{IL}x) -> {IR}x sent9: ¬(¬{H}{b} & {G}{b}) sent10: ¬{J}{c} -> ({H}{c} & {I}{c}) sent11: ¬(¬{H}{b} & {G}{b}) -> ¬{F}{a} sent12: (¬{B}{b} & {A}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent13: ¬{AA}{a} -> {B}{a} sent14: ¬({G}{c} & ¬{F}{c}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent15: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent16: (x): {C}x -> (¬{B}x & {A}x) sent17: ¬({AB}{bh} & ¬{D}{bh}) -> {JF}{bh} sent18: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({C}x & {D}x) sent19: {AB}{a} -> ¬({IU}{a} & ¬{ER}{a})
|
[
"sent15 -> int1: if the fact that the rep does labor Steuben but it is not busy is not correct it suffixes Bullfinch.;"
] |
[
"sent15 -> int1: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{a};"
] |
the fact that the rep does not suffix Bullfinch is not wrong.
|
¬{B}{a}
|
[
"sent16 -> int2: the lunchroom does not suffix Bullfinch but it is a stationmaster if it is mandibulate.; sent18 -> int3: the lunchroom is mandibulate thing that does procrastinate if it is not a Dasypus.; sent5 -> int4: if the lister is a bigarade then that it is a soap and is not vitreous is not true.;"
] | 8 | 2 | null | 17 | 0 | 17 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the rep does suffix Bullfinch is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: something does suffix Bullfinch if it does not labor Steuben. sent2: if the fact that something procrastinates and/or is not a kind of a Dasypus is not right then it is not mandibulate. sent3: if that something is a kind of atherosclerotic thing that does not stew management is wrong it is a viomycin. sent4: the rep is a kind of a stationmaster. sent5: the fact that something is a soap but it is non-vitreous is false if it is a kind of a bigarade. sent6: the fact that the rep is invulnerable but it is not an objective is wrong if it is busy. sent7: if the fact that something suffixes lunchroom and is not a Dasypus is wrong then it is a herbicide. sent8: if the fact that something is a much but it is not an objective is wrong then it does suffix republicanism. sent9: that the fact that the lunchroom is not a bigarade but it does soap does not hold is true. sent10: the lister is both a bigarade and a bag if the fact that it does not suffix leatherwood is not incorrect. sent11: the rep is not vitreous if that the lunchroom is not a kind of a bigarade but it does soap is not correct. sent12: the rep does not suffix Bullfinch if the fact that the lunchroom does not suffix Bullfinch but it is a stationmaster is true. sent13: if the rep does not labor Steuben it suffixes Bullfinch. sent14: if that the lister is a soap but it is not vitreous is not correct then the lunchroom is not a kind of a Dasypus. sent15: if the fact that something does labor Steuben and does not busy is not right then it does suffix Bullfinch. sent16: something that is mandibulate does not suffix Bullfinch and is a stationmaster. sent17: if that the proliferation is busy thing that does not procrastinate does not hold it is megakaryocytic. sent18: something is mandibulate and it procrastinates if that it is not a kind of a Dasypus is right. sent19: the fact that the rep is a kind of a battle and is not a stew is not correct if it does busy. ; $proof$ =
|
sent15 -> int1: if the fact that the rep does labor Steuben but it is not busy is not correct it suffixes Bullfinch.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the geordie is mechanistic is not false.
|
{C}{a}
|
sent1: if the haranguer is mechanistic then the geordie is mechanistic. sent2: the geordie does peep hold. sent3: if there is something such that it does not peep hold or is not mechanistic or both the carbomycin is not a D. sent4: if the fact that the Toda whispers but it is not resentful is not true then the halon is a kind of a whispers. sent5: the teacher is not interlocutory. sent6: if the halon is not a kind of an endemic then the haranguer is a limousine and it is a monasticism. sent7: if the geordie peeps hold it is not a D. sent8: if that something is a whisper is not false it is non-endemic thing that does not labor Anasa. sent9: The hold does peep geordie. sent10: if the teacher is not interlocutory the fact that it does not stew subpoena and does not suffix till is false. sent11: the fact that the geordie is not a PWR does not hold. sent12: the zonule does not peep hold if it does unsaddle. sent13: the Lander does not peep hold. sent14: if that the teacher does not stew subpoena and it does not suffix till is not correct the rebozo is a kind of a fergusonite. sent15: if something is not a D it is not mechanistic. sent16: if the rebozo is a fergusonite then the fact that the Toda whispers and is not resentful is not right.
|
sent1: {C}{b} -> {C}{a} sent2: {A}{a} sent3: (x): (¬{A}x v ¬{C}x) -> ¬{B}{hn} sent4: ¬({H}{d} & ¬{J}{d}) -> {H}{c} sent5: ¬{M}{f} sent6: ¬{F}{c} -> ({D}{b} & {E}{b}) sent7: {A}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent8: (x): {H}x -> (¬{F}x & ¬{G}x) sent9: {AA}{aa} sent10: ¬{M}{f} -> ¬(¬{K}{f} & ¬{L}{f}) sent11: {HU}{a} sent12: {DG}{ec} -> ¬{A}{ec} sent13: ¬{A}{im} sent14: ¬(¬{K}{f} & ¬{L}{f}) -> {I}{e} sent15: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{C}x sent16: {I}{e} -> ¬({H}{d} & ¬{J}{d})
|
[
"sent7 & sent2 -> int1: the geordie is not a kind of a D.; sent15 -> int2: the geordie is not mechanistic if it is not a D.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent7 & sent2 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; sent15 -> int2: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬{C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the carbomycin is not a D.
|
¬{B}{hn}
|
[
"sent8 -> int3: the halon is not a kind of an endemic and it does not labor Anasa if it does whisper.; sent10 & sent5 -> int4: the fact that the teacher does not stew subpoena and it does not suffix till is wrong.; sent14 & int4 -> int5: that the rebozo is a fergusonite is true.; sent16 & int5 -> int6: that the Toda is both a whisper and not resentful does not hold.; sent4 & int6 -> int7: the halon is a whisper.; int3 & int7 -> int8: that the halon is not an endemic and does not labor Anasa hold.; int8 -> int9: the halon is not endemic.; sent6 & int9 -> int10: the haranguer is a limousine and a monasticism.; int10 -> int11: that the haranguer is a kind of a limousine hold.; int11 -> int12: there is something such that it is a limousine.;"
] | 12 | 2 | 2 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the geordie is mechanistic is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: if the haranguer is mechanistic then the geordie is mechanistic. sent2: the geordie does peep hold. sent3: if there is something such that it does not peep hold or is not mechanistic or both the carbomycin is not a D. sent4: if the fact that the Toda whispers but it is not resentful is not true then the halon is a kind of a whispers. sent5: the teacher is not interlocutory. sent6: if the halon is not a kind of an endemic then the haranguer is a limousine and it is a monasticism. sent7: if the geordie peeps hold it is not a D. sent8: if that something is a whisper is not false it is non-endemic thing that does not labor Anasa. sent9: The hold does peep geordie. sent10: if the teacher is not interlocutory the fact that it does not stew subpoena and does not suffix till is false. sent11: the fact that the geordie is not a PWR does not hold. sent12: the zonule does not peep hold if it does unsaddle. sent13: the Lander does not peep hold. sent14: if that the teacher does not stew subpoena and it does not suffix till is not correct the rebozo is a kind of a fergusonite. sent15: if something is not a D it is not mechanistic. sent16: if the rebozo is a fergusonite then the fact that the Toda whispers and is not resentful is not right. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 & sent2 -> int1: the geordie is not a kind of a D.; sent15 -> int2: the geordie is not mechanistic if it is not a D.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the racer is not paleontological.
|
¬{C}{b}
|
sent1: an illicit thing is a kind of a hair's-breadth. sent2: the brickwork is paleontological. sent3: the brickwork does stew alexandrite and is not a Plassey. sent4: the racer is a virtuosity. sent5: that the second-rater does not labor Speke and is not a raree-show does not hold if there exists something such that that it labor Speke hold. sent6: the brickwork is not paleontological if it does stew alexandrite and it is a virtuosity. sent7: the brickwork is not paleontological if it suffixes supermarket and is a Plassey. sent8: the coprophagy is prandial but it is not a tetrachloride. sent9: something is a coffeeberry if it is not a care. sent10: if something is not androgenetic it is not a virtuosity or is not a suit or both. sent11: if something is not colorimetric then it is paleontological and it suffixes supermarket. sent12: if something is colorimetric thing that suffixes supermarket that it is not paleontological hold. sent13: if the brickwork does stew alexandrite and it is a Plassey then the racer is colorimetric. sent14: if the brickwork equalizes the racer is not androgenetic. sent15: the racer suffixes supermarket and it is a virtuosity. sent16: the racer is colorimetric if the brickwork stews alexandrite but it is not a Plassey. sent17: if the second-rater is a coffeeberry the grout is not non-illicit. sent18: the brickwork is not a kind of a Plassey. sent19: the quitter labors Speke. sent20: if something is not a virtuosity and/or it does not suit it is not colorimetric. sent21: if the grout is a kind of a hair's-breadth the fact that the rya is a kind of a Wain but it does not suffix buck is not true. sent22: if the fact that something does not labor Speke and is not a raree-show is not right then it is not a kind of a care.
|
sent1: (x): {K}x -> {J}x sent2: {C}{a} sent3: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent4: {D}{b} sent5: (x): {N}x -> ¬(¬{N}{e} & ¬{O}{e}) sent6: ({AA}{a} & {D}{a}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent7: ({A}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent8: ({HF}{r} & ¬{DT}{r}) sent9: (x): ¬{M}x -> {L}x sent10: (x): ¬{F}x -> (¬{D}x v ¬{E}x) sent11: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({C}x & {A}x) sent12: (x): ({B}x & {A}x) -> ¬{C}x sent13: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent14: {G}{a} -> ¬{F}{b} sent15: ({A}{b} & {D}{b}) sent16: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent17: {L}{e} -> {K}{d} sent18: ¬{AB}{a} sent19: {N}{f} sent20: (x): (¬{D}x v ¬{E}x) -> ¬{B}x sent21: {J}{d} -> ¬({I}{c} & ¬{H}{c}) sent22: (x): ¬(¬{N}x & ¬{O}x) -> ¬{M}x
|
[
"sent16 & sent3 -> int1: the racer is colorimetric.; sent15 -> int2: the racer suffixes supermarket.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the racer is colorimetric and it suffixes supermarket.; sent12 -> int4: if the racer is colorimetric thing that does suffix supermarket it is not paleontological.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent16 & sent3 -> int1: {B}{b}; sent15 -> int2: {A}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({B}{b} & {A}{b}); sent12 -> int4: ({B}{b} & {A}{b}) -> ¬{C}{b}; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the racer is paleontological is true.
|
{C}{b}
|
[
"sent11 -> int5: the racer is paleontological and does suffix supermarket if it is not colorimetric.; sent20 -> int6: if the racer is not a virtuosity or not a suit or both then it is not colorimetric.; sent10 -> int7: the racer either is not a kind of a virtuosity or is not a suit or both if it is not androgenetic.; sent1 -> int8: the grout is a hair's-breadth if it is illicit.; sent9 -> int9: if the second-rater is not a care it is a coffeeberry.; sent22 -> int10: if that the second-rater does not labor Speke and is not a raree-show is false then it is not a care.; sent19 -> int11: there is something such that it labors Speke.; int11 & sent5 -> int12: the fact that the second-rater does not labor Speke and it is not a kind of a raree-show does not hold.; int10 & int12 -> int13: the second-rater does not care.; int9 & int13 -> int14: the second-rater is a coffeeberry.; sent17 & int14 -> int15: the grout is illicit.; int8 & int15 -> int16: the grout is a hair's-breadth.; sent21 & int16 -> int17: that the rya is a Wain but it does not suffix buck is not right.; int17 -> int18: there is something such that the fact that it is a Wain and it does not suffix buck is wrong.;"
] | 14 | 3 | 3 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the racer is not paleontological. ; $context$ = sent1: an illicit thing is a kind of a hair's-breadth. sent2: the brickwork is paleontological. sent3: the brickwork does stew alexandrite and is not a Plassey. sent4: the racer is a virtuosity. sent5: that the second-rater does not labor Speke and is not a raree-show does not hold if there exists something such that that it labor Speke hold. sent6: the brickwork is not paleontological if it does stew alexandrite and it is a virtuosity. sent7: the brickwork is not paleontological if it suffixes supermarket and is a Plassey. sent8: the coprophagy is prandial but it is not a tetrachloride. sent9: something is a coffeeberry if it is not a care. sent10: if something is not androgenetic it is not a virtuosity or is not a suit or both. sent11: if something is not colorimetric then it is paleontological and it suffixes supermarket. sent12: if something is colorimetric thing that suffixes supermarket that it is not paleontological hold. sent13: if the brickwork does stew alexandrite and it is a Plassey then the racer is colorimetric. sent14: if the brickwork equalizes the racer is not androgenetic. sent15: the racer suffixes supermarket and it is a virtuosity. sent16: the racer is colorimetric if the brickwork stews alexandrite but it is not a Plassey. sent17: if the second-rater is a coffeeberry the grout is not non-illicit. sent18: the brickwork is not a kind of a Plassey. sent19: the quitter labors Speke. sent20: if something is not a virtuosity and/or it does not suit it is not colorimetric. sent21: if the grout is a kind of a hair's-breadth the fact that the rya is a kind of a Wain but it does not suffix buck is not true. sent22: if the fact that something does not labor Speke and is not a raree-show is not right then it is not a kind of a care. ; $proof$ =
|
sent16 & sent3 -> int1: the racer is colorimetric.; sent15 -> int2: the racer suffixes supermarket.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the racer is colorimetric and it suffixes supermarket.; sent12 -> int4: if the racer is colorimetric thing that does suffix supermarket it is not paleontological.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the funambulist is not extrospective.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
sent1: the funambulist is extrospective if the carbonation is extrospective. sent2: the funambulist does not suffix Puebla and it is not determinable. sent3: the funambulist is both not outing and not a postmistress. sent4: the funambulist does not quell if it does not suffix Puebla and it is not determinable. sent5: if the Park is not a riddled and is binocular it does not quell.
|
sent1: {A}{b} -> {A}{a} sent2: (¬{C}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent3: (¬{CH}{a} & ¬{GP}{a}) sent4: (¬{C}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent5: (¬{FJ}{cp} & {CS}{cp}) -> ¬{B}{cp}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the funambulist is extrospective.; sent4 & sent2 -> int1: the funambulist does not quell.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}{a}; sent4 & sent2 -> int1: ¬{B}{a};"
] |
the funambulist is extrospective.
|
{A}{a}
|
[] | 4 | 3 | null | 3 | 0 | 3 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the funambulist is not extrospective. ; $context$ = sent1: the funambulist is extrospective if the carbonation is extrospective. sent2: the funambulist does not suffix Puebla and it is not determinable. sent3: the funambulist is both not outing and not a postmistress. sent4: the funambulist does not quell if it does not suffix Puebla and it is not determinable. sent5: if the Park is not a riddled and is binocular it does not quell. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the funambulist is extrospective.; sent4 & sent2 -> int1: the funambulist does not quell.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the LPN suffixes dirge but it is not a kind of a Amarillo is wrong.
