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 tovarich is not a platoon.
|
¬{E}{c}
|
sent1: the tovarich is not a cupbearer. sent2: there is something such that that it is a platoon and it is a adnexa does not hold. sent3: that something does reissue Cyprinodontidae hold. sent4: something is vigesimal. sent5: if that something is polytheistic hold then it is not a kind of a bronchiole. sent6: there exists something such that it is not a atrazine but a adnexa. sent7: if that something is not a atrazine is not false the fact that the fluff is not a platoon but it is not non-binoculars is not correct. sent8: that something is both not a adnexa and not binoculars is right if it is not an oolong. sent9: there exists something such that it does not reissue Cyprinodontidae. sent10: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a atrazine that is a adnexa does not hold. sent11: the fact that the fluff is not a platoon if there is something such that the fact that it is not a adnexa and it is not non-binoculars is not true is correct. sent12: if there is something such that the fact that it is not a atrazine and it is a adnexa does not hold then the fieldworker is not binoculars. sent13: if the fieldworker is not binoculars then the tovarich is not a platoon. sent14: if something is not a bronchiole that it is non-wetting thing that is an enthusiasm is not right. sent15: something is a platoon. sent16: that the fluff is a kind of a bronchiole and is a platoon does not hold. sent17: if the fact that the fluff is not a atrazine but it does reissue Cyprinodontidae is wrong then the tovarich is a platoon. sent18: there exists something such that the fact that it is not binoculars is not wrong. sent19: if there exists something such that it does not reissue Cyprinodontidae the fact that the fluff is a kind of a atrazine that is a adnexa does not hold. sent20: if the fact that the fluff is non-wetting an enthusiasm does not hold then it is not a kind of an oolong. sent21: there is something such that it does habituate Spain.
|
sent1: ¬{HG}{c} sent2: (Ex): ¬({E}x & {C}x) sent3: (Ex): {A}x sent4: (Ex): {BI}x sent5: (x): {J}x -> ¬{I}x sent6: (Ex): (¬{B}x & {C}x) sent7: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬(¬{E}{a} & {D}{a}) sent8: (x): ¬{F}x -> (¬{C}x & ¬{D}x) sent9: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent10: (Ex): ¬({B}x & {C}x) sent11: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & {D}x) -> ¬{E}{a} sent12: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & {C}x) -> ¬{D}{b} sent13: ¬{D}{b} -> ¬{E}{c} sent14: (x): ¬{I}x -> ¬(¬{G}x & {H}x) sent15: (Ex): {E}x sent16: ¬({I}{a} & {E}{a}) sent17: ¬(¬{B}{a} & {A}{a}) -> {E}{c} sent18: (Ex): ¬{D}x sent19: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent20: ¬(¬{G}{a} & {H}{a}) -> ¬{F}{a} sent21: (Ex): {K}x
|
[] |
[] |
the tovarich is a platoon.
|
{E}{c}
|
[
"sent8 -> int1: the fluff is not a adnexa and it is not binoculars if it is not an oolong.; sent14 -> int2: that the fluff is not wetting but it is a kind of an enthusiasm is incorrect if it is not a bronchiole.; sent5 -> int3: if the fluff is polytheistic it is not a bronchiole.;"
] | 8 | 4 | null | 18 | 0 | 18 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the tovarich is not a platoon. ; $context$ = sent1: the tovarich is not a cupbearer. sent2: there is something such that that it is a platoon and it is a adnexa does not hold. sent3: that something does reissue Cyprinodontidae hold. sent4: something is vigesimal. sent5: if that something is polytheistic hold then it is not a kind of a bronchiole. sent6: there exists something such that it is not a atrazine but a adnexa. sent7: if that something is not a atrazine is not false the fact that the fluff is not a platoon but it is not non-binoculars is not correct. sent8: that something is both not a adnexa and not binoculars is right if it is not an oolong. sent9: there exists something such that it does not reissue Cyprinodontidae. sent10: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a atrazine that is a adnexa does not hold. sent11: the fact that the fluff is not a platoon if there is something such that the fact that it is not a adnexa and it is not non-binoculars is not true is correct. sent12: if there is something such that the fact that it is not a atrazine and it is a adnexa does not hold then the fieldworker is not binoculars. sent13: if the fieldworker is not binoculars then the tovarich is not a platoon. sent14: if something is not a bronchiole that it is non-wetting thing that is an enthusiasm is not right. sent15: something is a platoon. sent16: that the fluff is a kind of a bronchiole and is a platoon does not hold. sent17: if the fact that the fluff is not a atrazine but it does reissue Cyprinodontidae is wrong then the tovarich is a platoon. sent18: there exists something such that the fact that it is not binoculars is not wrong. sent19: if there exists something such that it does not reissue Cyprinodontidae the fact that the fluff is a kind of a atrazine that is a adnexa does not hold. sent20: if the fact that the fluff is non-wetting an enthusiasm does not hold then it is not a kind of an oolong. sent21: there is something such that it does habituate Spain. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the sermon happens and the chauvinisticness occurs.
|
({A} & {C})
|
sent1: the sermon and the execration happens if that the unmanning Cassandra does not occur hold. sent2: if the fact that the pricking and the digitigradeness occurs does not hold then the fact that the pricking does not occur hold. sent3: both the burgeoning and the weatherliness occurs. sent4: the chauvinisticness happens and the reconsideration occurs. sent5: that the prick occurs and the digitigrade occurs does not hold if the Assameseness does not occur. sent6: if the unrentableness occurs then the telecast does not occur and the metrification does not occur. sent7: the lobectomy and the jest happens if the prick does not occur. sent8: if the unmanning Cassandra does not occur that the sermon occurs and the chauvinisticness occurs is incorrect. sent9: if the lobectomy happens then the unrentableness occurs. sent10: that the metrification does not occur brings about that the unmanning Cassandra does not occur and the reconsideration does not occur. sent11: both the sermon and the unmanning Cassandra happens.
|
sent1: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {HM}) sent2: ¬({J} & {L}) -> ¬{J} sent3: ({HP} & {FM}) sent4: ({C} & {D}) sent5: ¬{K} -> ¬({J} & {L}) sent6: {G} -> (¬{F} & ¬{E}) sent7: ¬{J} -> ({H} & {I}) sent8: ¬{B} -> ¬({A} & {C}) sent9: {H} -> {G} sent10: ¬{E} -> (¬{B} & ¬{D}) sent11: ({A} & {B})
|
[
"sent11 -> int1: the sermon happens.; sent4 -> int2: the chauvinisticness occurs.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent11 -> int1: {A}; sent4 -> int2: {C}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the execration happens.
|
{HM}
|
[] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the sermon happens and the chauvinisticness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the sermon and the execration happens if that the unmanning Cassandra does not occur hold. sent2: if the fact that the pricking and the digitigradeness occurs does not hold then the fact that the pricking does not occur hold. sent3: both the burgeoning and the weatherliness occurs. sent4: the chauvinisticness happens and the reconsideration occurs. sent5: that the prick occurs and the digitigrade occurs does not hold if the Assameseness does not occur. sent6: if the unrentableness occurs then the telecast does not occur and the metrification does not occur. sent7: the lobectomy and the jest happens if the prick does not occur. sent8: if the unmanning Cassandra does not occur that the sermon occurs and the chauvinisticness occurs is incorrect. sent9: if the lobectomy happens then the unrentableness occurs. sent10: that the metrification does not occur brings about that the unmanning Cassandra does not occur and the reconsideration does not occur. sent11: both the sermon and the unmanning Cassandra happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent11 -> int1: the sermon happens.; sent4 -> int2: the chauvinisticness occurs.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the tulipwood is a Laius.
|
{B}{b}
|
sent1: the flexor is not a heating and it does not reissue urine if it is not a diocesan. sent2: the fact that something is not macerative but multilingual is false if it is not a kind of a heating. sent3: The bat does not habituate flexor. sent4: if the flexor is sane thing that is not nonproprietary then the tulipwood is a Laius. sent5: the flexor is not a kind of a diocesan. sent6: that something is not Hemingwayesque but it does habituate bat is not right if it is not multilingual. sent7: if the flexor does not habituate bat it is not insane. sent8: something is not a kind of a Laius if the fact that it is not Hemingwayesque and it does habituate bat does not hold. sent9: the tulipwood does habituate bat. sent10: the flexor is sane but it is not nonproprietary if it does not habituate bat.
|
sent1: ¬{H}{a} -> (¬{F}{a} & ¬{G}{a}) sent2: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & {D}x) sent3: ¬{AC}{aa} sent4: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent5: ¬{H}{a} sent6: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & {A}x) sent7: ¬{A}{a} -> {AA}{a} sent8: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & {A}x) -> ¬{B}x sent9: {A}{b} sent10: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})
|
[] |
[] |
that the tulipwood is not a kind of a Laius is correct.
|
¬{B}{b}
|
[
"sent8 -> int1: if that the tulipwood is not Hemingwayesque and habituates bat is false then it is not a Laius.; sent6 -> int2: if the tulipwood is not multilingual the fact that it is not Hemingwayesque and does habituate bat is not true.; sent2 -> int3: if the fact that the flexor does not heat is not incorrect then the fact that it is not macerative and it is multilingual is not correct.; sent1 & sent5 -> int4: the flexor is not a heating and does not reissue urine.; int4 -> int5: the flexor does not heat.; int3 & int5 -> int6: the fact that the flexor is not macerative and not non-multilingual does not hold.; int6 -> int7: there is something such that that it is not macerative and it is multilingual does not hold.;"
] | 7 | 2 | null | 8 | 0 | 8 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the tulipwood is a Laius. ; $context$ = sent1: the flexor is not a heating and it does not reissue urine if it is not a diocesan. sent2: the fact that something is not macerative but multilingual is false if it is not a kind of a heating. sent3: The bat does not habituate flexor. sent4: if the flexor is sane thing that is not nonproprietary then the tulipwood is a Laius. sent5: the flexor is not a kind of a diocesan. sent6: that something is not Hemingwayesque but it does habituate bat is not right if it is not multilingual. sent7: if the flexor does not habituate bat it is not insane. sent8: something is not a kind of a Laius if the fact that it is not Hemingwayesque and it does habituate bat does not hold. sent9: the tulipwood does habituate bat. sent10: the flexor is sane but it is not nonproprietary if it does not habituate bat. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there exists something such that if it does unman rocambole that it is not a kind of a lexicography and is not a kind of a quantity is false is not true.
|
¬((Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x))
|
sent1: if something is a kind of a lexicography the fact that it does not question and does not unman thallophyte is not right. sent2: if the thallophyte does unman rocambole the fact that that it is not a kind of a lexicography and it is not a quantity hold is wrong. sent3: there is something such that if it unmans rocambole then that it is not a lexicography and it is a quantity is incorrect. sent4: there exists something such that if it does unman rocambole then that it is a lexicography and it is not a kind of a quantity does not hold.