|
¬({B}{b} & ¬{C}{b})
|
sent1: the tray is not a kind of a vireo if there is something such that that it is a vireo and it is not areal does not hold. sent2: the Galloway is pyrogallic if it is not a vireo and/or is distal. sent3: the sternum does peep artificiality and it is a Ottumwa. sent4: there is something such that the fact that it is genic and it is textile is incorrect. sent5: the LPN suffixes dirge but it is not a Amarillo if the Galloway suffixes dirge. sent6: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a vireo then either the Galloway is not a vireo or it is distal or both. sent7: that something is not a Amarillo and it does not suffix groundmass does not hold if it does not suffix dirge. sent8: if something is a Hendrix it does suffix groundmass. sent9: the Galloway suffixes groundmass if there is something such that that it is genic and it is textile does not hold. sent10: the tray does not suffix dirge if there is something such that the fact that it suffix dirge and is not adnate is not right. sent11: something does suffix dirge if that it suffixes groundmass is right. sent12: the fact that something suffixes dirge but it is not a Amarillo is not true if it suffixes groundmass. sent13: if something is a Ottumwa then it is a kind of an affined. sent14: that the fact that the auxin is a vireo and is not areal is not correct if the sternum is a crocket hold. sent15: the fact that the Galloway is a workaholism and it does peep bicorn does not hold if there exists something such that the fact that it does suffix groundmass is true. sent16: that the auxin does suffix dirge and is not adnate is not correct. sent17: the sternum is a kind of a crocket if that it is a kind of an affined is not false.
|
sent1: (x): ¬({H}x & ¬{J}x) -> ¬{H}{c} sent2: (¬{H}{a} v {G}{a}) -> {F}{a} sent3: ({M}{e} & {L}{e}) sent4: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent5: {B}{a} -> ({B}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent6: (x): ¬{H}x -> (¬{H}{a} v {G}{a}) sent7: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{A}x) sent8: (x): {D}x -> {A}x sent9: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent10: (x): ¬({B}x & ¬{E}x) -> ¬{B}{c} sent11: (x): {A}x -> {B}x sent12: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x) sent13: (x): {L}x -> {K}x sent14: {I}{e} -> ¬({H}{d} & ¬{J}{d}) sent15: (x): {A}x -> ¬({BT}{a} & {IS}{a}) sent16: ¬({B}{d} & ¬{E}{d}) sent17: {K}{e} -> {I}{e}
|
[
"sent4 & sent9 -> int1: the Galloway does suffix groundmass.; sent11 -> int2: the Galloway suffixes dirge if that it suffixes groundmass is not incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Galloway suffixes dirge.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 & sent9 -> int1: {A}{a}; sent11 -> int2: {A}{a} -> {B}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {B}{a}; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there exists something such that the fact that it is a workaholism and does peep bicorn is not correct.
|
(Ex): ¬({BT}x & {IS}x)
|
[
"sent7 -> int4: if the tray does not suffix dirge then the fact that it is not a Amarillo and it does not suffix groundmass is not right.; sent16 -> int5: there exists something such that the fact that it does suffix dirge and is not adnate is false.; int5 & sent10 -> int6: the tray does not suffix dirge.; int4 & int6 -> int7: that the tray is not a kind of a Amarillo and does not suffix groundmass is not correct.; int7 -> int8: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a Amarillo and does not suffix groundmass is not right.;"
] | 8 | 3 | 3 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the LPN suffixes dirge but it is not a kind of a Amarillo is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the tray is not a kind of a vireo if there is something such that that it is a vireo and it is not areal does not hold. sent2: the Galloway is pyrogallic if it is not a vireo and/or is distal. sent3: the sternum does peep artificiality and it is a Ottumwa. sent4: there is something such that the fact that it is genic and it is textile is incorrect. sent5: the LPN suffixes dirge but it is not a Amarillo if the Galloway suffixes dirge. sent6: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a vireo then either the Galloway is not a vireo or it is distal or both. sent7: that something is not a Amarillo and it does not suffix groundmass does not hold if it does not suffix dirge. sent8: if something is a Hendrix it does suffix groundmass. sent9: the Galloway suffixes groundmass if there is something such that that it is genic and it is textile does not hold. sent10: the tray does not suffix dirge if there is something such that the fact that it suffix dirge and is not adnate is not right. sent11: something does suffix dirge if that it suffixes groundmass is right. sent12: the fact that something suffixes dirge but it is not a Amarillo is not true if it suffixes groundmass. sent13: if something is a Ottumwa then it is a kind of an affined. sent14: that the fact that the auxin is a vireo and is not areal is not correct if the sternum is a crocket hold. sent15: the fact that the Galloway is a workaholism and it does peep bicorn does not hold if there exists something such that the fact that it does suffix groundmass is true. sent16: that the auxin does suffix dirge and is not adnate is not correct. sent17: the sternum is a kind of a crocket if that it is a kind of an affined is not false. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 & sent9 -> int1: the Galloway does suffix groundmass.; sent11 -> int2: the Galloway suffixes dirge if that it suffixes groundmass is not incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Galloway suffixes dirge.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the KR is a kind of a barterer.
|
{A}{a}
|
sent1: everything is dyadic. sent2: there is something such that the fact that it does not stew testatrix and it is not anaphasic is false. sent3: the KR is a kind of a barterer if there is something such that that it is not a noncom and not greenside does not hold. sent4: the KR is not unmade if there exists something such that that it is an underperformer and it is unmade is not right. sent5: if something is dyadic then the fact that it is a kind of a ghrelin and is not Swedish is not right. sent6: that the claystone is not a noncom and it is not greenside is incorrect.
|
sent1: (x): {F}x sent2: (Ex): ¬(¬{U}x & ¬{JC}x) sent3: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent4: (x): ¬({D}x & {B}x) -> ¬{B}{a} sent5: (x): {F}x -> ¬({C}x & ¬{E}x) sent6: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})
|
[
"sent6 -> int1: there is something such that that it is not a noncom and it is not greenside does not hold.; int1 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 -> int1: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x); int1 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the fact that the PCP is not a kind of a mongo and it is not a barterer is not true is not incorrect.
|
¬(¬{JB}{ae} & ¬{A}{ae})
|
[
"sent5 -> int2: if the pleochroism is dyadic then that that it is a ghrelin and it is not Swedish hold is false.; sent1 -> int3: the pleochroism is dyadic.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the fact that the pleochroism is a kind of a ghrelin that is not a Swedish does not hold.; int4 -> int5: there exists nothing that is a ghrelin that is not a Swedish.; int5 -> int6: that the nudist is a kind of a ghrelin that is not a kind of a Swedish is incorrect.; int6 -> int7: there exists something such that that it is a ghrelin and not a Swedish does not hold.;"
] | 10 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the KR is a kind of a barterer. ; $context$ = sent1: everything is dyadic. sent2: there is something such that the fact that it does not stew testatrix and it is not anaphasic is false. sent3: the KR is a kind of a barterer if there is something such that that it is not a noncom and not greenside does not hold. sent4: the KR is not unmade if there exists something such that that it is an underperformer and it is unmade is not right. sent5: if something is dyadic then the fact that it is a kind of a ghrelin and is not Swedish is not right. sent6: that the claystone is not a noncom and it is not greenside is incorrect. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 -> int1: there is something such that that it is not a noncom and it is not greenside does not hold.; int1 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there exists something such that if it is a stillroom that it is not inadequate and not Vedic is false is not correct.
|
¬((Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x))
|
sent1: the fact that the journalist is both not inadequate and not Vedic is not correct if it is a stillroom.
|
sent1: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it is a stillroom that it is not inadequate and not Vedic is false is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the journalist is both not inadequate and not Vedic is not correct if it is a stillroom. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the acrobat is not a Samarkand.
|
¬{B}{a}
|
sent1: the broth does not peep alloyed if it is a coinage. sent2: if something is a coinage then it is a choppiness. sent3: if something is a coinage it does not peep alloyed. sent4: the broth is a coinage and it is a choppiness. sent5: if the acrobat does attitudinize then it is cytoplastic. sent6: the acrobat is not a kind of a Samarkand if the broth peeps alloyed and is underhand. sent7: if something is a coinage then it does not peep alloyed and it is underhand. sent8: the acrobat is a choppiness. sent9: the broth does not tittup. sent10: the fact that the broth is a choppiness is not false. sent11: the acrobat is not a Samarkand if the broth does not peep alloyed and is underhand. sent12: that the goat is underhand hold. sent13: the fact that the broth does not peep alloyed hold. sent14: the fact that something is not a coinage and is not a Samarkand is not correct if it is not a choppiness.
|
sent1: {A}{aa} -> ¬{AA}{aa} sent2: (x): {A}x -> {C}x sent3: (x): {A}x -> ¬{AA}x sent4: ({A}{aa} & {C}{aa}) sent5: {HN}{a} -> {GT}{a} sent6: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent7: (x): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent8: {C}{a} sent9: ¬{EF}{aa} sent10: {C}{aa} sent11: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent12: {AB}{fu} sent13: ¬{AA}{aa} sent14: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{B}x)
|
[
"sent7 -> int1: the broth does not peep alloyed but it is underhand if it is a coinage.; sent4 -> int2: the broth is a kind of a coinage.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the broth does not peep alloyed but it is underhand.; int3 & sent11 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent7 -> int1: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); sent4 -> int2: {A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> int3: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int3 & sent11 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the acrobat is a kind of a Samarkand.
|
{B}{a}
|
[
"sent14 -> int4: if the finger is not a kind of a choppiness then the fact that the fact that it is not a coinage and is not a Samarkand is right is incorrect.;"
] | 5 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the acrobat is not a Samarkand. ; $context$ = sent1: the broth does not peep alloyed if it is a coinage. sent2: if something is a coinage then it is a choppiness. sent3: if something is a coinage it does not peep alloyed. sent4: the broth is a coinage and it is a choppiness. sent5: if the acrobat does attitudinize then it is cytoplastic. sent6: the acrobat is not a kind of a Samarkand if the broth peeps alloyed and is underhand. sent7: if something is a coinage then it does not peep alloyed and it is underhand. sent8: the acrobat is a choppiness. sent9: the broth does not tittup. sent10: the fact that the broth is a choppiness is not false. sent11: the acrobat is not a Samarkand if the broth does not peep alloyed and is underhand. sent12: that the goat is underhand hold. sent13: the fact that the broth does not peep alloyed hold. sent14: the fact that something is not a coinage and is not a Samarkand is not correct if it is not a choppiness. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 -> int1: the broth does not peep alloyed but it is underhand if it is a coinage.; sent4 -> int2: the broth is a kind of a coinage.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the broth does not peep alloyed but it is underhand.; int3 & sent11 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the untouchable does not wan is correct.
|
¬{C}{a}
|
sent1: the fact that if the fact that the lichen does spank is true then the Gouda is not absent and it is not mesonic is right. sent2: if the Rwandan is not absent the fact that the scan is not a avo and is mesonic is false. sent3: the state is a kind of a Manichaean that is not salient. sent4: a camail that is a publicist does not wan. sent5: if something is not a titivation then it is a kind of a camail. sent6: something is not argumentative if that it is argumentative and it is a titivation is incorrect. sent7: if something that does wan is not a publicist it is a camail. sent8: the lichen spanks and it peeps Nicholas. sent9: if a non-absent thing is not mesonic the Rwandan is not a avo. sent10: the Rwandan is not absent if the Gouda spanks and it does peep Nicholas. sent11: if something is not argumentative then it is a camail. sent12: the untouchable is a camail. sent13: if something is Manichaean but it is not salient it is not cleistogamous. sent14: the Gouda is a spank. sent15: the sertraline is a publicist. sent16: the untouchable is a kind of a publicist. sent17: the scan is not a kind of a publicist if something is not cleistogamous. sent18: the fact that the opsin is argumentative and is a titivation does not hold if the untouchable is not cleistogamous. sent19: the scan is unargumentative or it is not a kind of a titivation or both if the Rwandan is not a avo. sent20: something does wan and is not a publicist if the fact that it is not argumentative is not wrong.
|
sent1: {J}{e} -> (¬{I}{d} & ¬{H}{d}) sent2: ¬{I}{c} -> ¬(¬{G}{b} & {H}{b}) sent3: ({M}{f} & ¬{L}{f}) sent4: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}x sent5: (x): ¬{E}x -> {A}x sent6: (x): ¬({D}x & {E}x) -> ¬{D}x sent7: (x): ({C}x & ¬{B}x) -> {A}x sent8: ({J}{e} & {K}{e}) sent9: (x): (¬{I}x & ¬{H}x) -> ¬{G}{c} sent10: ({J}{d} & {K}{d}) -> ¬{I}{c} sent11: (x): ¬{D}x -> {A}x sent12: {A}{a} sent13: (x): ({M}x & ¬{L}x) -> ¬{F}x sent14: {J}{d} sent15: {B}{er} sent16: {B}{a} sent17: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬{B}{b} sent18: ¬{F}{a} -> ¬({D}{fp} & {E}{fp}) sent19: ¬{G}{c} -> (¬{D}{b} v ¬{E}{b}) sent20: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({C}x & ¬{B}x)
|
[
"sent12 & sent16 -> int1: the untouchable is a camail and it is a publicist.; sent4 -> int2: if the untouchable is a camail and it is a publicist then it does not wan.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent12 & sent16 -> int1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}); sent4 -> int2: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the untouchable does wan.
|
{C}{a}
|
[
"sent8 -> int3: the fact that the lichen spanks hold.; sent1 & int3 -> int4: the Gouda is not absent but non-mesonic.; int4 -> int5: something does not absent and it is not mesonic.; int5 & sent9 -> int6: the Rwandan is not a avo.; sent19 & int6 -> int7: the scan is not argumentative and/or it is not a titivation.; sent11 -> int8: the scan is a kind of a camail if it is not argumentative.; sent5 -> int9: the scan is a camail if it is not a kind of a titivation.; int7 & int8 & int9 -> int10: the scan is a camail.; sent13 -> int11: the state is not cleistogamous if it is a Manichaean and it is not a salient.; int11 & sent3 -> int12: the state is not cleistogamous.; int12 -> int13: there are non-cleistogamous things.; int13 & sent17 -> int14: the scan is not a publicist.; int10 & int14 -> int15: the scan is both a camail and not a publicist.; int15 -> int16: something is a camail but it is not a kind of a publicist.;"
] | 9 | 2 | 2 | 17 | 0 | 17 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the untouchable does not wan is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that if the fact that the lichen does spank is true then the Gouda is not absent and it is not mesonic is right. sent2: if the Rwandan is not absent the fact that the scan is not a avo and is mesonic is false. sent3: the state is a kind of a Manichaean that is not salient. sent4: a camail that is a publicist does not wan. sent5: if something is not a titivation then it is a kind of a camail. sent6: something is not argumentative if that it is argumentative and it is a titivation is incorrect. sent7: if something that does wan is not a publicist it is a camail. sent8: the lichen spanks and it peeps Nicholas. sent9: if a non-absent thing is not mesonic the Rwandan is not a avo. sent10: the Rwandan is not absent if the Gouda spanks and it does peep Nicholas. sent11: if something is not argumentative then it is a camail. sent12: the untouchable is a camail. sent13: if something is Manichaean but it is not salient it is not cleistogamous. sent14: the Gouda is a spank. sent15: the sertraline is a publicist. sent16: the untouchable is a kind of a publicist. sent17: the scan is not a kind of a publicist if something is not cleistogamous. sent18: the fact that the opsin is argumentative and is a titivation does not hold if the untouchable is not cleistogamous. sent19: the scan is unargumentative or it is not a kind of a titivation or both if the Rwandan is not a avo. sent20: something does wan and is not a publicist if the fact that it is not argumentative is not wrong. ; $proof$ =
|
sent12 & sent16 -> int1: the untouchable is a camail and it is a publicist.; sent4 -> int2: if the untouchable is a camail and it is a publicist then it does not wan.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the rat-catcher is pentatonic.
|
{AA}{a}
|
sent1: everything is a dash and/or it is a disposable. sent2: if that the Gent is not pentatonic and it is not maxillomandibular is wrong the rat-catcher is pentatonic. sent3: the rat-catcher does not dash but it is a cymule. sent4: if the deadhead is a dash then the mullet is a poster. sent5: the rat-catcher is non-pentatonic thing that is a kind of a Arctium if it is maxillomandibular. sent6: if the Gent is not a kind of a poster it is not heedless but maxillomandibular. sent7: the multivitamin is not a Arctium. sent8: the rat-catcher is a kind of a Arctium if it is maxillomandibular. sent9: the rat-catcher is maxillomandibular. sent10: the rat-catcher is a Arctium. sent11: the lockstitch is not a kind of a Arctium. sent12: the trivet is heedless if the mullet is a kind of a poster. sent13: if the rat-catcher does not suffix sporozoite and is not a Arctium then the ziggurat is not a Arctium.
|
sent1: (x): ({F}x v {E}x) sent2: ¬(¬{AA}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) -> {AA}{a} sent3: (¬{F}{a} & {EM}{a}) sent4: {F}{f} -> {D}{e} sent5: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent6: ¬{D}{b} -> (¬{C}{b} & {A}{b}) sent7: ¬{AB}{g} sent8: {A}{a} -> {AB}{a} sent9: {A}{a} sent10: {AB}{a} sent11: ¬{AB}{aa} sent12: {D}{e} -> {C}{d} sent13: (¬{B}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{AB}{cs}
|
[
"sent5 & sent9 -> int1: the rat-catcher is a kind of non-pentatonic thing that is a Arctium.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 & sent9 -> int1: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the ziggurat is not a Arctium.
|
¬{AB}{cs}
|
[] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the rat-catcher is pentatonic. ; $context$ = sent1: everything is a dash and/or it is a disposable. sent2: if that the Gent is not pentatonic and it is not maxillomandibular is wrong the rat-catcher is pentatonic. sent3: the rat-catcher does not dash but it is a cymule. sent4: if the deadhead is a dash then the mullet is a poster. sent5: the rat-catcher is non-pentatonic thing that is a kind of a Arctium if it is maxillomandibular. sent6: if the Gent is not a kind of a poster it is not heedless but maxillomandibular. sent7: the multivitamin is not a Arctium. sent8: the rat-catcher is a kind of a Arctium if it is maxillomandibular. sent9: the rat-catcher is maxillomandibular. sent10: the rat-catcher is a Arctium. sent11: the lockstitch is not a kind of a Arctium. sent12: the trivet is heedless if the mullet is a kind of a poster. sent13: if the rat-catcher does not suffix sporozoite and is not a Arctium then the ziggurat is not a Arctium. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 & sent9 -> int1: the rat-catcher is a kind of non-pentatonic thing that is a Arctium.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that something is not magnetic and it is colloidal is false.
|
¬((Ex): ({C}x & {B}x))
|
sent1: the miro is a kind of a Sade. sent2: the harebell is a Sade. sent3: the miro is colloidal if it is a kind of a Sade. sent4: the miro does prefigure. sent5: something is colloidal. sent6: if something is not a Sade then it does prefigure. sent7: the miro is a kind of a gooney that suffixes goatherd. sent8: something is choral if it is polemoniaceous. sent9: if something is choral then the fact that it is nonmagnetic or is not colloidal or both is not true. sent10: there exists something such that it is nonmagnetic. sent11: that the dovetail is extraterritorial and it is polemoniaceous hold if something does labor hogback. sent12: the miro is a barrel. sent13: the churn prefigures. sent14: the camp is a Sade. sent15: the miro is nonmagnetic and it does prefigure. sent16: the miro is a meadowgrass and does suffix goatherd. sent17: something labors hogback.
|
sent1: {A}{a} sent2: {A}{fj} sent3: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent4: {D}{a} sent5: (Ex): {B}x sent6: (x): ¬{A}x -> {D}x sent7: ({CG}{a} & {CM}{a}) sent8: (x): {F}x -> {E}x sent9: (x): {E}x -> ¬({C}x v ¬{B}x) sent10: (Ex): {C}x sent11: (x): {H}x -> ({G}{gj} & {F}{gj}) sent12: {GK}{a} sent13: {D}{dl} sent14: {A}{fu} sent15: ({C}{a} & {D}{a}) sent16: ({BI}{a} & {CM}{a}) sent17: (Ex): {H}x
|
[
"sent3 & sent1 -> int1: the miro is colloidal.; sent15 -> int2: the miro is nonmagnetic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the miro is a kind of nonmagnetic thing that is colloidal.; int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent1 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent15 -> int2: {C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({C}{a} & {B}{a}); int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the dovetail does prefigure.
|
{D}{gj}
|
[
"sent6 -> int4: the dovetail prefigures if it is not a Sade.; sent9 -> int5: if the dovetail is choral that the fact that either it is not magnetic or it is not colloidal or both is not false is not right.; sent8 -> int6: the dovetail is choral if it is polemoniaceous.; sent17 & sent11 -> int7: the dovetail is extraterritorial and it is polemoniaceous.; int7 -> int8: the dovetail is polemoniaceous.; int6 & int8 -> int9: the dovetail is choral.; int5 & int9 -> int10: the fact that either the dovetail is nonmagnetic or it is not colloidal or both does not hold.;"
] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 14 | 0 | 14 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that something is not magnetic and it is colloidal is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the miro is a kind of a Sade. sent2: the harebell is a Sade. sent3: the miro is colloidal if it is a kind of a Sade. sent4: the miro does prefigure. sent5: something is colloidal. sent6: if something is not a Sade then it does prefigure. sent7: the miro is a kind of a gooney that suffixes goatherd. sent8: something is choral if it is polemoniaceous. sent9: if something is choral then the fact that it is nonmagnetic or is not colloidal or both is not true. sent10: there exists something such that it is nonmagnetic. sent11: that the dovetail is extraterritorial and it is polemoniaceous hold if something does labor hogback. sent12: the miro is a barrel. sent13: the churn prefigures. sent14: the camp is a Sade. sent15: the miro is nonmagnetic and it does prefigure. sent16: the miro is a meadowgrass and does suffix goatherd. sent17: something labors hogback. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent1 -> int1: the miro is colloidal.; sent15 -> int2: the miro is nonmagnetic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the miro is a kind of nonmagnetic thing that is colloidal.; int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if it is a kind of an inside then it does not labor limiter and is pneumatic.
|
(Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x)
|
sent1: there is something such that if it is a seven it does not suffix transporter and is sustentacular. sent2: there is something such that if it is a glipizide it is not a subject but a dissuasion. sent3: the Salish is not pneumatic but it is a kind of a seek if the fact that it sublimes is true. sent4: if the Salish does nestle it is not pneumatic and is evaporative. sent5: the Salish does not peep tray and encircles if it does labor limiter. sent6: there is something such that if it is a sense it is not a shift and does stew clergyman. sent7: there is something such that if it is a Indian it does not peep lupine and is evaporative. sent8: if the fact that the Salish is an inside hold then it does labor limiter and is pneumatic. sent9: something does not suffix cybercrime and sublimes if it does retail. sent10: there exists something such that if it is an inside then it is pneumatic. sent11: the Salish is pneumatic if it is an inside. sent12: something does not grind and suffixes keyboard if it suffixes batch. sent13: if something is an inside it is pneumatic. sent14: there is something such that if it does peep frailty then it is a kind of non-evaporative thing that peeps persecution. sent15: if the hammock labors Domingo then it is not an epistemology and pleases. sent16: if something is a kind of an inside it labors limiter and it is pneumatic. sent17: something is not a kind of a sou'-sou'-west but it is unwoven if it does peep ammeter. sent18: there exists something such that if the fact that it is inside hold then it labors limiter and is pneumatic.
|
sent1: (Ex): {FT}x -> (¬{GK}x & {JA}x) sent2: (Ex): {AD}x -> (¬{BE}x & {BL}x) sent3: {AO}{aa} -> (¬{AB}{aa} & {ET}{aa}) sent4: {AQ}{aa} -> (¬{AB}{aa} & {HF}{aa}) sent5: {AA}{aa} -> (¬{CR}{aa} & {CT}{aa}) sent6: (Ex): {CN}x -> (¬{FG}x & {FE}x) sent7: (Ex): {HI}x -> (¬{BI}x & {HF}x) sent8: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent9: (x): {EP}x -> (¬{IH}x & {AO}x) sent10: (Ex): {A}x -> {AB}x sent11: {A}{aa} -> {AB}{aa} sent12: (x): {CK}x -> (¬{HB}x & {BR}x) sent13: (x): {A}x -> {AB}x sent14: (Ex): {N}x -> (¬{HF}x & {GR}x) sent15: {B}{hb} -> (¬{AI}{hb} & {CF}{hb}) sent16: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent17: (x): {HH}x -> (¬{HG}x & {CI}x) sent18: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x)
|
[] |
[] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | null | 18 | 0 | 18 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is a kind of an inside then it does not labor limiter and is pneumatic. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is a seven it does not suffix transporter and is sustentacular. sent2: there is something such that if it is a glipizide it is not a subject but a dissuasion. sent3: the Salish is not pneumatic but it is a kind of a seek if the fact that it sublimes is true. sent4: if the Salish does nestle it is not pneumatic and is evaporative. sent5: the Salish does not peep tray and encircles if it does labor limiter. sent6: there is something such that if it is a sense it is not a shift and does stew clergyman. sent7: there is something such that if it is a Indian it does not peep lupine and is evaporative. sent8: if the fact that the Salish is an inside hold then it does labor limiter and is pneumatic. sent9: something does not suffix cybercrime and sublimes if it does retail. sent10: there exists something such that if it is an inside then it is pneumatic. sent11: the Salish is pneumatic if it is an inside. sent12: something does not grind and suffixes keyboard if it suffixes batch. sent13: if something is an inside it is pneumatic. sent14: there is something such that if it does peep frailty then it is a kind of non-evaporative thing that peeps persecution. sent15: if the hammock labors Domingo then it is not an epistemology and pleases. sent16: if something is a kind of an inside it labors limiter and it is pneumatic. sent17: something is not a kind of a sou'-sou'-west but it is unwoven if it does peep ammeter. sent18: there exists something such that if the fact that it is inside hold then it labors limiter and is pneumatic. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the peeping hound's-tongue does not occur.
|
¬{A}
|
sent1: the conge occurs but the symbolism does not occur if the fact that the preempting does not occur is correct. sent2: that the reintroduction does not occur and/or the electrocution does not occur is not true. sent3: if that either the suffixing roughage does not occur or the cocking does not occur or both is wrong then the Semiteness occurs. sent4: the peeping hound's-tongue does not occur if the conge happens and the symbolism does not occur. sent5: the skittering happens. sent6: the peeping hound's-tongue occurs if the symbolism happens. sent7: the wearableness occurs. sent8: if the fact that both the spousalness and the laboring necklet occurs does not hold the preempting does not occur. sent9: the suffixing Arundo does not occur if the fact that either the laboring Whistler does not occur or the immunocompetentness does not occur or both is false. sent10: the fact that the spousalness occurs and the laboring necklet occurs is not correct if the suffixing Arundo does not occur. sent11: that the symbolism but not the conge occurs is false if the fact that the preempting does not occur is correct. sent12: the laboring necklet happens if that the laboring Whistler does not occur and the suffixing Arundo does not occur is not right. sent13: if the fact that the symbolism occurs but the conge does not occur is not right then the peeping hound's-tongue does not occur. sent14: the fact that the laboring Whistler does not occur and the suffixing Arundo does not occur does not hold if that the immunocompetentness does not occur is not incorrect. sent15: the fact that the peeping golem does not occur or the occupation does not occur or both is wrong. sent16: the symbolism occurs if that either the .45-caliberness does not occur or the skittering does not occur or both does not hold. sent17: that either the .45-caliberness does not occur or the skittering does not occur or both is not correct. sent18: if the fact that that the baricness does not occur or the nonsteroidalness does not occur or both is not incorrect is not correct the suffixing roughage occurs. sent19: the symbolism occurs if that the non-.45-caliberness and/or the skittering occurs is wrong.
|
sent1: ¬{D} -> ({C} & ¬{B}) sent2: ¬(¬{T} v ¬{IA}) sent3: ¬(¬{JJ} v ¬{N}) -> {CC} sent4: ({C} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{A} sent5: {AB} sent6: {B} -> {A} sent7: {EJ} sent8: ¬({E} & {F}) -> ¬{D} sent9: ¬(¬{H} v ¬{I}) -> ¬{G} sent10: ¬{G} -> ¬({E} & {F}) sent11: ¬{D} -> ¬({B} & ¬{C}) sent12: ¬(¬{H} & ¬{G}) -> {F} sent13: ¬({B} & ¬{C}) -> ¬{A} sent14: ¬{I} -> ¬(¬{H} & ¬{G}) sent15: ¬(¬{JE} v ¬{U}) sent16: ¬(¬{AA} v ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent17: ¬(¬{AA} v ¬{AB}) sent18: ¬(¬{HQ} v ¬{GG}) -> {JJ} sent19: ¬(¬{AA} v {AB}) -> {B}
|
[
"sent16 & sent17 -> int1: the symbolism occurs.; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent16 & sent17 -> int1: {B}; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the peeping hound's-tongue does not occur.