|
sent1: (x): {AA}x -> ¬(¬{IG}x & ¬{GA}x) sent2: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent3: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent4: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the fact that the banksia is not a questioning and it does not unman thallophyte hold is incorrect if it is a kind of a lexicography.
|
{AA}{cm} -> ¬(¬{IG}{cm} & ¬{GA}{cm})
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if it does unman rocambole that it is not a kind of a lexicography and is not a kind of a quantity is false is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a kind of a lexicography the fact that it does not question and does not unman thallophyte is not right. sent2: if the thallophyte does unman rocambole the fact that that it is not a kind of a lexicography and it is not a quantity hold is wrong. sent3: there is something such that if it unmans rocambole then that it is not a lexicography and it is a quantity is incorrect. sent4: there exists something such that if it does unman rocambole then that it is a lexicography and it is not a kind of a quantity does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there is something such that if it alters and it is not a kind of a coiner then it habituates octave is false.
|
¬((Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x)
|
sent1: if the assegai is both a Sitophylus and chromatic it is a kind of a Aspergillus. sent2: there is something such that if it is incredulous and it does tithe then it is chromatic. sent3: if the nephoscope is aplacental but it does not tone it is a kind of a fiduciary. sent4: if something is a sharksucker but it does not augment it is an explosive. sent5: if the nephoscope does habituate Cyprinodontidae and it habituates cornerback it is a hegemony. sent6: if the nephoscope is blastoporal and it is a coiner it is a jello. sent7: there exists something such that if it is schizophrenic and it is not backless it does habituate pirouette. sent8: if the nephoscope does alter and does not habituate Zeus then it is penetrable. sent9: the linuron unmans base if it is a ambulation and it is not a coiner. sent10: there exists something such that if it is palpatory and it is undulatory it is trivalent. sent11: the nephoscope does habituate octave if it alters and is a kind of a coiner. sent12: there exists something such that if it is both a podzol and not a mineral then it is a Anguillula. sent13: the floating-moss is a kind of a tidy if it is not non-supernal and it habituates octave. sent14: if the nephoscope alters and is not a coiner it does habituate octave. sent15: the fusion is dimorphic if it habituates Cyprinodontidae and does not alter. sent16: there exists something such that if it does reissue manatee and it is conjunctival then it is a Weil. sent17: there exists something such that if it does reissue mongolism and does not habituate internet it is a kind of an apparatchik. sent18: there exists something such that if it is specialistic but not a tidy it is supernal. sent19: there exists something such that if it antisepticizes Styron and is a Sitophylus then it is a kind of a devotional.
|
sent1: ({DB}{ab} & {J}{ab}) -> {FO}{ab} sent2: (Ex): ({EI}x & {IJ}x) -> {J}x sent3: ({AF}{aa} & ¬{AH}{aa}) -> {II}{aa} sent4: (x): ({CB}x & ¬{CH}x) -> {HQ}x sent5: ({FB}{aa} & {H}{aa}) -> {EQ}{aa} sent6: ({FG}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {GU}{aa} sent7: (Ex): ({EB}x & ¬{JF}x) -> {GG}x sent8: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{EL}{aa}) -> {EO}{aa} sent9: ({FF}{fc} & ¬{AB}{fc}) -> {BI}{fc} sent10: (Ex): ({JE}x & {AN}x) -> {BE}x sent11: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent12: (Ex): ({HD}x & ¬{GI}x) -> {JK}x sent13: ({CK}{ds} & {B}{ds}) -> {AD}{ds} sent14: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent15: ({FB}{cq} & ¬{AA}{cq}) -> {HC}{cq} sent16: (Ex): ({HE}x & {EK}x) -> {G}x sent17: (Ex): ({Q}x & ¬{CC}x) -> {DJ}x sent18: (Ex): ({EA}x & ¬{AD}x) -> {CK}x sent19: (Ex): ({AS}x & {DB}x) -> {HL}x
|
[
"sent14 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent14 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there is something such that if it is a sharksucker and it does not augment it is a kind of an explosive.
|
(Ex): ({CB}x & ¬{CH}x) -> {HQ}x
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: if the thallophyte is a kind of a sharksucker and does not augment then it is an explosive.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if it alters and it is not a kind of a coiner then it habituates octave is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if the assegai is both a Sitophylus and chromatic it is a kind of a Aspergillus. sent2: there is something such that if it is incredulous and it does tithe then it is chromatic. sent3: if the nephoscope is aplacental but it does not tone it is a kind of a fiduciary. sent4: if something is a sharksucker but it does not augment it is an explosive. sent5: if the nephoscope does habituate Cyprinodontidae and it habituates cornerback it is a hegemony. sent6: if the nephoscope is blastoporal and it is a coiner it is a jello. sent7: there exists something such that if it is schizophrenic and it is not backless it does habituate pirouette. sent8: if the nephoscope does alter and does not habituate Zeus then it is penetrable. sent9: the linuron unmans base if it is a ambulation and it is not a coiner. sent10: there exists something such that if it is palpatory and it is undulatory it is trivalent. sent11: the nephoscope does habituate octave if it alters and is a kind of a coiner. sent12: there exists something such that if it is both a podzol and not a mineral then it is a Anguillula. sent13: the floating-moss is a kind of a tidy if it is not non-supernal and it habituates octave. sent14: if the nephoscope alters and is not a coiner it does habituate octave. sent15: the fusion is dimorphic if it habituates Cyprinodontidae and does not alter. sent16: there exists something such that if it does reissue manatee and it is conjunctival then it is a Weil. sent17: there exists something such that if it does reissue mongolism and does not habituate internet it is a kind of an apparatchik. sent18: there exists something such that if it is specialistic but not a tidy it is supernal. sent19: there exists something such that if it antisepticizes Styron and is a Sitophylus then it is a kind of a devotional. ; $proof$ =
|
sent14 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the crowing does not occur.
|
¬{D}
|
sent1: both the cryptography and the sustenance occurs. sent2: if the agitation does not occur then the antisepticizing fanlight occurs and the crow happens. sent3: the immobileness occurs. sent4: if the cryptography happens and the antisepticizing fanlight happens then the crow does not occur. sent5: if that the cryptography does not occur hold then that the agitation happens is correct. sent6: both the antisepticizing fanlight and the agitation occurs. sent7: if that the fact that not the habituating gossiping but the overexploitation occurs is incorrect hold then the havoc does not occur. sent8: if the havoc does not occur then the fact that not the sustenance but the crow occurs is true. sent9: that not the sustenance but the crowing happens prevents the cryptography.
|
sent1: ({C} & {E}) sent2: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {D}) sent3: {FI} sent4: ({C} & {A}) -> ¬{D} sent5: ¬{C} -> {B} sent6: ({A} & {B}) sent7: ¬(¬{G} & {H}) -> ¬{F} sent8: ¬{F} -> (¬{E} & {D}) sent9: (¬{E} & {D}) -> ¬{C}
|
[
"sent6 -> int1: the antisepticizing fanlight happens.; sent1 -> int2: the cryptography happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the cryptography happens and the antisepticizing fanlight occurs.; int3 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 -> int1: {A}; sent1 -> int2: {C}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({C} & {A}); int3 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the crowing occurs.
|
{D}
|
[] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 6 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the crowing does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: both the cryptography and the sustenance occurs. sent2: if the agitation does not occur then the antisepticizing fanlight occurs and the crow happens. sent3: the immobileness occurs. sent4: if the cryptography happens and the antisepticizing fanlight happens then the crow does not occur. sent5: if that the cryptography does not occur hold then that the agitation happens is correct. sent6: both the antisepticizing fanlight and the agitation occurs. sent7: if that the fact that not the habituating gossiping but the overexploitation occurs is incorrect hold then the havoc does not occur. sent8: if the havoc does not occur then the fact that not the sustenance but the crow occurs is true. sent9: that not the sustenance but the crowing happens prevents the cryptography. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 -> int1: the antisepticizing fanlight happens.; sent1 -> int2: the cryptography happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the cryptography happens and the antisepticizing fanlight occurs.; int3 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the psylla antisepticizes Dewar and is a sarcoma does not hold.
|
¬({E}{b} & {D}{b})
|
sent1: if that the ferricyanide is not a sarcoma hold then the psylla antisepticizes Dewar and it is a sarcoma. sent2: the ferricyanide is not a sarcoma if the fact that it does not unman jitteriness and/or is a Shakespearian is not correct. sent3: something is not a sarcoma if the fact that it either does not unman jitteriness or is not Shakespearian or both is not right. sent4: if the ferricyanide is not a sarcoma the psylla antisepticizes Dewar. sent5: that either the psylla does not unman jitteriness or it is not a sarcoma or both is false if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Shakespearian. sent6: the fact that the psylla is not a sarcoma and/or does not unman jitteriness is not correct if there is something such that it does not antisepticize Dewar. sent7: if something is not tribal then the fact that it antisepticizes Dewar and is a sarcoma is incorrect. sent8: the psylla antisepticizes Dewar. sent9: there is something such that it is not tribal. sent10: if there is something such that it is not tribal the ferricyanide is a kind of a Shakespearian. sent11: the fact that either the ferricyanide does not unman jitteriness or it is not a Shakespearian or both does not hold if there are non-tribal things. sent12: that the ferricyanide is Shakespearian hold.
|
sent1: ¬{D}{a} -> ({E}{b} & {D}{b}) sent2: ¬(¬{B}{a} v {C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent3: (x): ¬(¬{B}x v ¬{C}x) -> ¬{D}x sent4: ¬{D}{a} -> {E}{b} sent5: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{B}{b} v ¬{D}{b}) sent6: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬(¬{D}{b} v ¬{B}{b}) sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({E}x & {D}x) sent8: {E}{b} sent9: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent10: (x): ¬{A}x -> {C}{a} sent11: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) sent12: {C}{a}
|
[
"sent9 & sent11 -> int1: the fact that the ferricyanide does not unman jitteriness and/or it is not a Shakespearian does not hold.; sent3 -> int2: the ferricyanide is not a sarcoma if the fact that either it does not unman jitteriness or it is not a kind of a Shakespearian or both is not true.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the ferricyanide is not a kind of a sarcoma.; int3 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent9 & sent11 -> int1: ¬(¬{B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}); sent3 -> int2: ¬(¬{B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬{D}{a}; int3 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the psylla antisepticizes Dewar and it is a sarcoma does not hold.