|
¬{A}
|
[] | 10 | 2 | 2 | 16 | 0 | 16 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the peeping hound's-tongue does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the conge occurs but the symbolism does not occur if the fact that the preempting does not occur is correct. sent2: that the reintroduction does not occur and/or the electrocution does not occur is not true. sent3: if that either the suffixing roughage does not occur or the cocking does not occur or both is wrong then the Semiteness occurs. sent4: the peeping hound's-tongue does not occur if the conge happens and the symbolism does not occur. sent5: the skittering happens. sent6: the peeping hound's-tongue occurs if the symbolism happens. sent7: the wearableness occurs. sent8: if the fact that both the spousalness and the laboring necklet occurs does not hold the preempting does not occur. sent9: the suffixing Arundo does not occur if the fact that either the laboring Whistler does not occur or the immunocompetentness does not occur or both is false. sent10: the fact that the spousalness occurs and the laboring necklet occurs is not correct if the suffixing Arundo does not occur. sent11: that the symbolism but not the conge occurs is false if the fact that the preempting does not occur is correct. sent12: the laboring necklet happens if that the laboring Whistler does not occur and the suffixing Arundo does not occur is not right. sent13: if the fact that the symbolism occurs but the conge does not occur is not right then the peeping hound's-tongue does not occur. sent14: the fact that the laboring Whistler does not occur and the suffixing Arundo does not occur does not hold if that the immunocompetentness does not occur is not incorrect. sent15: the fact that the peeping golem does not occur or the occupation does not occur or both is wrong. sent16: the symbolism occurs if that either the .45-caliberness does not occur or the skittering does not occur or both does not hold. sent17: that either the .45-caliberness does not occur or the skittering does not occur or both is not correct. sent18: if the fact that that the baricness does not occur or the nonsteroidalness does not occur or both is not incorrect is not correct the suffixing roughage occurs. sent19: the symbolism occurs if that the non-.45-caliberness and/or the skittering occurs is wrong. ; $proof$ =
|
sent16 & sent17 -> int1: the symbolism occurs.; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that it is not an arrayed but sounding.
|
(Ex): (¬{A}x & {B}x)
|
sent1: the tailorbird does labor arresting if the cot does not labor arresting. sent2: The arresting does labor cot. sent3: the cot is a sounding if it does labor arresting. sent4: the cot is not a sounding if there is something such that that either it is not an arrayed or it does labor arresting or both is not right. sent5: something is not an arrayed. sent6: the cot is an arrayed that is a fettle if the specimen does not suffix thuggery. sent7: there are non-forgetful things. sent8: there exists something such that it is not nonwoody and is a kind of a nailhead. sent9: if the fact that that the bolo does not suffix thuggery and it is not billiard is not incorrect is wrong that the specimen does not suffix thuggery hold. sent10: something does not labor arresting or it is a kind of a sounding or both if it is an arrayed. sent11: there exists something such that either it does not labor arresting or it is an arrayed or both. sent12: there exists something such that that it does not suffix dramatist or it is forgetful or both is not correct. sent13: the crossbow does not labor arresting and is a kind of a Ofo. sent14: something is not a Bavarian if the fact that it is a kind of Bavarian thing that does not peep reappearance is incorrect. sent15: the toxin labors arresting. sent16: there exists something such that it does suffix dramatist. sent17: if the geranium is not a Bavarian the fact that the bolo does not suffix thuggery and it is non-billiard does not hold. sent18: something labors arresting and is a sounding. sent19: there is something such that the fact that it does suffix dramatist and/or it is not non-forgetful is wrong. sent20: if there is something such that that it either does not suffix dramatist or is forgetful or both is false then the cot is not an arrayed. sent21: the cot is a organelle. sent22: the cot does labor arresting.
|
sent1: ¬{C}{a} -> {C}{bj} sent2: {AC}{aa} sent3: {C}{a} -> {B}{a} sent4: (x): ¬(¬{A}x v {C}x) -> ¬{B}{a} sent5: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent6: ¬{E}{b} -> ({A}{a} & {D}{a}) sent7: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent8: (Ex): (¬{I}x & {IA}x) sent9: ¬(¬{E}{c} & ¬{F}{c}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent10: (x): {A}x -> (¬{C}x v {B}x) sent11: (Ex): (¬{C}x v {A}x) sent12: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) sent13: (¬{C}{ca} & {FE}{ca}) sent14: (x): ¬({G}x & ¬{H}x) -> ¬{G}x sent15: {C}{cb} sent16: (Ex): {AA}x sent17: ¬{G}{d} -> ¬(¬{E}{c} & ¬{F}{c}) sent18: (Ex): ({C}x & {B}x) sent19: (Ex): ¬({AA}x v {AB}x) sent20: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent21: {HI}{a} sent22: {C}{a}
|
[
"sent12 & sent20 -> int1: the cot is not a kind of an arrayed.; sent3 & sent22 -> int2: the fact that the cot sounds is not wrong.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the cot is not an arrayed and is a sounding.; int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent12 & sent20 -> int1: ¬{A}{a}; sent3 & sent22 -> int2: {B}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: (¬{A}{a} & {B}{a}); int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the tailorbird does labor arresting.
|
{C}{bj}
|
[
"sent10 -> int4: if the cot is an arrayed then it does not labor arresting or sounds or both.; sent14 -> int5: if the fact that the geranium is a Bavarian but it does not peep reappearance is not true then it is not a kind of a Bavarian.;"
] | 9 | 3 | 3 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that it is not an arrayed but sounding. ; $context$ = sent1: the tailorbird does labor arresting if the cot does not labor arresting. sent2: The arresting does labor cot. sent3: the cot is a sounding if it does labor arresting. sent4: the cot is not a sounding if there is something such that that either it is not an arrayed or it does labor arresting or both is not right. sent5: something is not an arrayed. sent6: the cot is an arrayed that is a fettle if the specimen does not suffix thuggery. sent7: there are non-forgetful things. sent8: there exists something such that it is not nonwoody and is a kind of a nailhead. sent9: if the fact that that the bolo does not suffix thuggery and it is not billiard is not incorrect is wrong that the specimen does not suffix thuggery hold. sent10: something does not labor arresting or it is a kind of a sounding or both if it is an arrayed. sent11: there exists something such that either it does not labor arresting or it is an arrayed or both. sent12: there exists something such that that it does not suffix dramatist or it is forgetful or both is not correct. sent13: the crossbow does not labor arresting and is a kind of a Ofo. sent14: something is not a Bavarian if the fact that it is a kind of Bavarian thing that does not peep reappearance is incorrect. sent15: the toxin labors arresting. sent16: there exists something such that it does suffix dramatist. sent17: if the geranium is not a Bavarian the fact that the bolo does not suffix thuggery and it is non-billiard does not hold. sent18: something labors arresting and is a sounding. sent19: there is something such that the fact that it does suffix dramatist and/or it is not non-forgetful is wrong. sent20: if there is something such that that it either does not suffix dramatist or is forgetful or both is false then the cot is not an arrayed. sent21: the cot is a organelle. sent22: the cot does labor arresting. ; $proof$ =
|
sent12 & sent20 -> int1: the cot is not a kind of an arrayed.; sent3 & sent22 -> int2: the fact that the cot sounds is not wrong.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the cot is not an arrayed and is a sounding.; int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the WAN antiquates.
|
{A}{a}
|
sent1: if something does antiquate it is significant. sent2: the menhaden is not relevant and it does not peep ENL if the dessert is divergent. sent3: if the pictorial does labor bay and it does peep Nummulitidae the WAN does not antiquate. sent4: something that does not shift is myelinic and fisheye. sent5: something is not a shift if it is not relevant and does not peep ENL. sent6: the WAN antiquates if there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a portable and it does not peep priapism is not right. sent7: that the BIN is both a fundamentalist and a poliovirus is false if there exists something such that it is myelinic. sent8: the dessert is unquiet. sent9: something labors bay and does peep Nummulitidae if it does not suffix mill-girl. sent10: if something is non-olfactory and it does not labor catheter it is divergent. sent11: the dessert is a kind of non-olfactory thing that does not labor catheter if it is not quiet. sent12: the Ballistite is portable if there exists something such that that it does not peep priapism and it does not antiquate is wrong. sent13: the pictorial does not suffix mill-girl if the CD-ROM does not suffix mill-girl and is not an expose. sent14: the fact that something is not a fundamentalist hold if the fact that it is a fundamentalist and a poliovirus does not hold. sent15: something is not a portable and it does not peep priapism.
|
sent1: (x): {A}x -> {DT}x sent2: {M}{f} -> (¬{L}{e} & ¬{K}{e}) sent3: ({C}{b} & {B}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent4: (x): ¬{J}x -> ({G}x & {I}x) sent5: (x): (¬{L}x & ¬{K}x) -> ¬{J}x sent6: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent7: (x): {G}x -> ¬({F}{d} & {H}{d}) sent8: ¬{P}{f} sent9: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({C}x & {B}x) sent10: (x): (¬{O}x & ¬{N}x) -> {M}x sent11: ¬{P}{f} -> (¬{O}{f} & ¬{N}{f}) sent12: (x): ¬(¬{AB}x & ¬{A}x) -> {AA}{aa} sent13: (¬{D}{c} & ¬{E}{c}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent14: (x): ¬({F}x & {H}x) -> ¬{F}x sent15: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
[] |
[] |
the Mohawk is significant.
|
{DT}{ir}
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: the Mohawk is significant if it does antiquate.;"
] | 4 | 2 | null | 14 | 0 | 14 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the WAN antiquates. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does antiquate it is significant. sent2: the menhaden is not relevant and it does not peep ENL if the dessert is divergent. sent3: if the pictorial does labor bay and it does peep Nummulitidae the WAN does not antiquate. sent4: something that does not shift is myelinic and fisheye. sent5: something is not a shift if it is not relevant and does not peep ENL. sent6: the WAN antiquates if there exists something such that that it is not a kind of a portable and it does not peep priapism is not right. sent7: that the BIN is both a fundamentalist and a poliovirus is false if there exists something such that it is myelinic. sent8: the dessert is unquiet. sent9: something labors bay and does peep Nummulitidae if it does not suffix mill-girl. sent10: if something is non-olfactory and it does not labor catheter it is divergent. sent11: the dessert is a kind of non-olfactory thing that does not labor catheter if it is not quiet. sent12: the Ballistite is portable if there exists something such that that it does not peep priapism and it does not antiquate is wrong. sent13: the pictorial does not suffix mill-girl if the CD-ROM does not suffix mill-girl and is not an expose. sent14: the fact that something is not a fundamentalist hold if the fact that it is a fundamentalist and a poliovirus does not hold. sent15: something is not a portable and it does not peep priapism. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the signora suffixes ordinal.
|
{F}{b}
|
sent1: that something is a shooting but it does not piffle is not correct if it is not a Aegean. sent2: the exile is not a Aegean. sent3: if there exists something such that it piffles then the exile is a shooting and is not a kind of a Aegean. sent4: if something that is a kind of a shooting is not a kind of a Aegean it is not Gallic. sent5: the signora stews exile and suffixes ordinal if the exile is non-Gallic.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{A}x) sent2: ¬{C}{a} sent3: (x): {A}x -> ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent4: (x): ({B}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{D}x sent5: ¬{D}{a} -> ({E}{b} & {F}{b})
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: that if the exile is a kind of a shooting that is not the Aegean the exile is not Gallic hold.;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> int1: ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a};"
] |
something carols.
|
(Ex): {CT}x
|
[
"sent1 -> int2: if the signora is not a kind of a Aegean that it is a shooting and it does not piffle is false.;"
] | 6 | 4 | null | 2 | 0 | 2 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the signora suffixes ordinal. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is a shooting but it does not piffle is not correct if it is not a Aegean. sent2: the exile is not a Aegean. sent3: if there exists something such that it piffles then the exile is a shooting and is not a kind of a Aegean. sent4: if something that is a kind of a shooting is not a kind of a Aegean it is not Gallic. sent5: the signora stews exile and suffixes ordinal if the exile is non-Gallic. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> int1: that if the exile is a kind of a shooting that is not the Aegean the exile is not Gallic hold.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the sloshing happens.
|
{D}
|
sent1: the fact that both the hanging and the by-election happens is not incorrect. sent2: that the northerly does not occur is brought about by that the evasion happens and the coalition happens. sent3: if the fact that the by-election does not occur is not false both the sloshing and the hanging happens. sent4: both the non-Mesoamericanness and the endocentricness occurs. sent5: if the hanging happens and the endocentricness happens then the sloshing does not occur.
|
sent1: ({A} & {B}) sent2: ({AR} & {FE}) -> ¬{FO} sent3: ¬{B} -> ({D} & {A}) sent4: (¬{E} & {C}) sent5: ({A} & {C}) -> ¬{D}
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: the fact that the hanging occurs is not incorrect.; sent4 -> int2: that the endocentricness occurs is not incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the hanging happens and the endocentricness occurs.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: {A}; sent4 -> int2: {C}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({A} & {C}); int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the sloshing occurs.
|
{D}
|
[] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the sloshing happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that both the hanging and the by-election happens is not incorrect. sent2: that the northerly does not occur is brought about by that the evasion happens and the coalition happens. sent3: if the fact that the by-election does not occur is not false both the sloshing and the hanging happens. sent4: both the non-Mesoamericanness and the endocentricness occurs. sent5: if the hanging happens and the endocentricness happens then the sloshing does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: the fact that the hanging occurs is not incorrect.; sent4 -> int2: that the endocentricness occurs is not incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the hanging happens and the endocentricness occurs.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the oneiromancer does peep Nummulitidae.
|
{C}{c}
|
sent1: the Calypso does not irradiate. sent2: if the appellant is occipital the Calypso irradiates. sent3: the oneiromancer irradiates. sent4: the oneiromancer does labor retriever. sent5: the Calypso is a Jacobean. sent6: the oneiromancer does irradiate if the appellant irradiate. sent7: the fact that if the Calypso is not non-Jacobean the fact that the appellant irradiates hold is correct. sent8: if there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a Ouranopithecus and is not occipital is incorrect then the segregate irradiates. sent9: if the fact that the Calypso does peep Nummulitidae is true that the oneiromancer does peep Nummulitidae is true. sent10: if the fact that the Calypso is a Jacobean hold that the appellant is not Jacobean is not false. sent11: the appellant is a Jacobean if the Calypso does irradiate. sent12: the fact that the Calypso does not peep Nummulitidae is not incorrect. sent13: there is something such that that it is not a kind of a Ouranopithecus and it is not occipital is not true. sent14: if something is not a kind that it is a Jacobean and labors Egbert is not right. sent15: the silicone does not peep Nummulitidae. sent16: the oneiromancer is not a Jacobean but it does peep Nummulitidae if the Calypso peep Nummulitidae. sent17: if the segregate irradiates but it is not a Jacobean the appellant does peep Nummulitidae. sent18: the oneiromancer does not peep Nummulitidae but it does irradiate if the appellant does irradiate. sent19: the fact that the appellant peeps Nummulitidae is true. sent20: if the Calypso peeps Nummulitidae then the oneiromancer is Jacobean. sent21: the oneiromancer is non-Jacobean but it irradiates.
|
sent1: ¬{B}{a} sent2: {D}{b} -> {B}{a} sent3: {B}{c} sent4: {IL}{c} sent5: {A}{a} sent6: {B}{b} -> {B}{c} sent7: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent8: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{D}x) -> {B}{d} sent9: {C}{a} -> {C}{c} sent10: {A}{a} -> {A}{b} sent11: {B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent12: ¬{C}{a} sent13: (Ex): ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{D}x) sent14: (x): ¬{G}x -> ¬({A}x & {E}x) sent15: ¬{C}{go} sent16: {C}{a} -> (¬{A}{c} & {C}{c}) sent17: ({B}{d} & ¬{A}{d}) -> {C}{b} sent18: {B}{b} -> (¬{C}{c} & {B}{c}) sent19: {C}{b} sent20: {C}{a} -> {A}{c} sent21: (¬{A}{c} & {B}{c})
|
[
"sent7 & sent5 -> int1: the appellant does irradiate.; sent18 & int1 -> int2: the oneiromancer does not peep Nummulitidae but it does irradiate.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent7 & sent5 -> int1: {B}{b}; sent18 & int1 -> int2: (¬{C}{c} & {B}{c}); int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the oneiromancer does peep Nummulitidae.