|
¬({E}{b} & {D}{b})
|
[
"sent7 -> int4: the fact that if the psylla is not tribal that the psylla does antisepticize Dewar and is a kind of a sarcoma is incorrect is not false.;"
] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the psylla antisepticizes Dewar and is a sarcoma does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the ferricyanide is not a sarcoma hold then the psylla antisepticizes Dewar and it is a sarcoma. sent2: the ferricyanide is not a sarcoma if the fact that it does not unman jitteriness and/or is a Shakespearian is not correct. sent3: something is not a sarcoma if the fact that it either does not unman jitteriness or is not Shakespearian or both is not right. sent4: if the ferricyanide is not a sarcoma the psylla antisepticizes Dewar. sent5: that either the psylla does not unman jitteriness or it is not a sarcoma or both is false if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Shakespearian. sent6: the fact that the psylla is not a sarcoma and/or does not unman jitteriness is not correct if there is something such that it does not antisepticize Dewar. sent7: if something is not tribal then the fact that it antisepticizes Dewar and is a sarcoma is incorrect. sent8: the psylla antisepticizes Dewar. sent9: there is something such that it is not tribal. sent10: if there is something such that it is not tribal the ferricyanide is a kind of a Shakespearian. sent11: the fact that either the ferricyanide does not unman jitteriness or it is not a Shakespearian or both does not hold if there are non-tribal things. sent12: that the ferricyanide is Shakespearian hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent9 & sent11 -> int1: the fact that the ferricyanide does not unman jitteriness and/or it is not a Shakespearian does not hold.; sent3 -> int2: the ferricyanide is not a sarcoma if the fact that either it does not unman jitteriness or it is not a kind of a Shakespearian or both is not true.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the ferricyanide is not a kind of a sarcoma.; int3 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the aerial does not habituate glaze and reissues flageolet.
|
(¬{C}{d} & {E}{d})
|
sent1: if the hexestrol does not habituate glaze the aerial does not habituate glaze and does reissue flageolet. sent2: if the bill does not habituate cheat the asp does not habituate commissariat. sent3: The cheat does not habituate bill. sent4: the bill does not habituate cheat. sent5: if the asp does not habituate commissariat the hexestrol does not habituate glaze.
|
sent1: ¬{C}{c} -> (¬{C}{d} & {E}{d}) sent2: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent3: ¬{AA}{aa} sent4: ¬{A}{a} sent5: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬{C}{c}
|
[
"sent2 & sent4 -> int1: the asp does not habituate commissariat.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the hexestrol does not habituate glaze.; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent4 -> int1: ¬{B}{b}; int1 & sent5 -> int2: ¬{C}{c}; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the aerial does not habituate glaze and reissues flageolet. ; $context$ = sent1: if the hexestrol does not habituate glaze the aerial does not habituate glaze and does reissue flageolet. sent2: if the bill does not habituate cheat the asp does not habituate commissariat. sent3: The cheat does not habituate bill. sent4: the bill does not habituate cheat. sent5: if the asp does not habituate commissariat the hexestrol does not habituate glaze. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent4 -> int1: the asp does not habituate commissariat.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the hexestrol does not habituate glaze.; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the asyndeticness does not occur and the telling happens is not correct.
|
¬(¬{AA} & {AB})
|
sent1: that not the unmanning Beveridge but the heliolatry happens is incorrect. sent2: the reissuing hold occurs if that the signal does not occur and the dyslexicness occurs is not correct. sent3: the fact that the inverting but not the habituating thane occurs does not hold. sent4: if the fact that both the non-asyndeticness and the telling happens is false the signal occurs. sent5: the explicitness does not occur. sent6: if the postmillennialness does not occur then the external happens. sent7: that the signal but not the dyslexicness occurs is wrong. sent8: that the controlling but not the uncared-forness happens is false. sent9: the signal does not occur if the fact that the signal and the non-dyslexicness occurs is not true.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{CN} & {II}) sent2: ¬(¬{B} & {A}) -> {BF} sent3: ¬({FE} & ¬{JJ}) sent4: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent5: ¬{D} sent6: ¬{IU} -> {BL} sent7: ¬({B} & ¬{A}) sent8: ¬({DJ} & ¬{AE}) sent9: ¬({B} & ¬{A}) -> ¬{B}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that that not the asyndeticness but the telling occurs is wrong.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the signal happens.; sent9 & sent7 -> int2: the signal does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}); sent4 & assump1 -> int1: {B}; sent9 & sent7 -> int2: ¬{B}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the reissuing hold occurs.
|
{BF}
|
[] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 6 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the asyndeticness does not occur and the telling happens is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: that not the unmanning Beveridge but the heliolatry happens is incorrect. sent2: the reissuing hold occurs if that the signal does not occur and the dyslexicness occurs is not correct. sent3: the fact that the inverting but not the habituating thane occurs does not hold. sent4: if the fact that both the non-asyndeticness and the telling happens is false the signal occurs. sent5: the explicitness does not occur. sent6: if the postmillennialness does not occur then the external happens. sent7: that the signal but not the dyslexicness occurs is wrong. sent8: that the controlling but not the uncared-forness happens is false. sent9: the signal does not occur if the fact that the signal and the non-dyslexicness occurs is not true. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that not the asyndeticness but the telling occurs is wrong.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the signal happens.; sent9 & sent7 -> int2: the signal does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there is something such that if it is an allocation then it is not ecdemic is not right.
|
¬((Ex): {A}x -> ¬{C}x)
|
sent1: if the fact that something is terrestrial is not wrong then that it is not a Plectorrhiza is not incorrect. sent2: something is not a kind of a Argive if it is puerperal. sent3: there is something such that if it is an allocation then it is ecdemic. sent4: something is ecdemic if it is an allocation. sent5: something is not ecdemic if it is a kind of an allocation. sent6: if the acoustics is a kind of an allocation then it is ecdemic.
|
sent1: (x): {ED}x -> ¬{GU}x sent2: (x): {IM}x -> ¬{BN}x sent3: (Ex): {A}x -> {C}x sent4: (x): {A}x -> {C}x sent5: (x): {A}x -> ¬{C}x sent6: {A}{aa} -> {C}{aa}
|
[
"sent5 -> int1: if that the acoustics is an allocation is not incorrect then it is not ecdemic.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 -> int1: {A}{aa} -> ¬{C}{aa}; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the bounder is not a kind of a Argive if it is puerperal.
|
{IM}{gi} -> ¬{BN}{gi}
|
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if it is an allocation then it is not ecdemic is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something is terrestrial is not wrong then that it is not a Plectorrhiza is not incorrect. sent2: something is not a kind of a Argive if it is puerperal. sent3: there is something such that if it is an allocation then it is ecdemic. sent4: something is ecdemic if it is an allocation. sent5: something is not ecdemic if it is a kind of an allocation. sent6: if the acoustics is a kind of an allocation then it is ecdemic. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 -> int1: if that the acoustics is an allocation is not incorrect then it is not ecdemic.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the unmanning cheat does not occur or the insolubleness happens or both.
|
(¬{A} v {B})
|
sent1: the updraft does not occur and/or the multivalentness happens. sent2: both the downfall and the unmanning cheat happens if the insolubleness does not occur. sent3: the insolubleness happens. sent4: if that the unmanning Hexanchidae occurs is correct the fact that the unmanning cheat does not occur or the insolubleness happens or both is not right.
|
sent1: (¬{CI} v {EN}) sent2: ¬{B} -> ({F} & {A}) sent3: {B} sent4: {C} -> ¬(¬{A} v {B})
|
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the unmanning cheat does not occur and/or the insolubleness happens is not correct.
|
¬(¬{A} v {B})
|
[] | 6 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the unmanning cheat does not occur or the insolubleness happens or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the updraft does not occur and/or the multivalentness happens. sent2: both the downfall and the unmanning cheat happens if the insolubleness does not occur. sent3: the insolubleness happens. sent4: if that the unmanning Hexanchidae occurs is correct the fact that the unmanning cheat does not occur or the insolubleness happens or both is not right. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the MPS is a Eusebius.
|
{AB}{b}
|
sent1: the jerk does not unman mortification. sent2: the jerk does unman silicone. sent3: the fact that the jerk does not antisepticize Lange is not incorrect. sent4: something does not habituate calorimeter and is a mechanization if it is a merit. sent5: if something is a gestation and not agreeable it is a Eusebius. sent6: the MPS does not unman silicone and is not agreeable if the jerk is a kind of a Eusebius. sent7: if that the MPS is not agreeable is wrong then the jerk is not a Eusebius. sent8: if the jerk is agreeable the MPS does not unman silicone and it is not a Eusebius. sent9: if the jerk does not antisepticize Lange it is a merit and it is capitular. sent10: the jerk is agreeable. sent11: the MPS does not unman silicone. sent12: the MPS is agreeable.
|
sent1: ¬{BC}{a} sent2: {AA}{a} sent3: ¬{G}{a} sent4: (x): {E}x -> (¬{C}x & {D}x) sent5: (x): ({B}x & ¬{A}x) -> {AB}x sent6: {AB}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent7: {A}{b} -> ¬{AB}{a} sent8: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent9: ¬{G}{a} -> ({E}{a} & {F}{a}) sent10: {A}{a} sent11: ¬{AA}{b} sent12: {A}{b}
|
[
"sent8 & sent10 -> int1: the MPS does not unman silicone and it is not a kind of a Eusebius.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 & sent10 -> int1: (¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the rheumatologist is agreeable.
|
{A}{ff}
|
[
"sent4 -> int2: the jerk does not habituate calorimeter but it is a mechanization if it is a merit.; sent9 & sent3 -> int3: the jerk is a merit and it is capitular.; int3 -> int4: the jerk is a kind of a merit.; int2 & int4 -> int5: the jerk does not habituate calorimeter and is a mechanization.; int5 -> int6: the jerk does not habituate calorimeter.; int6 -> int7: there exists something such that it does not habituate calorimeter.;"
] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 0 | 10 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the MPS is a Eusebius. ; $context$ = sent1: the jerk does not unman mortification. sent2: the jerk does unman silicone. sent3: the fact that the jerk does not antisepticize Lange is not incorrect. sent4: something does not habituate calorimeter and is a mechanization if it is a merit. sent5: if something is a gestation and not agreeable it is a Eusebius. sent6: the MPS does not unman silicone and is not agreeable if the jerk is a kind of a Eusebius. sent7: if that the MPS is not agreeable is wrong then the jerk is not a Eusebius. sent8: if the jerk is agreeable the MPS does not unman silicone and it is not a Eusebius. sent9: if the jerk does not antisepticize Lange it is a merit and it is capitular. sent10: the jerk is agreeable. sent11: the MPS does not unman silicone. sent12: the MPS is agreeable. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 & sent10 -> int1: the MPS does not unman silicone and it is not a kind of a Eusebius.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that if the kawaka is a kind of the Dnipropetrovsk then the fact that the kawaka does not unman worthlessness and does clear is not correct is not correct.