|
{C}{c}
|
[
"sent13 & sent8 -> int3: the segregate does irradiate.; sent14 -> int4: the fact that the geezer is a kind of Jacobean thing that does labor Egbert does not hold if that it is not a kind of a kind hold.;"
] | 8 | 3 | 3 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the oneiromancer does peep Nummulitidae. ; $context$ = sent1: the Calypso does not irradiate. sent2: if the appellant is occipital the Calypso irradiates. sent3: the oneiromancer irradiates. sent4: the oneiromancer does labor retriever. sent5: the Calypso is a Jacobean. sent6: the oneiromancer does irradiate if the appellant irradiate. sent7: the fact that if the Calypso is not non-Jacobean the fact that the appellant irradiates hold is correct. sent8: if there is something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a Ouranopithecus and is not occipital is incorrect then the segregate irradiates. sent9: if the fact that the Calypso does peep Nummulitidae is true that the oneiromancer does peep Nummulitidae is true. sent10: if the fact that the Calypso is a Jacobean hold that the appellant is not Jacobean is not false. sent11: the appellant is a Jacobean if the Calypso does irradiate. sent12: the fact that the Calypso does not peep Nummulitidae is not incorrect. sent13: there is something such that that it is not a kind of a Ouranopithecus and it is not occipital is not true. sent14: if something is not a kind that it is a Jacobean and labors Egbert is not right. sent15: the silicone does not peep Nummulitidae. sent16: the oneiromancer is not a Jacobean but it does peep Nummulitidae if the Calypso peep Nummulitidae. sent17: if the segregate irradiates but it is not a Jacobean the appellant does peep Nummulitidae. sent18: the oneiromancer does not peep Nummulitidae but it does irradiate if the appellant does irradiate. sent19: the fact that the appellant peeps Nummulitidae is true. sent20: if the Calypso peeps Nummulitidae then the oneiromancer is Jacobean. sent21: the oneiromancer is non-Jacobean but it irradiates. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 & sent5 -> int1: the appellant does irradiate.; sent18 & int1 -> int2: the oneiromancer does not peep Nummulitidae but it does irradiate.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if it is a Mammutidae the fact that it is not a soundness and/or it is not archdiocesan is incorrect.
|
(Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x)
|
sent1: if the weightlifter is a kind of a Mammutidae that either it is not a soundness or it is not archdiocesan or both is incorrect. sent2: that either something does not suffix Muybridge or it is non-ammino or both is incorrect if it is a kind of a skid.
|
sent1: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent2: (x): {P}x -> ¬(¬{CJ}x v ¬{FI}x)
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there is something such that if it skids the fact that it does not suffix Muybridge and/or it is not ammino is not right.
|
(Ex): {P}x -> ¬(¬{CJ}x v ¬{FI}x)
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: the fact that the heterometabolism either does not suffix Muybridge or is not ammino or both does not hold if that it is a skid is right.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is a Mammutidae the fact that it is not a soundness and/or it is not archdiocesan is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if the weightlifter is a kind of a Mammutidae that either it is not a soundness or it is not archdiocesan or both is incorrect. sent2: that either something does not suffix Muybridge or it is non-ammino or both is incorrect if it is a kind of a skid. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the opsin peeps passionflower and does not suffix mandrill.
|
({D}{b} & ¬{E}{b})
|
sent1: something is not passable if it is not a minimalist. sent2: there exists something such that that it does not labor IWW and does stew opsin is not right. sent3: the opsin peeps passionflower. sent4: if the Tyke is not a kind of a cottonwood then it is not a Wren. sent5: the fact that something does peep passionflower but it does not suffix mandrill is not right if it labors brocket. sent6: something is not a kind of a Wren if that it does not labor brocket and it is a kind of a cottonwood is not true. sent7: the opsin does not labor brocket and peeps passionflower. sent8: the Tyke is not bacteriological if there exists something such that the fact that it does not labor IWW and does stew opsin is not true. sent9: The brocket labors Tyke. sent10: the Tyke does not suffix mandrill and is a cottonwood. sent11: if something that is not a Wren is a cottonwood it does labor brocket. sent12: the opsin does peep passionflower and does not suffix mandrill if the Tyke is not a Wren. sent13: the opsin is not a cottonwood and peeps passionflower. sent14: that the Tyke is a cottonwood is correct. sent15: the opsin is headless. sent16: if the fact that something does not suffix mandrill but it is a cottonwood is incorrect it does not labor brocket. sent17: if something is not a Wren and/or it is headless it is not a kind of a Wren.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{DM}x -> ¬{IQ}x sent2: (Ex): ¬(¬{H}x & {I}x) sent3: {D}{b} sent4: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬{C}{a} sent5: (x): {A}x -> ¬({D}x & ¬{E}x) sent6: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}x sent7: (¬{A}{b} & {D}{b}) sent8: (x): ¬(¬{H}x & {I}x) -> ¬{F}{a} sent9: {AB}{ab} sent10: (¬{E}{a} & {B}{a}) sent11: (x): (¬{C}x & {B}x) -> {A}x sent12: ¬{C}{a} -> ({D}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) sent13: (¬{B}{b} & {D}{b}) sent14: {B}{a} sent15: {G}{b} sent16: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & {B}x) -> ¬{A}x sent17: (x): (¬{C}x v {G}x) -> ¬{C}x
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Tyke does not labor brocket and is a cottonwood.; assump1 -> int1: the fact that the Tyke does not labor brocket is right.; sent6 -> int2: the Tyke is not a Wren if the fact that it does not labor brocket and is a cottonwood is not correct.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: (¬{A}{a} & {B}{a}); assump1 -> int1: ¬{A}{a}; sent6 -> int2: ¬(¬{A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{a};"
] |
that the opsin does peep passionflower and does not suffix mandrill does not hold.
|
¬({D}{b} & ¬{E}{b})
|
[
"sent5 -> int3: the fact that the opsin peeps passionflower and does not suffix mandrill is not true if the fact that it does labor brocket hold.; sent11 -> int4: if the opsin is not a Wren and is a cottonwood it does labor brocket.; sent17 -> int5: if the opsin is not a kind of a Wren and/or is headless it is not a kind of a Wren.; sent15 -> int6: either the opsin is not a Wren or it is headless or both.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the opsin is not a Wren.; sent2 & sent8 -> int8: the Tyke is not bacteriological.; int8 -> int9: there is something such that it is not bacteriological.;"
] | 6 | 4 | null | 15 | 0 | 15 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the opsin peeps passionflower and does not suffix mandrill. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not passable if it is not a minimalist. sent2: there exists something such that that it does not labor IWW and does stew opsin is not right. sent3: the opsin peeps passionflower. sent4: if the Tyke is not a kind of a cottonwood then it is not a Wren. sent5: the fact that something does peep passionflower but it does not suffix mandrill is not right if it labors brocket. sent6: something is not a kind of a Wren if that it does not labor brocket and it is a kind of a cottonwood is not true. sent7: the opsin does not labor brocket and peeps passionflower. sent8: the Tyke is not bacteriological if there exists something such that the fact that it does not labor IWW and does stew opsin is not true. sent9: The brocket labors Tyke. sent10: the Tyke does not suffix mandrill and is a cottonwood. sent11: if something that is not a Wren is a cottonwood it does labor brocket. sent12: the opsin does peep passionflower and does not suffix mandrill if the Tyke is not a Wren. sent13: the opsin is not a cottonwood and peeps passionflower. sent14: that the Tyke is a cottonwood is correct. sent15: the opsin is headless. sent16: if the fact that something does not suffix mandrill but it is a cottonwood is incorrect it does not labor brocket. sent17: if something is not a Wren and/or it is headless it is not a kind of a Wren. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Tyke does not labor brocket and is a cottonwood.; assump1 -> int1: the fact that the Tyke does not labor brocket is right.; sent6 -> int2: the Tyke is not a Wren if the fact that it does not labor brocket and is a cottonwood is not correct.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the hippodrome befuddles and is outward.
|
({A}{b} & {B}{b})
|
sent1: if that the admiral is unkind and is not Monacan is false then the hippodrome is outward. sent2: the hippodrome does befuddle. sent3: that the admiral is a kind of kind thing that is not Monacan is wrong. sent4: that the fact that the admiral is a kind of non-kind thing that is Monacan is not right hold.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent2: {A}{b} sent3: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent4: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})
|
[] |
[] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | null | 2 | 0 | 2 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the hippodrome befuddles and is outward. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the admiral is unkind and is not Monacan is false then the hippodrome is outward. sent2: the hippodrome does befuddle. sent3: that the admiral is a kind of kind thing that is not Monacan is wrong. sent4: that the fact that the admiral is a kind of non-kind thing that is Monacan is not right hold. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the volleying occurs hold.
|
{E}
|
sent1: the peeping perigon occurs if the ohmage occurs. sent2: that the peeping bear happens prevents that the volleying does not occur. sent3: if the flimsiness occurs the peeping perigon occurs. sent4: if that the peeping perigon happens is correct the peeping bear happens. sent5: the stewing mandrill happens. sent6: the ohmage and/or the flimsiness happens.
|
sent1: {A} -> {C} sent2: {D} -> {E} sent3: {B} -> {C} sent4: {C} -> {D} sent5: {CF} sent6: ({A} v {B})
|
[
"sent6 & sent1 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the peeping perigon does not occur is wrong.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the peeping bear occurs.; int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 & sent1 & sent3 -> int1: {C}; int1 & sent4 -> int2: {D}; int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the volleying occurs hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the peeping perigon occurs if the ohmage occurs. sent2: that the peeping bear happens prevents that the volleying does not occur. sent3: if the flimsiness occurs the peeping perigon occurs. sent4: if that the peeping perigon happens is correct the peeping bear happens. sent5: the stewing mandrill happens. sent6: the ohmage and/or the flimsiness happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 & sent1 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the peeping perigon does not occur is wrong.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the peeping bear occurs.; int2 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the fact that if the Anguillan is not the Elamitic then the Anguillan is pressor and labors brutality is true is not right.
|
¬(¬{A}{a} -> ({B}{a} & {C}{a}))
|
sent1: everything does labor brutality. sent2: everything is a statistic. sent3: the Anguillan is pressor if the fact that it is a Elamitic is not false. sent4: the fact that the Anguillan is pressor is not incorrect if it is not a Elamitic. sent5: the Anguillan does not labor Burr. sent6: the Anguillan does peep latte. sent7: if the Anguillan is a kind of a Elamitic it is pressor and it does labor brutality. sent8: if the Anguillan does not labor dekko then it is pressor. sent9: if the Anguillan is not pressor or it does not labor brutality or both that the Nanticoke is not pressor hold.
|
sent1: (x): {C}x sent2: (x): {GG}x sent3: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent5: ¬{HB}{a} sent6: {EU}{a} sent7: {A}{a} -> ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent8: ¬{CO}{a} -> {B}{a} sent9: (¬{B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{B}{io}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Anguillan is not a Elamitic.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the Anguillan is not non-pressor.; sent1 -> int2: the Anguillan does labor brutality.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Anguillan is pressor thing that labors brutality.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ¬{A}{a}; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent1 -> int2: {C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({B}{a} & {C}{a}); [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the Nanticoke is not pressor.
|
¬{B}{io}
|
[] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the fact that if the Anguillan is not the Elamitic then the Anguillan is pressor and labors brutality is true is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: everything does labor brutality. sent2: everything is a statistic. sent3: the Anguillan is pressor if the fact that it is a Elamitic is not false. sent4: the fact that the Anguillan is pressor is not incorrect if it is not a Elamitic. sent5: the Anguillan does not labor Burr. sent6: the Anguillan does peep latte. sent7: if the Anguillan is a kind of a Elamitic it is pressor and it does labor brutality. sent8: if the Anguillan does not labor dekko then it is pressor. sent9: if the Anguillan is not pressor or it does not labor brutality or both that the Nanticoke is not pressor hold. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Anguillan is not a Elamitic.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the Anguillan is not non-pressor.; sent1 -> int2: the Anguillan does labor brutality.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the Anguillan is pressor thing that labors brutality.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the vulcanizing does not occur.
|
¬{A}
|
sent1: the severing occurs. sent2: that the laboring usage does not occur and the peeping myrmidon does not occur is false if the vulcanizing does not occur. sent3: if the severing happens the laboring usage does not occur and the peeping myrmidon does not occur. sent4: the fact that that the laboring usage does not occur and the peeping myrmidon occurs does not hold is not incorrect. sent5: that the peeping myrmidon does not occur is not wrong.
|
sent1: {B} sent2: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent3: {B} -> (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent4: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent5: ¬{AB}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the vulcanizing does not occur.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: that the laboring usage does not occur and the peeping myrmidon does not occur does not hold.; sent3 & sent1 -> int2: the laboring usage does not occur and the peeping myrmidon does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ¬{A}; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}); sent3 & sent1 -> int2: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}); int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the vulcanizing does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the severing occurs. sent2: that the laboring usage does not occur and the peeping myrmidon does not occur is false if the vulcanizing does not occur. sent3: if the severing happens the laboring usage does not occur and the peeping myrmidon does not occur. sent4: the fact that that the laboring usage does not occur and the peeping myrmidon occurs does not hold is not incorrect. sent5: that the peeping myrmidon does not occur is not wrong. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the vulcanizing does not occur.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: that the laboring usage does not occur and the peeping myrmidon does not occur does not hold.; sent3 & sent1 -> int2: the laboring usage does not occur and the peeping myrmidon does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Nazi is not amygdaline.
|
¬{B}{aa}
|
sent1: the fact that the fact that something does not labor Eijkman and is a spheroid is right is not correct if it is a kind of a MAO. sent2: if something that does seize is not bipedal then it is amygdaline. sent3: if that something does not labor Eijkman but it is a spheroid is not correct it labor Eijkman. sent4: that if the thermohydrometer does not criticize then the Nazi seizes but it is not bipedal is not incorrect. sent5: if a non-summery thing does criticize it is not amygdaline. sent6: the thermohydrometer is a kind of a MAO and it is a trainer. sent7: the thermohydrometer does not criticize.
|
sent1: (x): {E}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & {F}x) sent2: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent3: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & {F}x) -> {D}x sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent5: (x): (¬{C}x & {A}x) -> ¬{B}x sent6: ({E}{a} & {G}{a}) sent7: ¬{A}{a}
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: the Nazi is amygdaline if it does seize and is not bipedal.; sent4 & sent7 -> int2: the Nazi does seize and is not bipedal.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> int1: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}; sent4 & sent7 -> int2: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the Nazi is not amygdaline.
|
¬{B}{aa}
|
[
"sent5 -> int3: the Nazi is not amygdaline if it is not summery and does criticize.; sent3 -> int4: if the fact that the thermohydrometer does not labor Eijkman and is a kind of a spheroid is not true then it labor Eijkman.; sent1 -> int5: that the thermohydrometer does not labor Eijkman and is a spheroid is incorrect if it is a MAO.; sent6 -> int6: the thermohydrometer is a kind of a MAO.; int5 & int6 -> int7: that the thermohydrometer does not labor Eijkman and is a spheroid does not hold.; int4 & int7 -> int8: the thermohydrometer does labor Eijkman.; int8 -> int9: there is something such that it labors Eijkman.;"
] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the Nazi is not amygdaline. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the fact that something does not labor Eijkman and is a spheroid is right is not correct if it is a kind of a MAO. sent2: if something that does seize is not bipedal then it is amygdaline. sent3: if that something does not labor Eijkman but it is a spheroid is not correct it labor Eijkman. sent4: that if the thermohydrometer does not criticize then the Nazi seizes but it is not bipedal is not incorrect. sent5: if a non-summery thing does criticize it is not amygdaline. sent6: the thermohydrometer is a kind of a MAO and it is a trainer. sent7: the thermohydrometer does not criticize. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> int1: the Nazi is amygdaline if it does seize and is not bipedal.; sent4 & sent7 -> int2: the Nazi does seize and is not bipedal.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the carvel-builtness happens and/or the immunohistochemistry occurs.
|
({B} v {C})
|
sent1: the unopposableness happens if that both the unopposablenessness and the non-Lusitanianness occurs is not correct. sent2: the tacticalness occurs. sent3: if the scientificness does not occur the seraphicness does not occur. sent4: if the justness does not occur then that the poundage and the throning happens is incorrect. sent5: if the fact that the seraphicness does not occur hold then the suffixing profoundness and the unopposableness occurs. sent6: if the fact that the peeping arresting does not occur is not incorrect then that the carvel-builtness and/or the immunohistochemistry happens is incorrect. sent7: the suffixing octet does not occur and the suffixing profoundness does not occur if the unopposableness happens. sent8: if the fact that the immunohistochemistry and the carvel-builtness happens does not hold the carvel-builtness does not occur. sent9: the fact that the peeping arresting occurs hold. sent10: the fact that the peeping arresting but not the suffixing octet occurs is not right if the suffixing profoundness happens. sent11: that the laboring Liparididae does not occur brings about that the unscientificness and the suffixing rhodonite occurs. sent12: the fact that the immunohistochemistry and the carvel-builtness happens is not right if the suffixing octet does not occur. sent13: that the fact that the scientificness does not occur but the seraphicness occurs does not hold is correct if the fact that the Lusitanianness happens is correct. sent14: that the unopposableness does not occur and the Lusitanianness does not occur is wrong if the seraphicness does not occur. sent15: if the cytogeneticsness happens then the suffixing biofeedback occurs. sent16: the laboring Liparididae does not occur if the fact that the poundage and the throne occurs does not hold. sent17: either the suffixing Gerbert or the suffixing denouement or both occurs. sent18: the shingling happens.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{F} & ¬{H}) -> {F} sent2: {AQ} sent3: ¬{I} -> ¬{G} sent4: ¬{N} -> ¬({M} & {L}) sent5: ¬{G} -> ({E} & {F}) sent6: ¬{A} -> ¬({B} v {C}) sent7: {F} -> (¬{D} & ¬{E}) sent8: ¬({C} & {B}) -> ¬{B} sent9: {A} sent10: {E} -> ¬({A} & ¬{D}) sent11: ¬{K} -> (¬{I} & {J}) sent12: ¬{D} -> ¬({C} & {B}) sent13: {H} -> ¬(¬{I} & {G}) sent14: ¬{G} -> ¬(¬{F} & ¬{H}) sent15: {ET} -> {IF} sent16: ¬({M} & {L}) -> ¬{K} sent17: ({DA} v {HC}) sent18: {FI}
|
[] |
[] |
the lunarness happens or the shingling happens or both.
|
({BF} v {FI})
|
[] | 14 | 2 | null | 17 | 0 | 17 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the carvel-builtness happens and/or the immunohistochemistry occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the unopposableness happens if that both the unopposablenessness and the non-Lusitanianness occurs is not correct. sent2: the tacticalness occurs. sent3: if the scientificness does not occur the seraphicness does not occur. sent4: if the justness does not occur then that the poundage and the throning happens is incorrect. sent5: if the fact that the seraphicness does not occur hold then the suffixing profoundness and the unopposableness occurs. sent6: if the fact that the peeping arresting does not occur is not incorrect then that the carvel-builtness and/or the immunohistochemistry happens is incorrect. sent7: the suffixing octet does not occur and the suffixing profoundness does not occur if the unopposableness happens. sent8: if the fact that the immunohistochemistry and the carvel-builtness happens does not hold the carvel-builtness does not occur. sent9: the fact that the peeping arresting occurs hold. sent10: the fact that the peeping arresting but not the suffixing octet occurs is not right if the suffixing profoundness happens. sent11: that the laboring Liparididae does not occur brings about that the unscientificness and the suffixing rhodonite occurs. sent12: the fact that the immunohistochemistry and the carvel-builtness happens is not right if the suffixing octet does not occur. sent13: that the fact that the scientificness does not occur but the seraphicness occurs does not hold is correct if the fact that the Lusitanianness happens is correct. sent14: that the unopposableness does not occur and the Lusitanianness does not occur is wrong if the seraphicness does not occur. sent15: if the cytogeneticsness happens then the suffixing biofeedback occurs. sent16: the laboring Liparididae does not occur if the fact that the poundage and the throne occurs does not hold. sent17: either the suffixing Gerbert or the suffixing denouement or both occurs. sent18: the shingling happens. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the binary does not occur.
|
¬{A}
|
sent1: the variolarness happens. sent2: the poplitealness occurs. sent3: the Seljukness happens. sent4: the meniscectomy does not occur if the ageism happens. sent5: that both the runaway and the pressure happens is triggered by the non-Gilbertianness. sent6: that not the suffixing Colubridae but the recoiling occurs is wrong if the comb happens. sent7: if the proceeding occurs then that both the non-Saxonness and the long-distanceness happens is not correct. sent8: if that the fact that the unfairness and the non-regimentalness occurs is false hold then that the interlocking occurs is not false. sent9: if that the variolarness happens hold the fact that not the dispersing but the poplitealness happens is wrong. sent10: both the ageism and the promising happens if the exhaustibleness does not occur. sent11: that the exhaustibleness but not the laboring gunpowder occurs is not right if the suffixing defiance happens. sent12: that both the unfairness and the non-regimentalness occurs is false if the Seljukness happens. sent13: if the binariness occurs the poplitealness occurs. sent14: if the serviceableness occurs then the fact that the non-topologicalness and the immunohistochemistry happens does not hold. sent15: the dispersing does not occur but the poplitealness happens if the binary occurs. sent16: that both the interlocking and the runaway occurs triggers that the provencalness does not occur. sent17: the variolarness occurs and the binary happens if the meniscectomy does not occur. sent18: if that the exhaustibleness but not the laboring gunpowder occurs does not hold then the exhaustibleness does not occur. sent19: that both the tincture and the suffixing defiance happens is triggered by the non-provencalness.
|
sent1: {B} sent2: {AB} sent3: {Q} sent4: {D} -> ¬{C} sent5: ¬{P} -> ({K} & {O}) sent6: {GH} -> ¬(¬{HH} & {GE}) sent7: {HT} -> ¬(¬{JA} & {GR}) sent8: ¬({N} & ¬{M}) -> {L} sent9: {B} -> ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent10: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) sent11: {H} -> ¬({F} & ¬{G}) sent12: {Q} -> ¬({N} & ¬{M}) sent13: {A} -> {AB} sent14: {BK} -> ¬(¬{BD} & {FE}) sent15: {A} -> (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent16: ({L} & {K}) -> ¬{J} sent17: ¬{C} -> ({B} & {A}) sent18: ¬({F} & ¬{G}) -> ¬{F} sent19: ¬{J} -> ({I} & {H})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the binary occurs.; sent15 & assump1 -> int1: the dispersing does not occur but the poplitealness occurs.; sent9 & sent1 -> int2: that not the dispersing but the poplitealness occurs is not true.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}; sent15 & assump1 -> int1: (¬{AA} & {AB}); sent9 & sent1 -> int2: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}); int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the binary happens.
|
{A}
|
[
"sent12 & sent3 -> int4: that the unfairness and the non-regimentalness happens does not hold.; sent8 & int4 -> int5: the interlock occurs.;"
] | 14 | 3 | 3 | 16 | 0 | 16 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the binary does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the variolarness happens. sent2: the poplitealness occurs. sent3: the Seljukness happens. sent4: the meniscectomy does not occur if the ageism happens. sent5: that both the runaway and the pressure happens is triggered by the non-Gilbertianness. sent6: that not the suffixing Colubridae but the recoiling occurs is wrong if the comb happens. sent7: if the proceeding occurs then that both the non-Saxonness and the long-distanceness happens is not correct. sent8: if that the fact that the unfairness and the non-regimentalness occurs is false hold then that the interlocking occurs is not false. sent9: if that the variolarness happens hold the fact that not the dispersing but the poplitealness happens is wrong. sent10: both the ageism and the promising happens if the exhaustibleness does not occur. sent11: that the exhaustibleness but not the laboring gunpowder occurs is not right if the suffixing defiance happens. sent12: that both the unfairness and the non-regimentalness occurs is false if the Seljukness happens. sent13: if the binariness occurs the poplitealness occurs. sent14: if the serviceableness occurs then the fact that the non-topologicalness and the immunohistochemistry happens does not hold. sent15: the dispersing does not occur but the poplitealness happens if the binary occurs. sent16: that both the interlocking and the runaway occurs triggers that the provencalness does not occur. sent17: the variolarness occurs and the binary happens if the meniscectomy does not occur. sent18: if that the exhaustibleness but not the laboring gunpowder occurs does not hold then the exhaustibleness does not occur. sent19: that both the tincture and the suffixing defiance happens is triggered by the non-provencalness. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the binary occurs.; sent15 & assump1 -> int1: the dispersing does not occur but the poplitealness occurs.; sent9 & sent1 -> int2: that not the dispersing but the poplitealness occurs is not true.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there exists something such that if it either is not a igniter or suffixes hassium or both it is not receptive does not hold.
|
¬((Ex): (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x)
|
sent1: the reagin does not suffix quantum if it is unreceptive and/or it is a kind of a crop. sent2: there exists something such that if it is a frijol then it does not even. sent3: there is something such that if it is not impetiginous and/or it does suffix Chardonnay then it is a kind of a clamshell. sent4: the hassium is not receptive if either it is not a igniter or it suffixes hassium or both. sent5: there exists something such that if it does not peep attack and/or is a Cocteau it does not slow. sent6: there is something such that if it is not a Molva and/or professes it is a hegemon. sent7: there is something such that if either it does not labor childlessness or it is Platonic or both that it does not suffix Nijmegen hold. sent8: if the hassium is not a igniter then it is unreceptive. sent9: the hassium is not a kind of a grace if it is not false. sent10: there exists something such that if either it does not suffix Chardonnay or it is improvident or both then it is not Anglo-catholic. sent11: if something does not suffix Nijmegen and/or it is receptive then it is not piscine. sent12: there is something such that if it does not peep reagin and/or it is a kind of a Motherwell it is dactylic. sent13: there exists something such that if it is a Lamarckian and/or it hymns it does not peep Ezra. sent14: there is something such that if it does not peep Taurus it is not hypnotic. sent15: there is something such that if either it is hypnotic or it labors redistribution or both it is not unmindful. sent16: there exists something such that if it is not a argentinosaur or is campylotropous or both then it suffixes epilogue. sent17: if the hassium is not a Balkan then it does not suffix hassium. sent18: there is something such that if it either is not a polyvalence or suffixes seidel or both it is not adamantine. sent19: there exists something such that if it is not a hegemon or it is invertible or both then it does not sin. sent20: the opsin does not crop if it does not suffix hassium.
|
sent1: (¬{B}{dc} v {AL}{dc}) -> ¬{IN}{dc} sent2: (Ex): {GO}x -> ¬{HB}x sent3: (Ex): (¬{HE}x v {GP}x) -> {GN}x sent4: (¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent5: (Ex): (¬{AQ}x v {CR}x) -> ¬{DL}x sent6: (Ex): (¬{C}x v {EI}x) -> {AK}x sent7: (Ex): (¬{GU}x v {GI}x) -> ¬{GE}x sent8: ¬{AA}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent9: ¬{JE}{aa} -> ¬{FG}{aa} sent10: (Ex): (¬{GP}x v {ID}x) -> ¬{HI}x sent11: (x): (¬{GE}x v {B}x) -> ¬{FL}x sent12: (Ex): (¬{EJ}x v {AP}x) -> {JK}x sent13: (Ex): ({CL}x v {GK}x) -> ¬{HT}x sent14: (Ex): ¬{FM}x -> ¬{BL}x sent15: (Ex): ({BL}x v {FF}x) -> ¬{L}x sent16: (Ex): (¬{GB}x v {CN}x) -> {HD}x sent17: ¬{CP}{aa} -> ¬{AB}{aa} sent18: (Ex): (¬{DQ}x v {FU}x) -> ¬{DB}x sent19: (Ex): (¬{AK}x v {IF}x) -> ¬{IA}x sent20: ¬{AB}{ie} -> ¬{AL}{ie}
|
[
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the Rwandan is non-piscine if it does not suffix Nijmegen or is receptive or both.
|
(¬{GE}{ih} v {B}{ih}) -> ¬{FL}{ih}
|
[
"sent11 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if it either is not a igniter or suffixes hassium or both it is not receptive does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the reagin does not suffix quantum if it is unreceptive and/or it is a kind of a crop. sent2: there exists something such that if it is a frijol then it does not even. sent3: there is something such that if it is not impetiginous and/or it does suffix Chardonnay then it is a kind of a clamshell. sent4: the hassium is not receptive if either it is not a igniter or it suffixes hassium or both. sent5: there exists something such that if it does not peep attack and/or is a Cocteau it does not slow. sent6: there is something such that if it is not a Molva and/or professes it is a hegemon. sent7: there is something such that if either it does not labor childlessness or it is Platonic or both that it does not suffix Nijmegen hold. sent8: if the hassium is not a igniter then it is unreceptive. sent9: the hassium is not a kind of a grace if it is not false. sent10: there exists something such that if either it does not suffix Chardonnay or it is improvident or both then it is not Anglo-catholic. sent11: if something does not suffix Nijmegen and/or it is receptive then it is not piscine. sent12: there is something such that if it does not peep reagin and/or it is a kind of a Motherwell it is dactylic. sent13: there exists something such that if it is a Lamarckian and/or it hymns it does not peep Ezra. sent14: there is something such that if it does not peep Taurus it is not hypnotic. sent15: there is something such that if either it is hypnotic or it labors redistribution or both it is not unmindful. sent16: there exists something such that if it is not a argentinosaur or is campylotropous or both then it suffixes epilogue. sent17: if the hassium is not a Balkan then it does not suffix hassium. sent18: there is something such that if it either is not a polyvalence or suffixes seidel or both it is not adamantine. sent19: there exists something such that if it is not a hegemon or it is invertible or both then it does not sin. sent20: the opsin does not crop if it does not suffix hassium. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the tarpon is a kind of a frailty.