|
¬({A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}))
|
sent1: the earldom does not unman worthlessness and is tractive if it does habituate omeprazole. sent2: the fact that the Vela does not habituate shoe and is embolic is wrong if it unmans sequence. sent3: the kawaka does not unman vizier and is eyeless if it is a kind of a Dnipropetrovsk. sent4: the fact that that the kawaka is not cyclothymic and habituates shoe is right is wrong if it does habituate nard. sent5: if the gramicidin is a tadpole then it is not an engineer and it is not uncleared. sent6: if the kawaka is a archil then it does not unman worthlessness and is aerophilatelic. sent7: the fact that something does not dial and antisepticizes expunction does not hold if that it does habituate Meissner hold. sent8: the fact that something does not unman worthlessness but it is a kind of a cleared is false if that it is a Dnipropetrovsk is correct. sent9: the fact that something is not a bpm but it is a defamer is false if it is not non-Coleridgian. sent10: that something does not pass and does unman chamberpot is incorrect if it is sporadic. sent11: the fact that the kawaka is not a Oakley and is an apparatus does not hold if it is cleared. sent12: if something does reissue recollection that it is not a antinomian and it is avellan is wrong. sent13: the fact that that the kawaka is non-aleuronic thing that is a Dnipropetrovsk is true is not true if it is a kind of a eulogist. sent14: that something is not lupine but myrmecophytic is not right if it is a coarctation. sent15: the fact that the kawaka is homonymic and it is a Dnipropetrovsk does not hold if it does misdeal. sent16: if the scrimshaw is a due it does not unman worthlessness and it is humane. sent17: if the kawaka is reversible then it is not a throb and does unman worthlessness. sent18: the fact that something is a monasticism and it is a pentylenetetrazol is false if it is ultramicroscopic.
|
sent1: {BT}{ad} -> (¬{AA}{ad} & {FO}{ad}) sent2: {DC}{if} -> ¬(¬{FN}{if} & {EU}{if}) sent3: {A}{aa} -> (¬{HP}{aa} & {GT}{aa}) sent4: {DU}{aa} -> ¬(¬{T}{aa} & {FN}{aa}) sent5: {S}{fi} -> (¬{CL}{fi} & {AB}{fi}) sent6: {AI}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {HC}{aa}) sent7: (x): {F}x -> ¬(¬{HN}x & {FR}x) sent8: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent9: (x): {CN}x -> ¬(¬{DA}x & {HL}x) sent10: (x): {DR}x -> ¬(¬{IN}x & {AN}x) sent11: {AB}{aa} -> ¬(¬{FL}{aa} & {EF}{aa}) sent12: (x): {JA}x -> ¬(¬{DB}x & {O}x) sent13: {JJ}{aa} -> ¬(¬{EA}{aa} & {A}{aa}) sent14: (x): {GR}x -> ¬(¬{DI}x & {AR}x) sent15: {EC}{aa} -> ¬({CS}{aa} & {A}{aa}) sent16: {JB}{an} -> (¬{AA}{an} & {AK}{an}) sent17: {BI}{aa} -> (¬{IE}{aa} & {AA}{aa}) sent18: (x): {BC}x -> ¬({BU}x & {FP}x)
|
[
"sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 17 | 0 | 17 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = that if the kawaka is a kind of the Dnipropetrovsk then the fact that the kawaka does not unman worthlessness and does clear is not correct is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the earldom does not unman worthlessness and is tractive if it does habituate omeprazole. sent2: the fact that the Vela does not habituate shoe and is embolic is wrong if it unmans sequence. sent3: the kawaka does not unman vizier and is eyeless if it is a kind of a Dnipropetrovsk. sent4: the fact that that the kawaka is not cyclothymic and habituates shoe is right is wrong if it does habituate nard. sent5: if the gramicidin is a tadpole then it is not an engineer and it is not uncleared. sent6: if the kawaka is a archil then it does not unman worthlessness and is aerophilatelic. sent7: the fact that something does not dial and antisepticizes expunction does not hold if that it does habituate Meissner hold. sent8: the fact that something does not unman worthlessness but it is a kind of a cleared is false if that it is a Dnipropetrovsk is correct. sent9: the fact that something is not a bpm but it is a defamer is false if it is not non-Coleridgian. sent10: that something does not pass and does unman chamberpot is incorrect if it is sporadic. sent11: the fact that the kawaka is not a Oakley and is an apparatus does not hold if it is cleared. sent12: if something does reissue recollection that it is not a antinomian and it is avellan is wrong. sent13: the fact that that the kawaka is non-aleuronic thing that is a Dnipropetrovsk is true is not true if it is a kind of a eulogist. sent14: that something is not lupine but myrmecophytic is not right if it is a coarctation. sent15: the fact that the kawaka is homonymic and it is a Dnipropetrovsk does not hold if it does misdeal. sent16: if the scrimshaw is a due it does not unman worthlessness and it is humane. sent17: if the kawaka is reversible then it is not a throb and does unman worthlessness. sent18: the fact that something is a monasticism and it is a pentylenetetrazol is false if it is ultramicroscopic. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the test is a ministrant.
|
{E}{b}
|
sent1: if the prince's-plume is not Portuguese the test is not a Libyan. sent2: the prince's-plume is not a ministrant and it is not a Libyan if the test is not Portuguese. sent3: the contact is a kind of a moat but it is not a stockinet if the bowler is immunocompetent. sent4: the prince's-plume is not a ministrant. sent5: if something is not a Libyan and it is not a Shari it is not a ministrant. sent6: the test is both a ministrant and a Portuguese if the prince's-plume is not a vow. sent7: something that is not a vow and is not a Portuguese is not a Shari. sent8: the test is not a kind of a Libyan. sent9: if that something is not a Shari but it vows is not correct then it does not vows. sent10: that the blastula is perigonal and not a refectory does not hold. sent11: that the prince's-plume is a kind of a vow is correct. sent12: the prince's-plume is not a snobbery. sent13: if something is a moat and is not a stockinet the gharry is not a Libyan. sent14: the prince's-plume is both non-Portuguese and a vow. sent15: if the fact that the blastula is perigonal and is not a refectory is wrong then the bowler antisepticizes Anisoptera. sent16: that the hornblende is both non-Portuguese and a sylvan is correct. sent17: the fact that the test is non-Portuguese and it is not a vow if the gharry is a Shari hold. sent18: the test is not Libyan and not a Shari if the prince's-plume is non-Portuguese. sent19: if a Libyan is not a kind of a Shari then that it is not a ministrant hold. sent20: if something does antisepticize Anisoptera it is immunocompetent. sent21: the prince's-plume is not a Shari. sent22: the test is not a ministrant if it is a Libyan and it is not a Shari. sent23: the prince's-plume does not stop but it unmans tristearin.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{D}{b} sent2: ¬{A}{b} -> (¬{E}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent3: {H}{e} -> ({F}{d} & ¬{G}{d}) sent4: ¬{E}{a} sent5: (x): (¬{D}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{E}x sent6: ¬{B}{a} -> ({E}{b} & {A}{b}) sent7: (x): (¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{C}x sent8: ¬{D}{b} sent9: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & {B}x) -> ¬{B}x sent10: ¬({J}{f} & ¬{K}{f}) sent11: {B}{a} sent12: ¬{CR}{a} sent13: (x): ({F}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{D}{c} sent14: (¬{A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent15: ¬({J}{f} & ¬{K}{f}) -> {I}{e} sent16: (¬{A}{ej} & {GE}{ej}) sent17: {C}{c} -> (¬{A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent18: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{D}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent19: (x): ({D}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{E}x sent20: (x): {I}x -> {H}x sent21: ¬{C}{a} sent22: ({D}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent23: (¬{GD}{a} & {AC}{a})
|
[
"sent14 -> int1: the prince's-plume is not a kind of a Portuguese.; int1 & sent18 -> int2: the test is non-Libyan thing that is not a Shari.; sent5 -> int3: if the test is both not Libyan and not a Shari then it is not a kind of a ministrant.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent14 -> int1: ¬{A}{a}; int1 & sent18 -> int2: (¬{D}{b} & ¬{C}{b}); sent5 -> int3: (¬{D}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> ¬{E}{b}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the prince's-plume is not Libyan.
|
¬{D}{a}
|
[] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 20 | 0 | 20 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the test is a ministrant. ; $context$ = sent1: if the prince's-plume is not Portuguese the test is not a Libyan. sent2: the prince's-plume is not a ministrant and it is not a Libyan if the test is not Portuguese. sent3: the contact is a kind of a moat but it is not a stockinet if the bowler is immunocompetent. sent4: the prince's-plume is not a ministrant. sent5: if something is not a Libyan and it is not a Shari it is not a ministrant. sent6: the test is both a ministrant and a Portuguese if the prince's-plume is not a vow. sent7: something that is not a vow and is not a Portuguese is not a Shari. sent8: the test is not a kind of a Libyan. sent9: if that something is not a Shari but it vows is not correct then it does not vows. sent10: that the blastula is perigonal and not a refectory does not hold. sent11: that the prince's-plume is a kind of a vow is correct. sent12: the prince's-plume is not a snobbery. sent13: if something is a moat and is not a stockinet the gharry is not a Libyan. sent14: the prince's-plume is both non-Portuguese and a vow. sent15: if the fact that the blastula is perigonal and is not a refectory is wrong then the bowler antisepticizes Anisoptera. sent16: that the hornblende is both non-Portuguese and a sylvan is correct. sent17: the fact that the test is non-Portuguese and it is not a vow if the gharry is a Shari hold. sent18: the test is not Libyan and not a Shari if the prince's-plume is non-Portuguese. sent19: if a Libyan is not a kind of a Shari then that it is not a ministrant hold. sent20: if something does antisepticize Anisoptera it is immunocompetent. sent21: the prince's-plume is not a Shari. sent22: the test is not a ministrant if it is a Libyan and it is not a Shari. sent23: the prince's-plume does not stop but it unmans tristearin. ; $proof$ =
|
sent14 -> int1: the prince's-plume is not a kind of a Portuguese.; int1 & sent18 -> int2: the test is non-Libyan thing that is not a Shari.; sent5 -> int3: if the test is both not Libyan and not a Shari then it is not a kind of a ministrant.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the beer is both not benedictory and Ephesians.
|
(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})
|
sent1: everything is mesial. sent2: the beer does whizz if the airbrake is a kind of a scrub. sent3: the fact that that the beer is not benedictory but it is a condylion does not hold is not false. sent4: the airbrake is not Boeotian if there exists something such that the fact that it is both insurmountable and Boeotian is false. sent5: the beer does whizz if the airbrake does whizz. sent6: if something is mesial it is not taciturn. sent7: the fact that the fact that something is insurmountable and it is Boeotian is incorrect if it is not taciturn hold. sent8: the fact that the beer is benedictory and it is Ephesians is wrong. sent9: something does scrub or it does whizz or both if it is not Boeotian. sent10: if the khesari is taciturn but it is not a scrub the airbrake is a scrub. sent11: the fact that the beer is a kind of non-benedictory thing that is a Ephesians is incorrect.
|
sent1: (x): {F}x sent2: {B}{b} -> {A}{a} sent3: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {FL}{a}) sent4: (x): ¬({E}x & {C}x) -> ¬{C}{b} sent5: {A}{b} -> {A}{a} sent6: (x): {F}x -> ¬{D}x sent7: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬({E}x & {C}x) sent8: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent9: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x v {A}x) sent10: ({D}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) -> {B}{b} sent11: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})
|
[
"sent11 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent11 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the beer is non-benedictory a Ephesians.
|
(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})
|
[
"sent9 -> int1: the airbrake is a scrub or it whizzes or both if that it is not Boeotian is true.; sent1 -> int2: the plum is mesial.; sent6 -> int3: if the plum is mesial then it is not taciturn.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the plum is not taciturn.; sent7 -> int5: the fact that the plum is both insurmountable and Boeotian is wrong if it is not taciturn.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the fact that the plum is insurmountable and it is Boeotian is incorrect.; int6 -> int7: there is nothing such that it is a kind of insurmountable thing that is Boeotian.; int7 -> int8: that the khesari is insurmountable thing that is not non-Boeotian is wrong.; int8 -> int9: there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of insurmountable thing that is Boeotian is incorrect.; int9 & sent4 -> int10: the airbrake is non-Boeotian.; int1 & int10 -> int11: the airbrake scrubs and/or it does whizz.; sent5 & sent2 & int11 -> int12: the beer does whizz.;"
] | 10 | 1 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 10 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the beer is both not benedictory and Ephesians. ; $context$ = sent1: everything is mesial. sent2: the beer does whizz if the airbrake is a kind of a scrub. sent3: the fact that that the beer is not benedictory but it is a condylion does not hold is not false. sent4: the airbrake is not Boeotian if there exists something such that the fact that it is both insurmountable and Boeotian is false. sent5: the beer does whizz if the airbrake does whizz. sent6: if something is mesial it is not taciturn. sent7: the fact that the fact that something is insurmountable and it is Boeotian is incorrect if it is not taciturn hold. sent8: the fact that the beer is benedictory and it is Ephesians is wrong. sent9: something does scrub or it does whizz or both if it is not Boeotian. sent10: if the khesari is taciturn but it is not a scrub the airbrake is a scrub. sent11: the fact that the beer is a kind of non-benedictory thing that is a Ephesians is incorrect. ; $proof$ =
|
sent11 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the spurring but not the legitimateness occurs is incorrect.
|
¬({AA} & ¬{AB})
|
sent1: the spur happens. sent2: the unmanning crook does not occur if that the unmanning Muslim but not the expectoration occurs is false. sent3: if that the accordance and the crustalness happens does not hold then the accordance does not occur. sent4: the fact that that the unmanning Muslim but not the expectoration happens is wrong hold. sent5: the returnableness does not occur. sent6: the exactaness happens. sent7: the unmanning crook is caused by that the spurring but not the legitimating happens. sent8: the unmanning crook is prevented by that the unmanning Muslim does not occur. sent9: the fact that both the accordance and the crustalness occurs is not correct if the returnableness does not occur. sent10: both the spurring and the unmanning Muslim occurs if the accordance does not occur. sent11: that the crustalness and the non-carbonaceousness occurs prevents that the antisepticizing hatefulness does not occur. sent12: the antisepticizing hatefulness happens if the unmanning Cromwell but not the Benedictineness happens.
|
sent1: {AA} sent2: ¬({A} & ¬{C}) -> ¬{B} sent3: ¬({F} & {G}) -> ¬{F} sent4: ¬({A} & ¬{C}) sent5: ¬{H} sent6: {GA} sent7: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent8: ¬{A} -> ¬{B} sent9: ¬{H} -> ¬({F} & {G}) sent10: ¬{F} -> ({AA} & {A}) sent11: ({G} & ¬{CO}) -> {D} sent12: ({FF} & ¬{HE}) -> {D}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the spurring occurs and the legitimating does not occur.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: the unmanning crook happens.; sent2 & sent4 -> int2: the unmanning crook does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ({AA} & ¬{AB}); sent7 & assump1 -> int1: {B}; sent2 & sent4 -> int2: ¬{B}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the spur occurs and the legitimating does not occur.
|
({AA} & ¬{AB})
|
[
"sent9 & sent5 -> int4: the fact that the accordance and the crustalness occurs does not hold.; sent3 & int4 -> int5: the accordance does not occur.; sent10 & int5 -> int6: the spur and the unmanning Muslim happens.; int6 -> int7: the spur happens.;"
] | 5 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the spurring but not the legitimateness occurs is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the spur happens. sent2: the unmanning crook does not occur if that the unmanning Muslim but not the expectoration occurs is false. sent3: if that the accordance and the crustalness happens does not hold then the accordance does not occur. sent4: the fact that that the unmanning Muslim but not the expectoration happens is wrong hold. sent5: the returnableness does not occur. sent6: the exactaness happens. sent7: the unmanning crook is caused by that the spurring but not the legitimating happens. sent8: the unmanning crook is prevented by that the unmanning Muslim does not occur. sent9: the fact that both the accordance and the crustalness occurs is not correct if the returnableness does not occur. sent10: both the spurring and the unmanning Muslim occurs if the accordance does not occur. sent11: that the crustalness and the non-carbonaceousness occurs prevents that the antisepticizing hatefulness does not occur. sent12: the antisepticizing hatefulness happens if the unmanning Cromwell but not the Benedictineness happens. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the spurring occurs and the legitimating does not occur.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: the unmanning crook happens.; sent2 & sent4 -> int2: the unmanning crook does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the dovetail is nonconductive is true.
|
{D}{c}
|
sent1: if something is not a kind of a dogfighter and/or it is bicameral then it is not a dogfighter. sent2: if the columbine is nonconductive the dovetail hares. sent3: if the sleeve is not non-clonic the dovetail is nonconductive. sent4: the instep is a kind of a view if it is megakaryocytic. sent5: the ornithologist is a Shinto. sent6: the sleeve is unprotective if the columbine does hare. sent7: the columbine hares if the sleeve is not a kind of a hares and is not unprotective. sent8: that the columbine is not a hare is not wrong. sent9: if there exists something such that it is a utility then the instep is both megakaryocytic and a Chilean. sent10: if the ornithologist is a kind of a Shinto then it is a utility. sent11: if the columbine is nonconductive thing that is a hare then the dovetail is not nonconductive. sent12: the columbine is nonconductive if the instep is not clonic and does not habituate igloo. sent13: a view is non-clonic thing that does not habituate igloo. sent14: the columbine is nonconductive if the dovetail does hare. sent15: the fact that the Junkers is clonic hold. sent16: the isomerase is not a dogfighter or it is bicameral or both. sent17: if the columbine is unprotective the sleeve is clonic. sent18: the sleeve is clonic if either the columbine is unprotective or it is not a hare or both. sent19: the columbine is nonconductive. sent20: the sleeve is unprotective.
|
sent1: (x): (¬{G}x v {I}x) -> ¬{G}x sent2: {D}{a} -> {B}{c} sent3: {C}{b} -> {D}{c} sent4: {H}{d} -> {F}{d} sent5: {L}{f} sent6: {B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent7: (¬{B}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) -> {B}{a} sent8: ¬{B}{a} sent9: (x): {K}x -> ({H}{d} & {J}{d}) sent10: {L}{f} -> {K}{f} sent11: ({D}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{D}{c} sent12: (¬{C}{d} & ¬{E}{d}) -> {D}{a} sent13: (x): {F}x -> (¬{C}x & ¬{E}x) sent14: {B}{c} -> {D}{a} sent15: {C}{gr} sent16: (¬{G}{e} v {I}{e}) sent17: {A}{a} -> {C}{b} sent18: ({A}{a} v ¬{B}{a}) -> {C}{b} sent19: {D}{a} sent20: {A}{b}
|
[
"sent8 -> int1: the columbine is unprotective and/or is not a hare.; sent18 & int1 -> int2: the sleeve is clonic.; sent3 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 -> int1: ({A}{a} v ¬{B}{a}); sent18 & int1 -> int2: {C}{b}; sent3 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the dovetail is not nonconductive.
|
¬{D}{c}
|
[
"sent13 -> int3: if the instep views then it is not clonic and does not habituate igloo.; sent10 & sent5 -> int4: the ornithologist is a kind of a utility.; int4 -> int5: there exists something such that it is a utility.; int5 & sent9 -> int6: the fact that the instep is megakaryocytic and Chilean is correct.; int6 -> int7: the instep is megakaryocytic.; sent4 & int7 -> int8: the instep views.; int3 & int8 -> int9: the fact that the instep is not clonic and does not habituate igloo is not false.; sent12 & int9 -> int10: the columbine is nonconductive.; sent1 -> int11: if the isomerase is not a dogfighter and/or it is bicameral it is not a dogfighter.; int11 & sent16 -> int12: the isomerase is not a dogfighter.; int12 -> int13: there exists something such that it is not a dogfighter.;"
] | 9 | 3 | 3 | 17 | 0 | 17 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the dovetail is nonconductive is true. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not a kind of a dogfighter and/or it is bicameral then it is not a dogfighter. sent2: if the columbine is nonconductive the dovetail hares. sent3: if the sleeve is not non-clonic the dovetail is nonconductive. sent4: the instep is a kind of a view if it is megakaryocytic. sent5: the ornithologist is a Shinto. sent6: the sleeve is unprotective if the columbine does hare. sent7: the columbine hares if the sleeve is not a kind of a hares and is not unprotective. sent8: that the columbine is not a hare is not wrong. sent9: if there exists something such that it is a utility then the instep is both megakaryocytic and a Chilean. sent10: if the ornithologist is a kind of a Shinto then it is a utility. sent11: if the columbine is nonconductive thing that is a hare then the dovetail is not nonconductive. sent12: the columbine is nonconductive if the instep is not clonic and does not habituate igloo. sent13: a view is non-clonic thing that does not habituate igloo. sent14: the columbine is nonconductive if the dovetail does hare. sent15: the fact that the Junkers is clonic hold. sent16: the isomerase is not a dogfighter or it is bicameral or both. sent17: if the columbine is unprotective the sleeve is clonic. sent18: the sleeve is clonic if either the columbine is unprotective or it is not a hare or both. sent19: the columbine is nonconductive. sent20: the sleeve is unprotective. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 -> int1: the columbine is unprotective and/or is not a hare.; sent18 & int1 -> int2: the sleeve is clonic.; sent3 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fusion is not a Macedonian.
|
¬{D}{a}
|
sent1: if the fusion does unman liquidity it unmans vestryman. sent2: the liquidity does unman liquidity. sent3: the bindery does not habituate goatsucker. sent4: if the fusion antisepticizes trapezius then it is superior. sent5: the fusion does unman liquidity if that it is side-to-side is not incorrect. sent6: the colophon is lipless if the fusion is lipless thing that does not unman vestryman. sent7: the fusion does express. sent8: the fusion does antisepticize trapezius if it is catachrestic. sent9: if the fusion does unman liquidity then it antisepticizes paisley. sent10: the fact that the psychiatrist antisepticizes trapezius is right. sent11: the fact that the bindery is catachrestic and is Macedonian is incorrect if it does not habituate goatsucker. sent12: The liquidity does unman fusion. sent13: if the bindery reissues ice it is not catachrestic and does not antisepticize trapezius. sent14: the fact that the fusion is catachrestic hold. sent15: the fusion does unman liquidity. sent16: if the view does not unman liquidity the fusion is a kind of non-lipless thing that does not unman vestryman. sent17: something that does antisepticize trapezius and does unman vestryman is non-Macedonian.