|
{E}{c}
|
sent1: if something does stew abulia then the fact that the rye is a frailty and floral is wrong. sent2: if there is something such that that it does stew abulia and is an argent is incorrect the rye is floral. sent3: there is something such that that it is a frailty that does stew abulia is wrong. sent4: the rye is floral if there is something such that it is not a kind of an argent. sent5: the fact that something is hemolytic is not incorrect. sent6: if the tarpon is floral then the fact that the rye is a kind of a frailty is right. sent7: everything is an argent. sent8: there exists something such that it stews abulia and is an argent. sent9: the tarpon is a kind of a frailty if the rye is floral. sent10: there is something such that the fact that it is a frailty and it is an argent is incorrect. sent11: that the rye does annotate hold. sent12: something that does not stew abulia and/or is not a frailty is not a kind of a frailty.
|
sent1: (x): {B}x -> ¬({E}{b} & {D}{b}) sent2: (x): ¬({B}x & {C}x) -> {D}{b} sent3: (Ex): ¬({E}x & {B}x) sent4: (x): ¬{C}x -> {D}{b} sent5: (Ex): {A}x sent6: {D}{c} -> {E}{b} sent7: (x): {C}x sent8: (Ex): ({B}x & {C}x) sent9: {D}{b} -> {E}{c} sent10: (Ex): ¬({E}x & {C}x) sent11: {GT}{b} sent12: (x): (¬{B}x v ¬{E}x) -> ¬{E}x
|
[] |
[] |
there are Proustian things.
|
(Ex): {FP}x
|
[
"sent7 -> int1: the tarpon is an argent.;"
] | 7 | 4 | null | 9 | 0 | 9 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the tarpon is a kind of a frailty. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does stew abulia then the fact that the rye is a frailty and floral is wrong. sent2: if there is something such that that it does stew abulia and is an argent is incorrect the rye is floral. sent3: there is something such that that it is a frailty that does stew abulia is wrong. sent4: the rye is floral if there is something such that it is not a kind of an argent. sent5: the fact that something is hemolytic is not incorrect. sent6: if the tarpon is floral then the fact that the rye is a kind of a frailty is right. sent7: everything is an argent. sent8: there exists something such that it stews abulia and is an argent. sent9: the tarpon is a kind of a frailty if the rye is floral. sent10: there is something such that the fact that it is a frailty and it is an argent is incorrect. sent11: that the rye does annotate hold. sent12: something that does not stew abulia and/or is not a frailty is not a kind of a frailty. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that both the non-nonprescriptionness and the non-bathymetricness occurs is false.
|
¬(¬{D} & ¬{C})
|
sent1: that the cyberneticsness and the incontestableness happens prevents the leaningness. sent2: the cyberneticsness and the non-contestableness occurs if the suffixing Placuna happens. sent3: the suffixing Placuna occurs. sent4: if the leaningness does not occur then the nonprescriptionness does not occur and the bathymetricness does not occur.
|
sent1: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent2: {A} -> ({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent3: {A} sent4: ¬{B} -> (¬{D} & ¬{C})
|
[
"sent2 & sent3 -> int1: the cyberneticsness but not the contestableness occurs.; sent1 & int1 -> int2: the leaning does not occur.; sent4 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent3 -> int1: ({AA} & ¬{AB}); sent1 & int1 -> int2: ¬{B}; sent4 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that both the non-nonprescriptionness and the non-bathymetricness occurs is false. ; $context$ = sent1: that the cyberneticsness and the incontestableness happens prevents the leaningness. sent2: the cyberneticsness and the non-contestableness occurs if the suffixing Placuna happens. sent3: the suffixing Placuna occurs. sent4: if the leaningness does not occur then the nonprescriptionness does not occur and the bathymetricness does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent3 -> int1: the cyberneticsness but not the contestableness occurs.; sent1 & int1 -> int2: the leaning does not occur.; sent4 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the echovirus is a lenticel.
|
{A}{a}
|
sent1: the echovirus is not a lenticel if there is something such that it is not an avant-garde and/or is not a Tandy. sent2: there exists something such that it is an avant-garde and/or it is not a Tandy. sent3: if there exists something such that either it is not an avant-garde or it is not a lenticel or both the echovirus is not a kind of a Tandy. sent4: the cycloserine is not an avant-garde and/or it is not a kind of a Tandy. sent5: if something is not a specific it is not tight and it is not a lenticel. sent6: something is not an avant-garde and/or it is a Tandy. sent7: either the cycloserine is an avant-garde or it is not a Tandy or both. sent8: the echovirus is not a kind of a lenticel if there is something such that it is not a kind of an avant-garde. sent9: that something is not geothermal but it is a kind of a specific is not right if it is squinty. sent10: the echovirus is a lenticel if the birchbark is a kind of a lenticel. sent11: something is not a specific and is not geothermal if it is squinty.
|
sent1: (x): (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent2: (Ex): ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent3: (x): (¬{AA}x v ¬{A}x) -> ¬{AB}{a} sent4: (¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent5: (x): ¬{B}x -> (¬{FC}x & ¬{A}x) sent6: (Ex): (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) sent7: ({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent8: (x): ¬{AA}x -> ¬{A}{a} sent9: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & {B}x) sent10: {A}{b} -> {A}{a} sent11: (x): {D}x -> (¬{B}x & ¬{C}x)
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: something is not an avant-garde and/or it is not a kind of a Tandy.; int1 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> int1: (Ex): (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x); int1 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the echovirus is a lenticel.
|
{A}{a}
|
[
"sent9 -> int2: the fact that the babu is not geothermal but it is a specific does not hold if it is squinty.;"
] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the echovirus is a lenticel. ; $context$ = sent1: the echovirus is not a lenticel if there is something such that it is not an avant-garde and/or is not a Tandy. sent2: there exists something such that it is an avant-garde and/or it is not a Tandy. sent3: if there exists something such that either it is not an avant-garde or it is not a lenticel or both the echovirus is not a kind of a Tandy. sent4: the cycloserine is not an avant-garde and/or it is not a kind of a Tandy. sent5: if something is not a specific it is not tight and it is not a lenticel. sent6: something is not an avant-garde and/or it is a Tandy. sent7: either the cycloserine is an avant-garde or it is not a Tandy or both. sent8: the echovirus is not a kind of a lenticel if there is something such that it is not a kind of an avant-garde. sent9: that something is not geothermal but it is a kind of a specific is not right if it is squinty. sent10: the echovirus is a lenticel if the birchbark is a kind of a lenticel. sent11: something is not a specific and is not geothermal if it is squinty. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> int1: something is not an avant-garde and/or it is not a kind of a Tandy.; int1 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the apologeticness does not occur and the peeping nobelium does not occur.
|
(¬{AA} & ¬{AB})
|
sent1: if the Macedonianness does not occur then the outriding does not occur. sent2: the non-avionicness causes that the non-amaranthineness and the unscalableness happens. sent3: that the apologeticness occurs but the peeping nobelium does not occur causes that the outriding happens. sent4: that both the non-thermometricness and the non-dioeciousness occurs prevents the non-pastaness. sent5: the fadeout does not occur and the shattering does not occur. sent6: the avionicness and/or the non-Macedonianness happens. sent7: that both the non-apologeticness and the peeping nobelium happens is false. sent8: that both the non-apologeticness and the peeping nobelium occurs prevents that the outriding does not occur. sent9: the fact that the apologeticness occurs but the peeping nobelium does not occur is incorrect. sent10: if the shattering happens or the laboring Rask does not occur or both the vicennialness does not occur. sent11: that the zygodactylness does not occur and the deistness does not occur does not hold. sent12: the avionicness and/or the Macedonian happens. sent13: either the avionicness or that the Macedonian does not occur or both leads to that the outriding does not occur. sent14: that the apologeticness does not occur and the peeping nobelium does not occur yields the outriding.
|
sent1: ¬{C} -> ¬{B} sent2: ¬{A} -> (¬{HC} & ¬{EA}) sent3: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent4: (¬{R} & ¬{AL}) -> {FH} sent5: (¬{IQ} & ¬{FF}) sent6: ({A} v ¬{C}) sent7: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent8: (¬{AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent9: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent10: ({FF} v ¬{FJ}) -> ¬{GA} sent11: ¬(¬{CM} & ¬{IP}) sent12: ({A} v {C}) sent13: ({A} v ¬{C}) -> ¬{B} sent14: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the apologeticness does not occur and the peeping nobelium does not occur.; sent14 & assump1 -> int1: that the outriding occurs is not incorrect.; sent13 & sent6 -> int2: the outriding does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}); sent14 & assump1 -> int1: {B}; sent13 & sent6 -> int2: ¬{B}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
both the non-amaranthineness and the unscalableness occurs.
|
(¬{HC} & ¬{EA})
|
[] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the apologeticness does not occur and the peeping nobelium does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Macedonianness does not occur then the outriding does not occur. sent2: the non-avionicness causes that the non-amaranthineness and the unscalableness happens. sent3: that the apologeticness occurs but the peeping nobelium does not occur causes that the outriding happens. sent4: that both the non-thermometricness and the non-dioeciousness occurs prevents the non-pastaness. sent5: the fadeout does not occur and the shattering does not occur. sent6: the avionicness and/or the non-Macedonianness happens. sent7: that both the non-apologeticness and the peeping nobelium happens is false. sent8: that both the non-apologeticness and the peeping nobelium occurs prevents that the outriding does not occur. sent9: the fact that the apologeticness occurs but the peeping nobelium does not occur is incorrect. sent10: if the shattering happens or the laboring Rask does not occur or both the vicennialness does not occur. sent11: that the zygodactylness does not occur and the deistness does not occur does not hold. sent12: the avionicness and/or the Macedonian happens. sent13: either the avionicness or that the Macedonian does not occur or both leads to that the outriding does not occur. sent14: that the apologeticness does not occur and the peeping nobelium does not occur yields the outriding. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the apologeticness does not occur and the peeping nobelium does not occur.; sent14 & assump1 -> int1: that the outriding occurs is not incorrect.; sent13 & sent6 -> int2: the outriding does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the Porter is not a kind of a Resurrection and is not a worry is not correct.
|
¬(¬{D}{a} & ¬{C}{a})
|
sent1: the fact that the Porter is a worry is not false if it is leprous. sent2: if something is categoric the fact that it is not a Resurrection and not a worry does not hold. sent3: if the fact that the Porter either is a worry or is not a cowboy or both does not hold the ginkgo does not worry. sent4: that the Porter is not a kind of a graciousness but it does still is wrong if it is a sonogram. sent5: the fact that the gingersnap is not a chessboard but it is a worry is wrong. sent6: the Porter is a graciousness. sent7: that the materialist is both not a viscounty and a musette is not correct if it is a kind of a graciousness. sent8: that something is not a graciousness but a Resurrection is not correct if it is categoric. sent9: the fact that that something is not a graciousness and it is not categoric is right is not true if it worries. sent10: the fact that the Porter is both a Resurrection and not a worry is wrong. sent11: something is not a Resurrection and not a worry if it is not a graciousness. sent12: the fact that the Porter does not labor Caulophyllum but it is a kind of a odonate does not hold. sent13: the ginkgo is categoric and it is a graciousness if it is not a worry. sent14: that the Porter peeps doormat and is not a riptide is incorrect if the fact that it is ratty hold. sent15: if the Porter is categoric then the fact that it is not a Resurrection and it is a kind of a worry is wrong. sent16: the fact that something is not a graciousness and is a worry is incorrect if it is categoric.
|
sent1: {AN}{a} -> {C}{a} sent2: (x): {B}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{C}x) sent3: ¬({C}{a} v ¬{E}{a}) -> ¬{C}{ir} sent4: {BF}{a} -> ¬(¬{A}{a} & {GL}{a}) sent5: ¬(¬{EM}{if} & {C}{if}) sent6: {A}{a} sent7: {A}{fl} -> ¬(¬{BA}{fl} & {CI}{fl}) sent8: (x): {B}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & {D}x) sent9: (x): {C}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) sent10: ¬({D}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent11: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{D}x & ¬{C}x) sent12: ¬(¬{CL}{a} & {L}{a}) sent13: ¬{C}{ir} -> ({B}{ir} & {A}{ir}) sent14: {FN}{a} -> ¬({BE}{a} & ¬{CT}{a}) sent15: {B}{a} -> ¬(¬{D}{a} & {C}{a}) sent16: (x): {B}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & {C}x)
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: the fact that the Porter is not a Resurrection and not a worry is not true if it is categoric.;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> int1: {B}{a} -> ¬(¬{D}{a} & ¬{C}{a});"
] |
the ginkgo is a graciousness.
|
{A}{ir}
|
[] | 6 | 2 | null | 14 | 0 | 14 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the Porter is not a kind of a Resurrection and is not a worry is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the Porter is a worry is not false if it is leprous. sent2: if something is categoric the fact that it is not a Resurrection and not a worry does not hold. sent3: if the fact that the Porter either is a worry or is not a cowboy or both does not hold the ginkgo does not worry. sent4: that the Porter is not a kind of a graciousness but it does still is wrong if it is a sonogram. sent5: the fact that the gingersnap is not a chessboard but it is a worry is wrong. sent6: the Porter is a graciousness. sent7: that the materialist is both not a viscounty and a musette is not correct if it is a kind of a graciousness. sent8: that something is not a graciousness but a Resurrection is not correct if it is categoric. sent9: the fact that that something is not a graciousness and it is not categoric is right is not true if it worries. sent10: the fact that the Porter is both a Resurrection and not a worry is wrong. sent11: something is not a Resurrection and not a worry if it is not a graciousness. sent12: the fact that the Porter does not labor Caulophyllum but it is a kind of a odonate does not hold. sent13: the ginkgo is categoric and it is a graciousness if it is not a worry. sent14: that the Porter peeps doormat and is not a riptide is incorrect if the fact that it is ratty hold. sent15: if the Porter is categoric then the fact that it is not a Resurrection and it is a kind of a worry is wrong. sent16: the fact that something is not a graciousness and is a worry is incorrect if it is categoric. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> int1: the fact that the Porter is not a Resurrection and not a worry is not true if it is categoric.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there exists something such that if it is a quarters it is not a doggerel does not hold.
|
¬((Ex): {A}x -> ¬{C}x)
|
sent1: if the ex-wife is a kind of a obturator it is not a doggerel. sent2: the cookstove is not a kind of a quarters if that it does lumber is true. sent3: there is something such that if it is a ex-wife then it is not a kind of a soup-strainer. sent4: the cookstove is not a quarters if it is automotive. sent5: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a mourner then it is not eager. sent6: the cookstove is not a kind of a soup-strainer if it does spank. sent7: there exists something such that if it does quarter then it is a kind of a doggerel. sent8: there is something such that if it is a theism it is not a ex-wife. sent9: the cookstove is not a cesium if it is a doggerel. sent10: the cookstove is not nonfunctional if it does oyster. sent11: if the cookstove quarters it is a doggerel. sent12: there is something such that if it is a kind of a SAS it is not crude. sent13: if the fact that the cookstove is a dicot is right it is not a doggerel. sent14: there exists something such that if it is unsupportive it is not an underwriter. sent15: something is not a kind of an alarming if it is inconsolable. sent16: if the cinquefoil is a doggerel it is not a insalubrity. sent17: if the cookstove quarters it is not a doggerel. sent18: if the cookstove is a throwster it is not a kind of a quarters. sent19: the fact that the creature is not a kind of a doggerel is correct if it is a Rosidae. sent20: there is something such that if it is a stout then it is not a kind of a sogginess. sent21: there is something such that if it does peep cinquefoil it is not high-interest.
|
sent1: {BC}{fp} -> ¬{C}{fp} sent2: {AL}{aa} -> ¬{A}{aa} sent3: (Ex): {Q}x -> ¬{EC}x sent4: {BU}{aa} -> ¬{A}{aa} sent5: (Ex): {II}x -> ¬{DQ}x sent6: {AU}{aa} -> ¬{EC}{aa} sent7: (Ex): {A}x -> {C}x sent8: (Ex): {FQ}x -> ¬{Q}x sent9: {C}{aa} -> ¬{HM}{aa} sent10: {GA}{aa} -> ¬{DU}{aa} sent11: {A}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent12: (Ex): {FU}x -> ¬{GJ}x sent13: {GC}{aa} -> ¬{C}{aa} sent14: (Ex): {DS}x -> ¬{EQ}x sent15: (x): {HT}x -> ¬{GD}x sent16: {C}{hh} -> ¬{BN}{hh} sent17: {A}{aa} -> ¬{C}{aa} sent18: {BQ}{aa} -> ¬{A}{aa} sent19: {IR}{fg} -> ¬{C}{fg} sent20: (Ex): {CP}x -> ¬{GN}x sent21: (Ex): {GB}x -> ¬{AO}x
|
[
"sent17 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent17 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there is something such that if it is inconsolable the fact that it is not a kind of an alarming hold.
|
(Ex): {HT}x -> ¬{GD}x
|
[
"sent15 -> int1: if the pleochroism is inconsolable it is not a kind of an alarming.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 20 | 0 | 20 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it is a quarters it is not a doggerel does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the ex-wife is a kind of a obturator it is not a doggerel. sent2: the cookstove is not a kind of a quarters if that it does lumber is true. sent3: there is something such that if it is a ex-wife then it is not a kind of a soup-strainer. sent4: the cookstove is not a quarters if it is automotive. sent5: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a mourner then it is not eager. sent6: the cookstove is not a kind of a soup-strainer if it does spank. sent7: there exists something such that if it does quarter then it is a kind of a doggerel. sent8: there is something such that if it is a theism it is not a ex-wife. sent9: the cookstove is not a cesium if it is a doggerel. sent10: the cookstove is not nonfunctional if it does oyster. sent11: if the cookstove quarters it is a doggerel. sent12: there is something such that if it is a kind of a SAS it is not crude. sent13: if the fact that the cookstove is a dicot is right it is not a doggerel. sent14: there exists something such that if it is unsupportive it is not an underwriter. sent15: something is not a kind of an alarming if it is inconsolable. sent16: if the cinquefoil is a doggerel it is not a insalubrity. sent17: if the cookstove quarters it is not a doggerel. sent18: if the cookstove is a throwster it is not a kind of a quarters. sent19: the fact that the creature is not a kind of a doggerel is correct if it is a Rosidae. sent20: there is something such that if it is a stout then it is not a kind of a sogginess. sent21: there is something such that if it does peep cinquefoil it is not high-interest. ; $proof$ =
|
sent17 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there exists something such that if it is inharmonious it is a kind of anamnestic thing that is not a kind of a pop is not true.
|
¬((Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x))
|
sent1: the kerion is anamnestic and it is a pop if it is inharmonious. sent2: if something is a pop then it is a mystic and does not peep secretary. sent3: there is something such that if it is inharmonious then it is anamnestic. sent4: there exists something such that if it peeps portraiture then it does not garner. sent5: there exists something such that if it is not non-allometric then it does not travel. sent6: if the dyer is a kind of a Holarrhena then it is anamnestic and it is not nonretractile. sent7: there exists something such that if the fact that it is inharmonious is right then the fact that it is anamnestic and a pop is true. sent8: the kerion is anamnestic and not a pop if it is inharmonious. sent9: if the kerion is inharmonious then it is anamnestic.
|
sent1: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent2: (x): {AB}x -> ({HO}x & ¬{II}x) sent3: (Ex): {A}x -> {AA}x sent4: (Ex): {HT}x -> ¬{HR}x sent5: (Ex): {DB}x -> ¬{JA}x sent6: {ED}{if} -> ({AA}{if} & ¬{IB}{if}) sent7: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent8: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent9: {A}{aa} -> {AA}{aa}
|
[
"sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the watchmaker is a kind of mystic thing that does not peep secretary if it is a kind of a pop.
|
{AB}{ek} -> ({HO}{ek} & ¬{II}{ek})
|
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if it is inharmonious it is a kind of anamnestic thing that is not a kind of a pop is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the kerion is anamnestic and it is a pop if it is inharmonious. sent2: if something is a pop then it is a mystic and does not peep secretary. sent3: there is something such that if it is inharmonious then it is anamnestic. sent4: there exists something such that if it peeps portraiture then it does not garner. sent5: there exists something such that if it is not non-allometric then it does not travel. sent6: if the dyer is a kind of a Holarrhena then it is anamnestic and it is not nonretractile. sent7: there exists something such that if the fact that it is inharmonious is right then the fact that it is anamnestic and a pop is true. sent8: the kerion is anamnestic and not a pop if it is inharmonious. sent9: if the kerion is inharmonious then it is anamnestic. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if it is not rational then that it does suffix hysterotomy and it is not cytophotometric is false.
|
(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
sent1: if the applique is rational then that it suffixes hysterotomy and is not cytophotometric is false. sent2: if the fact that the applique is not a rational is not wrong the fact that it does suffix hysterotomy and is not cytophotometric is not correct.
|
sent1: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent2: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})
|
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is not rational then that it does suffix hysterotomy and it is not cytophotometric is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if the applique is rational then that it suffixes hysterotomy and is not cytophotometric is false. sent2: if the fact that the applique is not a rational is not wrong the fact that it does suffix hysterotomy and is not cytophotometric is not correct. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the presidio does not labor ladylikeness hold.
|
¬{B}{c}
|
sent1: the Nitrospan hums and it stews presidio. sent2: there is something such that that it is a kind of a watchmaker that drapes is not right. sent3: if the nick stews vestal then the fact that it is a kind of a sordidness that is not a dash-pot is not correct. sent4: that the ancestress is a watchmaker but it does not drape is not true if the nick does not stew vestal. sent5: the presidio labors ladylikeness if there is something such that that it is a watchmaker and not a draped is incorrect. sent6: the nick does not stew vestal. sent7: The vestal does not stew nick. sent8: the presidio labors ladylikeness if something does drape. sent9: there is something such that it is a watchmaker and it is not a draped.
|
sent1: ({E}{d} & {F}{d}) sent2: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: {A}{a} -> ¬({IN}{a} & ¬{GN}{a}) sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent5: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}{c} sent6: ¬{A}{a} sent7: ¬{AC}{aa} sent8: (x): {AB}x -> {B}{c} sent9: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
[
"sent4 & sent6 -> int1: the fact that the ancestress is both a watchmaker and not a draped is not correct.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that the fact that it is a watchmaker that is not a draped does not hold.; int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 & sent6 -> int1: ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x); int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the presidio does not labor ladylikeness hold.
|
¬{B}{c}
|
[
"sent1 -> int3: something is a kind of a hum and it does stew presidio.;"
] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 6 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the presidio does not labor ladylikeness hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the Nitrospan hums and it stews presidio. sent2: there is something such that that it is a kind of a watchmaker that drapes is not right. sent3: if the nick stews vestal then the fact that it is a kind of a sordidness that is not a dash-pot is not correct. sent4: that the ancestress is a watchmaker but it does not drape is not true if the nick does not stew vestal. sent5: the presidio labors ladylikeness if there is something such that that it is a watchmaker and not a draped is incorrect. sent6: the nick does not stew vestal. sent7: The vestal does not stew nick. sent8: the presidio labors ladylikeness if something does drape. sent9: there is something such that it is a watchmaker and it is not a draped. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 & sent6 -> int1: the fact that the ancestress is both a watchmaker and not a draped is not correct.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that the fact that it is a watchmaker that is not a draped does not hold.; int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the suntrap is a clipping that is logarithmic.
|
({A}{aa} & {B}{aa})
|
sent1: the fact that something is logarithmic is true if it does not upheave or it does not labor steward or both. sent2: the suntrap does not upheave or does not labor steward or both. sent3: the peafowl is not a cavetto. sent4: the suntrap is adamantine and it clips if the peafowl is not a cavetto. sent5: the peafowl is not adamantine if the infusorian is both a translator and adamantine.
|
sent1: (x): (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent2: (¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent3: ¬{D}{a} sent4: ¬{D}{a} -> ({C}{aa} & {A}{aa}) sent5: ({E}{b} & {C}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a}
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: the suntrap is logarithmic if it either does not upheave or does not labor steward or both.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the suntrap is logarithmic.; sent4 & sent3 -> int3: the suntrap is adamantine and it is a clipping.; int3 -> int4: that the suntrap is a kind of a clipping is not wrong.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: (¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}; int1 & sent2 -> int2: {B}{aa}; sent4 & sent3 -> int3: ({C}{aa} & {A}{aa}); int3 -> int4: {A}{aa}; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the suntrap is a clipping that is logarithmic does not hold.
|
¬({A}{aa} & {B}{aa})
|
[] | 5 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the suntrap is a clipping that is logarithmic. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is logarithmic is true if it does not upheave or it does not labor steward or both. sent2: the suntrap does not upheave or does not labor steward or both. sent3: the peafowl is not a cavetto. sent4: the suntrap is adamantine and it clips if the peafowl is not a cavetto. sent5: the peafowl is not adamantine if the infusorian is both a translator and adamantine. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: the suntrap is logarithmic if it either does not upheave or does not labor steward or both.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the suntrap is logarithmic.; sent4 & sent3 -> int3: the suntrap is adamantine and it is a clipping.; int3 -> int4: that the suntrap is a kind of a clipping is not wrong.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the nematode peeps cramp but it does not stew cultivar.
|
({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a})
|
sent1: the onyx does not stew cultivar if that the fact that the glucosamine is not a Papuan and does not stew cultivar is not incorrect is not true. sent2: if the onyx does not stew cultivar then either the nematode is unhappy or it does peep cramp or both. sent3: if something is not viatical then that it is a kind of a Medan and it does labor Wagner does not hold. sent4: if there is something such that it is unhappy that the nematode does peep cramp but it does not stew cultivar is false. sent5: the nematode is not a minstrel. sent6: if something does not labor Wagner it is unhappy or it does not stew cultivar or both. sent7: something does not labor Wagner if that it is a Medan that labor Wagner does not hold. sent8: if there is something such that it is not happy then that the geneticist does stew cultivar and does not peep cramp is not true. sent9: the geneticist is unhappy. sent10: everything is not viatical. sent11: something does peep cramp and is Papuan if it is not a kind of a minstrel.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{E}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent2: ¬{C}{b} -> ({A}{a} v {B}{a}) sent3: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬({F}x & {D}x) sent4: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent5: ¬{G}{a} sent6: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({A}x v ¬{C}x) sent7: (x): ¬({F}x & {D}x) -> ¬{D}x sent8: (x): {A}x -> ¬({C}{aa} & ¬{B}{aa}) sent9: {A}{aa} sent10: (x): ¬{H}x sent11: (x): ¬{G}x -> ({B}x & {E}x)
|
[
"sent9 -> int1: there exists something such that it is unhappy.; int1 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 -> int1: (Ex): {A}x; int1 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the cairngorm peeps cramp.
|
{B}{fh}
|
[] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the nematode peeps cramp but it does not stew cultivar. ; $context$ = sent1: the onyx does not stew cultivar if that the fact that the glucosamine is not a Papuan and does not stew cultivar is not incorrect is not true. sent2: if the onyx does not stew cultivar then either the nematode is unhappy or it does peep cramp or both. sent3: if something is not viatical then that it is a kind of a Medan and it does labor Wagner does not hold. sent4: if there is something such that it is unhappy that the nematode does peep cramp but it does not stew cultivar is false. sent5: the nematode is not a minstrel. sent6: if something does not labor Wagner it is unhappy or it does not stew cultivar or both. sent7: something does not labor Wagner if that it is a Medan that labor Wagner does not hold. sent8: if there is something such that it is not happy then that the geneticist does stew cultivar and does not peep cramp is not true. sent9: the geneticist is unhappy. sent10: everything is not viatical. sent11: something does peep cramp and is Papuan if it is not a kind of a minstrel. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 -> int1: there exists something such that it is unhappy.; int1 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the napa does not avalanche Montreal and is a kind of a fetoscopy is not correct.
|
¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})
|
sent1: the napa is a stain and it is catalytic. sent2: if the napa feels phonophobia then the fact that it does not avalanche Montreal and it is a kind of a fetoscopy is not right. sent3: the fact that if that something avalanches tumefaction but it does not feel phonophobia is not correct then it does not avalanche Montreal is true. sent4: the fact that the napa does avalanche Montreal and is a kind of a fetoscopy is wrong if it feels phonophobia. sent5: if something stains then that it avalanches tumefaction and it does not feel phonophobia is not right. sent6: the napa feels phonophobia. sent7: The phonophobia feels napa.
|
sent1: ({C}{a} & {F}{a}) sent2: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent3: (x): ¬({B}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{AA}x sent4: {A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent5: (x): {C}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{A}x) sent6: {A}{a} sent7: {AC}{aa}
|
[
"sent2 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the napa does not avalanche Montreal but it is a fetoscopy.
|
(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: if that the napa does avalanche tumefaction and does not feel phonophobia does not hold then it does not avalanche Montreal.; sent5 -> int2: if the napa is a stain the fact that it does avalanche tumefaction and does not feel phonophobia is not correct.; sent1 -> int3: the napa is a kind of a stain.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the fact that the napa does avalanche tumefaction but it does not feel phonophobia is not correct.; int1 & int4 -> int5: that the napa does not avalanche Montreal is correct.;"
] | 4 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the napa does not avalanche Montreal and is a kind of a fetoscopy is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the napa is a stain and it is catalytic. sent2: if the napa feels phonophobia then the fact that it does not avalanche Montreal and it is a kind of a fetoscopy is not right. sent3: the fact that if that something avalanches tumefaction but it does not feel phonophobia is not correct then it does not avalanche Montreal is true. sent4: the fact that the napa does avalanche Montreal and is a kind of a fetoscopy is wrong if it feels phonophobia. sent5: if something stains then that it avalanches tumefaction and it does not feel phonophobia is not right. sent6: the napa feels phonophobia. sent7: The phonophobia feels napa. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.