|
sent1: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent2: {A}{al} sent3: ¬{G}{c} sent4: {C}{a} -> {GP}{a} sent5: {DQ}{a} -> {A}{a} sent6: (¬{HC}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> {HC}{io} sent7: {HG}{a} sent8: {E}{a} -> {C}{a} sent9: {A}{a} -> {JK}{a} sent10: {C}{bo} sent11: ¬{G}{c} -> ¬({E}{c} & {D}{c}) sent12: {AA}{aa} sent13: {F}{c} -> (¬{E}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) sent14: {E}{a} sent15: {A}{a} sent16: ¬{A}{b} -> (¬{HC}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent17: (x): ({C}x & {B}x) -> ¬{D}x
|
[
"sent1 & sent15 -> int1: the fusion unmans vestryman.; sent8 & sent14 -> int2: the fusion does antisepticize trapezius.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fusion antisepticizes trapezius and it unmans vestryman.; sent17 -> int4: if the fusion antisepticizes trapezius and does unman vestryman then it is non-Macedonian.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 & sent15 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent8 & sent14 -> int2: {C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({C}{a} & {B}{a}); sent17 -> int4: ({C}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a}; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the colophon is lipless and it rehabilitates.
|
({HC}{io} & {GJ}{io})
|
[
"sent11 & sent3 -> int5: that the bindery is a kind of catachrestic thing that is a Macedonian does not hold.; int5 -> int6: there exists something such that the fact that it is catachrestic and it is a Macedonian is not correct.;"
] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fusion is not a Macedonian. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fusion does unman liquidity it unmans vestryman. sent2: the liquidity does unman liquidity. sent3: the bindery does not habituate goatsucker. sent4: if the fusion antisepticizes trapezius then it is superior. sent5: the fusion does unman liquidity if that it is side-to-side is not incorrect. sent6: the colophon is lipless if the fusion is lipless thing that does not unman vestryman. sent7: the fusion does express. sent8: the fusion does antisepticize trapezius if it is catachrestic. sent9: if the fusion does unman liquidity then it antisepticizes paisley. sent10: the fact that the psychiatrist antisepticizes trapezius is right. sent11: the fact that the bindery is catachrestic and is Macedonian is incorrect if it does not habituate goatsucker. sent12: The liquidity does unman fusion. sent13: if the bindery reissues ice it is not catachrestic and does not antisepticize trapezius. sent14: the fact that the fusion is catachrestic hold. sent15: the fusion does unman liquidity. sent16: if the view does not unman liquidity the fusion is a kind of non-lipless thing that does not unman vestryman. sent17: something that does antisepticize trapezius and does unman vestryman is non-Macedonian. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 & sent15 -> int1: the fusion unmans vestryman.; sent8 & sent14 -> int2: the fusion does antisepticize trapezius.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the fusion antisepticizes trapezius and it unmans vestryman.; sent17 -> int4: if the fusion antisepticizes trapezius and does unman vestryman then it is non-Macedonian.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the Muskhogean habituates Anne.
|
{C}{b}
|
sent1: if the dubnium is not a kind of a Manila the Muskhogean does habituate Anne. sent2: if the dubnium is not non-Montserratian the Muskhogean is a Manila. sent3: the fact that that the inessential is not a fertilization but it does habituate Anne is not correct is correct. sent4: either the Hutu is a Alexandrian or it is not a muzzle or both if it is a fanlight. sent5: the Muskhogean is a kind of a Manila if the dubnium does not summer. sent6: the dubnium is a kind of a Manila if the Muskhogean does summer. sent7: the dubnium is a kind of a Montserratian and/or it is not a summer if it is metamorphic. sent8: something does habituate Anne if it is a Manila.
|
sent1: ¬{B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent2: {AA}{a} -> {B}{b} sent3: ¬(¬{D}{c} & {C}{c}) sent4: {HB}{eo} -> ({AI}{eo} v ¬{HH}{eo}) sent5: ¬{AB}{a} -> {B}{b} sent6: {AB}{b} -> {B}{a} sent7: {A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent8: (x): {B}x -> {C}x
|
[
"sent8 -> int1: if the Muskhogean is a Manila then it does habituate Anne.;"
] |
[
"sent8 -> int1: {B}{b} -> {C}{b};"
] |
the Muskhogean is a summer.
|
{AB}{b}
|
[] | 6 | 3 | null | 4 | 0 | 4 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the Muskhogean habituates Anne. ; $context$ = sent1: if the dubnium is not a kind of a Manila the Muskhogean does habituate Anne. sent2: if the dubnium is not non-Montserratian the Muskhogean is a Manila. sent3: the fact that that the inessential is not a fertilization but it does habituate Anne is not correct is correct. sent4: either the Hutu is a Alexandrian or it is not a muzzle or both if it is a fanlight. sent5: the Muskhogean is a kind of a Manila if the dubnium does not summer. sent6: the dubnium is a kind of a Manila if the Muskhogean does summer. sent7: the dubnium is a kind of a Montserratian and/or it is not a summer if it is metamorphic. sent8: something does habituate Anne if it is a Manila. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 -> int1: if the Muskhogean is a Manila then it does habituate Anne.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there exists something such that if it is not a horsemeat and it does reissue dealings it does antisepticize expunction is not true.
|
¬((Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x)
|
sent1: that the manhattan encores hold if that it is not naive and it is a kind of a horsemeat is right. sent2: the humification is astigmatic if it does not antisepticize expunction and it is a kind of a barnacle. sent3: something antisepticizes expunction if it is not a kind of a strum and does habituate Wilmut. sent4: if the disco is not a dependability and does antisepticize expunction it is uninfluential. sent5: if the humification is a horsemeat and it reissues dealings that it antisepticizes expunction is right. sent6: the humification is a cardinal if it does not reissue dealings and is top-down. sent7: if the fact that something does not reissue disco but it is congruent hold it is a kind of a encolure. sent8: there is something such that if it is not a pipeline and is nonrepresentational that it is costal is not wrong. sent9: there exists something such that if it does not unman tailorbird and it is a Dactylopius it is a chimneystack. sent10: that there is something such that if it does not habituate Colt and it is a diaphoretic then it is Danish hold. sent11: if the carina is not a jam but auroral then the fact that it does reissue Megachiroptera is correct. sent12: if the humification is not a noblesse but legible it reissues dealings. sent13: the pocketcomb is not non-morphophonemics if it is not a kind of a Cinclidae and it is a kind of a horsemeat. sent14: there is something such that if it is a horsemeat that does reissue dealings that it does antisepticize expunction hold. sent15: there is something such that if it is not a covalence and it antisepticizes procyonid that it reissues misology is not wrong. sent16: the humification does antisepticize expunction if it is not a kind of a horsemeat and it does reissue dealings. sent17: there is something such that if it does not housekeep and it is astigmatic it unmans Pyxis.
|
sent1: (¬{AP}{hf} & {AA}{hf}) -> {GT}{hf} sent2: (¬{B}{aa} & {F}{aa}) -> {HO}{aa} sent3: (x): (¬{GB}x & {IT}x) -> {B}x sent4: (¬{BE}{dt} & {B}{dt}) -> {FN}{dt} sent5: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent6: (¬{AB}{aa} & {HF}{aa}) -> {AH}{aa} sent7: (x): (¬{ER}x & {EI}x) -> {CJ}x sent8: (Ex): (¬{CS}x & {DF}x) -> {IN}x sent9: (Ex): (¬{FU}x & {DP}x) -> {GS}x sent10: (Ex): (¬{CR}x & {HL}x) -> {CN}x sent11: (¬{AK}{dh} & {IS}{dh}) -> {HJ}{dh} sent12: (¬{FG}{aa} & {GP}{aa}) -> {AB}{aa} sent13: (¬{Q}{bc} & {AA}{bc}) -> {EC}{bc} sent14: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent15: (Ex): (¬{CU}x & {EN}x) -> {JJ}x sent16: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent17: (Ex): (¬{BA}x & {HO}x) -> {DO}x
|
[
"sent16 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent16 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the voodoo antisepticizes expunction if it is not a strum and habituates Wilmut.
|
(¬{GB}{fd} & {IT}{fd}) -> {B}{fd}
|
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 16 | 0 | 16 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if it is not a horsemeat and it does reissue dealings it does antisepticize expunction is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: that the manhattan encores hold if that it is not naive and it is a kind of a horsemeat is right. sent2: the humification is astigmatic if it does not antisepticize expunction and it is a kind of a barnacle. sent3: something antisepticizes expunction if it is not a kind of a strum and does habituate Wilmut. sent4: if the disco is not a dependability and does antisepticize expunction it is uninfluential. sent5: if the humification is a horsemeat and it reissues dealings that it antisepticizes expunction is right. sent6: the humification is a cardinal if it does not reissue dealings and is top-down. sent7: if the fact that something does not reissue disco but it is congruent hold it is a kind of a encolure. sent8: there is something such that if it is not a pipeline and is nonrepresentational that it is costal is not wrong. sent9: there exists something such that if it does not unman tailorbird and it is a Dactylopius it is a chimneystack. sent10: that there is something such that if it does not habituate Colt and it is a diaphoretic then it is Danish hold. sent11: if the carina is not a jam but auroral then the fact that it does reissue Megachiroptera is correct. sent12: if the humification is not a noblesse but legible it reissues dealings. sent13: the pocketcomb is not non-morphophonemics if it is not a kind of a Cinclidae and it is a kind of a horsemeat. sent14: there is something such that if it is a horsemeat that does reissue dealings that it does antisepticize expunction hold. sent15: there is something such that if it is not a covalence and it antisepticizes procyonid that it reissues misology is not wrong. sent16: the humification does antisepticize expunction if it is not a kind of a horsemeat and it does reissue dealings. sent17: there is something such that if it does not housekeep and it is astigmatic it unmans Pyxis. ; $proof$ =
|
sent16 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the checkmating does not occur is true.
|
¬{A}
|
sent1: that the reissuing Lysenko does not occur and the legitimateness does not occur is not true if the navigation does not occur. sent2: the roulette does not occur if the fact that the misdirection and the reissuing subpart occurs is not right. sent3: if that that the reissuing Lysenko does not occur and the legitimateness does not occur is true is false then the softening does not occur. sent4: if the fact that either the hypovolemicness does not occur or the decorating does not occur or both is incorrect then the operaticness does not occur. sent5: if the reissuing ecarte does not occur then the fact that either the hypovolemicness does not occur or the decorating does not occur or both is incorrect. sent6: that the callithump does not occur is brought about by that the checkmating does not occur and the breakaway does not occur. sent7: if the comparativeness does not occur not the reissuing albinism but the homestretch occurs. sent8: that the testing does not occur but the bumping happens prevents that the commerce occurs. sent9: the breakaway does not occur. sent10: if that the roulette does not occur is not wrong the cathodicness happens and the gentile occurs. sent11: the checkmating does not occur and the breakaway does not occur if the cathodicness happens. sent12: if the softening does not occur the fact that the misdirection and the reissuing subpart happens is incorrect. sent13: that the fact that the reissuing phlebotomus occurs and the civicsness occurs is correct is not true if the neurectomy does not occur. sent14: if the reissuing albinism does not occur but the homestretch happens the unfairness does not occur. sent15: if the unfairness does not occur the closing occurs or the souse does not occur or both. sent16: the test does not occur but the bump occurs if the operaticness does not occur. sent17: the neurectomy does not occur if the fact that the renunciation and the neurectomy happens is not right. sent18: if the commerce does not occur that the renunciation occurs and the neurectomy happens does not hold. sent19: the comparative does not occur if the fact that the reissuing thallophyte and the wrenching happens is incorrect. sent20: if that the reissuing phlebotomus happens and the civicsness occurs is wrong the navigation does not occur.
|
sent1: ¬{K} -> ¬(¬{I} & ¬{J}) sent2: ¬({G} & {F}) -> ¬{E} sent3: ¬(¬{I} & ¬{J}) -> ¬{H} sent4: ¬(¬{U} v ¬{T}) -> ¬{S} sent5: ¬{AA} -> ¬(¬{U} v ¬{T}) sent6: (¬{A} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{EP} sent7: ¬{AG} -> (¬{AF} & {AE}) sent8: (¬{Q} & {R}) -> ¬{O} sent9: ¬{B} sent10: ¬{E} -> ({C} & {D}) sent11: {C} -> (¬{A} & ¬{B}) sent12: ¬{H} -> ¬({G} & {F}) sent13: ¬{N} -> ¬({M} & {L}) sent14: (¬{AF} & {AE}) -> ¬{AD} sent15: ¬{AD} -> ({AB} v ¬{AC}) sent16: ¬{S} -> (¬{Q} & {R}) sent17: ¬({P} & {N}) -> ¬{N} sent18: ¬{O} -> ¬({P} & {N}) sent19: ¬({AH} & {AI}) -> ¬{AG} sent20: ¬({M} & {L}) -> ¬{K}
|
[] |
[] |
the callithump does not occur.
|
¬{EP}
|
[] | 24 | 3 | null | 19 | 0 | 19 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the checkmating does not occur is true. ; $context$ = sent1: that the reissuing Lysenko does not occur and the legitimateness does not occur is not true if the navigation does not occur. sent2: the roulette does not occur if the fact that the misdirection and the reissuing subpart occurs is not right. sent3: if that that the reissuing Lysenko does not occur and the legitimateness does not occur is true is false then the softening does not occur. sent4: if the fact that either the hypovolemicness does not occur or the decorating does not occur or both is incorrect then the operaticness does not occur. sent5: if the reissuing ecarte does not occur then the fact that either the hypovolemicness does not occur or the decorating does not occur or both is incorrect. sent6: that the callithump does not occur is brought about by that the checkmating does not occur and the breakaway does not occur. sent7: if the comparativeness does not occur not the reissuing albinism but the homestretch occurs. sent8: that the testing does not occur but the bumping happens prevents that the commerce occurs. sent9: the breakaway does not occur. sent10: if that the roulette does not occur is not wrong the cathodicness happens and the gentile occurs. sent11: the checkmating does not occur and the breakaway does not occur if the cathodicness happens. sent12: if the softening does not occur the fact that the misdirection and the reissuing subpart happens is incorrect. sent13: that the fact that the reissuing phlebotomus occurs and the civicsness occurs is correct is not true if the neurectomy does not occur. sent14: if the reissuing albinism does not occur but the homestretch happens the unfairness does not occur. sent15: if the unfairness does not occur the closing occurs or the souse does not occur or both. sent16: the test does not occur but the bump occurs if the operaticness does not occur. sent17: the neurectomy does not occur if the fact that the renunciation and the neurectomy happens is not right. sent18: if the commerce does not occur that the renunciation occurs and the neurectomy happens does not hold. sent19: the comparative does not occur if the fact that the reissuing thallophyte and the wrenching happens is incorrect. sent20: if that the reissuing phlebotomus happens and the civicsness occurs is wrong the navigation does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
if the arthroscope is not a Chaldean then the teff is not micropylar but it is a Solanaceae.
|
¬{A}{a} -> (¬{B}{b} & {C}{b})
|
sent1: if something is not a Anisoptera it is a kind of micropylar thing that is a kind of a Solanaceae. sent2: the arthroscope is a kind of a Gilman. sent3: something is not a Anisoptera if the fact that it is a Anisoptera and does excel is wrong. sent4: the littleneck is not a kind of a Solanaceae. sent5: if the arthroscope is not micropylar then the teff is not a Chaldean but it is a kind of a Solanaceae. sent6: the peptization is not considerable but it is a Chaldean. sent7: the arthroscope does not excel. sent8: if the teff is not a kind of a Chaldean then the arthroscope is not a kind of a Solanaceae. sent9: the arthroscope is micropylar. sent10: if the arthroscope is a Chaldean then the teff is not micropylar. sent11: the cockchafer is not a kind of a Chaldean. sent12: the arthroscope is not a kind of a Solanaceae but it is micropylar if the teff is not a Chaldean. sent13: the teff is not micropylar if the arthroscope is not a kind of a Chaldean. sent14: that that the teff is the Chaldean and it is micropylar hold if the teff is not a Anisoptera hold. sent15: the arthroscope is not micropylar but it is a Solanaceae if that the teff is not a Chaldean is correct. sent16: the teff is not micropylar but it is a kind of a Solanaceae if the arthroscope is Chaldean.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({B}x & {C}x) sent2: {BD}{a} sent3: (x): ¬({D}x & {E}x) -> ¬{D}x sent4: ¬{C}{ar} sent5: ¬{B}{a} -> (¬{A}{b} & {C}{b}) sent6: (¬{JK}{fq} & {A}{fq}) sent7: ¬{E}{a} sent8: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬{C}{a} sent9: {B}{a} sent10: {A}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent11: ¬{A}{il} sent12: ¬{A}{b} -> (¬{C}{a} & {B}{a}) sent13: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent14: ¬{D}{b} -> ({A}{b} & {B}{b}) sent15: ¬{A}{b} -> (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent16: {A}{a} -> (¬{B}{b} & {C}{b})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the arthroscope is not Chaldean.; sent13 & assump1 -> int1: the teff is not micropylar.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ¬{A}{a}; sent13 & assump1 -> int1: ¬{B}{b};"
] |
the andiron is non-Chaldean thing that chords.
|
(¬{A}{ed} & {H}{ed})
|
[
"sent1 -> int2: if the arthroscope is not a Anisoptera then it is micropylar and a Solanaceae.;"
] | 5 | 3 | null | 15 | 0 | 15 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = if the arthroscope is not a Chaldean then the teff is not micropylar but it is a Solanaceae. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not a Anisoptera it is a kind of micropylar thing that is a kind of a Solanaceae. sent2: the arthroscope is a kind of a Gilman. sent3: something is not a Anisoptera if the fact that it is a Anisoptera and does excel is wrong. sent4: the littleneck is not a kind of a Solanaceae. sent5: if the arthroscope is not micropylar then the teff is not a Chaldean but it is a kind of a Solanaceae. sent6: the peptization is not considerable but it is a Chaldean. sent7: the arthroscope does not excel. sent8: if the teff is not a kind of a Chaldean then the arthroscope is not a kind of a Solanaceae. sent9: the arthroscope is micropylar. sent10: if the arthroscope is a Chaldean then the teff is not micropylar. sent11: the cockchafer is not a kind of a Chaldean. sent12: the arthroscope is not a kind of a Solanaceae but it is micropylar if the teff is not a Chaldean. sent13: the teff is not micropylar if the arthroscope is not a kind of a Chaldean. sent14: that that the teff is the Chaldean and it is micropylar hold if the teff is not a Anisoptera hold. sent15: the arthroscope is not micropylar but it is a Solanaceae if that the teff is not a Chaldean is correct. sent16: the teff is not micropylar but it is a kind of a Solanaceae if the arthroscope is Chaldean. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the arthroscope is not Chaldean.; sent13 & assump1 -> int1: the teff is not micropylar.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the overreaction is not penetrable.
|
¬{D}{aa}
|
sent1: the overreaction unmans Lange. sent2: the overreaction is not penetrable if it does unman Bolivian and it does loft. sent3: the overreaction is penetrable if the fact that the chef is not penetrable is not false. sent4: everything is a fallibility. sent5: if the by-product is not nonracial the chef is not penetrable. sent6: the overreaction does loft if the fact that that the chef is evil and/or it is a kind of a loft hold is incorrect. sent7: everything is nonracial. sent8: the chef is a alleviator if it is a kind of a fallibility. sent9: the chef does reissue cupbearer if it is a kind of a loft. sent10: the cupbearer does not unman Bolivian. sent11: the overreaction lofts if that the chef is not non-evil or not a lofts or both is false. sent12: the overreaction does unman Bolivian if it is nonracial. sent13: if the chef is an evil then it is not racial. sent14: the overreaction is a kind of an evil if it is nonracial. sent15: that the chef is a hymn hold. sent16: the chef unmans Bolivian if it is evil. sent17: the chef lofts. sent18: if the fact that the chef lofts is correct then the gong does lofts. sent19: the overreaction is an evil. sent20: everything is incorrupt. sent21: the overreaction is a kind of an evil if the fact that either the chef does unman Bolivian or it is not an evil or both is not right.
|
sent1: {BT}{aa} sent2: ({B}{aa} & {C}{aa}) -> ¬{D}{aa} sent3: ¬{D}{a} -> {D}{aa} sent4: (x): {CL}x sent5: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬{D}{a} sent6: ¬({F}{a} v {C}{a}) -> {C}{aa} sent7: (x): {A}x sent8: {CL}{a} -> {FG}{a} sent9: {C}{a} -> {JK}{a} sent10: ¬{B}{dd} sent11: ¬({F}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) -> {C}{aa} sent12: {A}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent13: {F}{a} -> {A}{a} sent14: {A}{aa} -> {F}{aa} sent15: {EK}{a} sent16: {F}{a} -> {B}{a} sent17: {C}{a} sent18: {C}{a} -> {C}{cs} sent19: {F}{aa} sent20: (x): {GP}x sent21: ¬({B}{a} v ¬{F}{a}) -> {F}{aa}
|
[
"sent7 -> int1: the overreaction is nonracial.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the overreaction unmans Bolivian.;"
] |
[
"sent7 -> int1: {A}{aa}; int1 & sent12 -> int2: {B}{aa};"
] |
the gong is a loft.
|
{C}{cs}
|
[] | 5 | 4 | null | 17 | 0 | 17 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the overreaction is not penetrable. ; $context$ = sent1: the overreaction unmans Lange. sent2: the overreaction is not penetrable if it does unman Bolivian and it does loft. sent3: the overreaction is penetrable if the fact that the chef is not penetrable is not false. sent4: everything is a fallibility. sent5: if the by-product is not nonracial the chef is not penetrable. sent6: the overreaction does loft if the fact that that the chef is evil and/or it is a kind of a loft hold is incorrect. sent7: everything is nonracial. sent8: the chef is a alleviator if it is a kind of a fallibility. sent9: the chef does reissue cupbearer if it is a kind of a loft. sent10: the cupbearer does not unman Bolivian. sent11: the overreaction lofts if that the chef is not non-evil or not a lofts or both is false. sent12: the overreaction does unman Bolivian if it is nonracial. sent13: if the chef is an evil then it is not racial. sent14: the overreaction is a kind of an evil if it is nonracial. sent15: that the chef is a hymn hold. sent16: the chef unmans Bolivian if it is evil. sent17: the chef lofts. sent18: if the fact that the chef lofts is correct then the gong does lofts. sent19: the overreaction is an evil. sent20: everything is incorrupt. sent21: the overreaction is a kind of an evil if the fact that either the chef does unman Bolivian or it is not an evil or both is not right. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 -> int1: the overreaction is nonracial.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the overreaction unmans Bolivian.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the Lego is untidy thing that is not a Decapterus does not hold.
|
¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})
|
sent1: the beebalm is not unpredictable if the fact that the man-of-the-earth is not a Ascension but it is a repercussion is wrong. sent2: if the sinapism does not stave it is a Afroasiatic and/or it does reissue Latvian. sent3: if something is predictable that it is a Decapterus and adventitial is incorrect. sent4: that the man-of-the-earth is not a kind of a Ascension but it is a kind of a repercussion does not hold if the laundry is a Afroasiatic. sent5: the fact that the sinapism is a kind of a stave is not true if the fact that the outflow does not plait but it is a stave is not right. sent6: that the Lego is untidy and is not a Decapterus is not true. sent7: if the fact that something is a Decapterus and it is adventitial is not right it is not a Decapterus.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{D}{c} & {C}{c}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent2: ¬{F}{e} -> ({E}{e} v {G}{e}) sent3: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({AB}x & {A}x) sent4: {E}{d} -> ¬(¬{D}{c} & {C}{c}) sent5: ¬(¬{H}{f} & {F}{f}) -> ¬{F}{e} sent6: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent7: (x): ¬({AB}x & {A}x) -> ¬{AB}x
|
[
"sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the Lego is a Decapterus but it is not a milkwagon is wrong.
|
¬({AB}{a} & ¬{EN}{a})
|
[
"sent7 -> int1: if the fact that the beebalm is a Decapterus and it is adventitial is false it is not a kind of a Decapterus.; sent3 -> int2: if the beebalm is not unpredictable the fact that it is a Decapterus and is adventitial does not hold.;"
] | 9 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 6 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the Lego is untidy thing that is not a Decapterus does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the beebalm is not unpredictable if the fact that the man-of-the-earth is not a Ascension but it is a repercussion is wrong. sent2: if the sinapism does not stave it is a Afroasiatic and/or it does reissue Latvian. sent3: if something is predictable that it is a Decapterus and adventitial is incorrect. sent4: that the man-of-the-earth is not a kind of a Ascension but it is a kind of a repercussion does not hold if the laundry is a Afroasiatic. sent5: the fact that the sinapism is a kind of a stave is not true if the fact that the outflow does not plait but it is a stave is not right. sent6: that the Lego is untidy and is not a Decapterus is not true. sent7: if the fact that something is a Decapterus and it is adventitial is not right it is not a Decapterus. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the transfer is not a cosy.
|
¬{D}{a}
|
sent1: something is cardiac if it is a navy. sent2: the fact that something does not reissue republic but it is an apparatus does not hold if it is occupational. sent3: the fact that the fact that the transfer does unman OS and it is a kind of an apparatus is not true is true. sent4: if the cellulite is a kind of a navy the disco is a kind of a navy. sent5: there is something such that it is occupational. sent6: the fact that the transfer is a cosy but it is non-occupational is incorrect if the ethyl does not unman OS. sent7: if there exists something such that it is not occupational then that the transfer unmans OS and it is an apparatus is wrong. sent8: the pumpernickel is not occupational. sent9: the fact that the cellulite is a navy is right if that the minicab is a navy is true. sent10: the minicab is a navy. sent11: something is not a cosy if it does unman OS. sent12: the transfer is a kind of a cosy and it is occupational if there exists something such that it is a kind of an apparatus. sent13: if that the transfer unmans OS is correct it is not a cosy. sent14: that the transfer does not unman OS but it is an apparatus is not right if there exists something such that it is not occupational. sent15: the fact that the ethyl does not unman OS is not false if there is something such that it is cardiac and is a Dermestidae. sent16: the disco is a Dermestidae but it does not diffract.
|
sent1: (x): {G}x -> {E}x sent2: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AD}x & {B}x) sent3: ¬({C}{a} & {B}{a}) sent4: {G}{d} -> {G}{c} sent5: (Ex): {A}x sent6: ¬{C}{b} -> ¬({D}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({C}{a} & {B}{a}) sent8: ¬{A}{aa} sent9: {G}{e} -> {G}{d} sent10: {G}{e} sent11: (x): {C}x -> ¬{D}x sent12: (x): {B}x -> ({D}{a} & {A}{a}) sent13: {C}{a} -> ¬{D}{a} sent14: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{C}{a} & {B}{a}) sent15: (x): ({E}x & {F}x) -> ¬{C}{b} sent16: ({F}{c} & ¬{H}{c})
|
[
"sent8 -> int1: there exists something such that it is not occupational.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: that the transfer does not unman OS and is an apparatus does not hold.;"
] |
[
"sent8 -> int1: (Ex): ¬{A}x; int1 & sent14 -> int2: ¬(¬{C}{a} & {B}{a});"
] |
that the afterdamp does not reissue republic but it is a kind of an apparatus is wrong.
|
¬(¬{AD}{eb} & {B}{eb})
|
[
"sent2 -> int3: if the fact that the afterdamp is occupational is not false then that it does not reissue republic and is an apparatus is false.; sent1 -> int4: the disco is cardiac if the fact that it is a navy is not incorrect.; sent9 & sent10 -> int5: the cellulite is a navy.; sent4 & int5 -> int6: the disco is a navy.; int4 & int6 -> int7: the fact that the disco is cardiac hold.; sent16 -> int8: the disco is a Dermestidae.; int7 & int8 -> int9: the disco is cardiac and it is a kind of a Dermestidae.; int9 -> int10: something is a kind of cardiac a Dermestidae.; int10 & sent15 -> int11: the ethyl does not unman OS.; sent6 & int11 -> int12: the fact that the transfer is a kind of a cosy that is not occupational is incorrect.; int12 -> int13: there exists something such that the fact that it is a cosy and it is not occupational is not correct.;"
] | 10 | 3 | null | 14 | 0 | 14 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the transfer is not a cosy. ; $context$ = sent1: something is cardiac if it is a navy. sent2: the fact that something does not reissue republic but it is an apparatus does not hold if it is occupational. sent3: the fact that the fact that the transfer does unman OS and it is a kind of an apparatus is not true is true. sent4: if the cellulite is a kind of a navy the disco is a kind of a navy. sent5: there is something such that it is occupational. sent6: the fact that the transfer is a cosy but it is non-occupational is incorrect if the ethyl does not unman OS. sent7: if there exists something such that it is not occupational then that the transfer unmans OS and it is an apparatus is wrong. sent8: the pumpernickel is not occupational. sent9: the fact that the cellulite is a navy is right if that the minicab is a navy is true. sent10: the minicab is a navy. sent11: something is not a cosy if it does unman OS. sent12: the transfer is a kind of a cosy and it is occupational if there exists something such that it is a kind of an apparatus. sent13: if that the transfer unmans OS is correct it is not a cosy. sent14: that the transfer does not unman OS but it is an apparatus is not right if there exists something such that it is not occupational. sent15: the fact that the ethyl does not unman OS is not false if there is something such that it is cardiac and is a Dermestidae. sent16: the disco is a Dermestidae but it does not diffract. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 -> int1: there exists something such that it is not occupational.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: that the transfer does not unman OS and is an apparatus does not hold.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the ash is not prolusory.
|
¬{D}{b}
|
sent1: that the puka is alphabetic hold. sent2: the switchblade is a kind of a diesel-hydraulic. sent3: if the archduchess does habituate forest but it is not immaterial the mitomycin is alphabetic. sent4: if that the mitomycin is alphabetic is not incorrect then the flatterer is a kind of a ploy. sent5: everything habituates configurationism and is alphabetic. sent6: the ash is not prolusory if the mitomycin is not immaterial. sent7: the fact that something does not habituate configurationism and is prolusory is not true if it is alphabetic. sent8: everything is alphabetic. sent9: if the mitomycin does habituate configurationism then the flatterer is a kind of a ploy. sent10: either the crystallization is not a lama or it is not a kind of an aerial or both if the switchblade is a diesel-hydraulic. sent11: the mitomycin is not immaterial if the fact that the puka habituates configurationism and it is alphabetic hold. sent12: that the puka is not prolusory hold.
|
sent1: {B}{aa} sent2: {G}{f} sent3: ({E}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) -> {B}{a} sent4: {B}{a} -> {CP}{g} sent5: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) sent6: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬{D}{b} sent7: (x): {B}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & {D}x) sent8: (x): {B}x sent9: {A}{a} -> {CP}{g} sent10: {G}{f} -> (¬{F}{e} v ¬{H}{e}) sent11: ({A}{aa} & {B}{aa}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent12: ¬{D}{aa}
|
[
"sent5 -> int1: that the puka habituates configurationism and it is alphabetic hold.; sent11 & int1 -> int2: the fact that the mitomycin is not immaterial hold.; sent6 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 -> int1: ({A}{aa} & {B}{aa}); sent11 & int1 -> int2: ¬{C}{a}; sent6 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the ash is not non-prolusory.
|
{D}{b}
|
[
"sent7 -> int3: that the mitomycin does not habituate configurationism but it is prolusory is not right if that it is alphabetic is not wrong.; sent10 & sent2 -> int4: the crystallization is not a lama or is not a kind of an aerial or both.; int4 -> int5: either something is not a lama or it is not an aerial or both.;"
] | 8 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the ash is not prolusory. ; $context$ = sent1: that the puka is alphabetic hold. sent2: the switchblade is a kind of a diesel-hydraulic. sent3: if the archduchess does habituate forest but it is not immaterial the mitomycin is alphabetic. sent4: if that the mitomycin is alphabetic is not incorrect then the flatterer is a kind of a ploy. sent5: everything habituates configurationism and is alphabetic. sent6: the ash is not prolusory if the mitomycin is not immaterial. sent7: the fact that something does not habituate configurationism and is prolusory is not true if it is alphabetic. sent8: everything is alphabetic. sent9: if the mitomycin does habituate configurationism then the flatterer is a kind of a ploy. sent10: either the crystallization is not a lama or it is not a kind of an aerial or both if the switchblade is a diesel-hydraulic. sent11: the mitomycin is not immaterial if the fact that the puka habituates configurationism and it is alphabetic hold. sent12: that the puka is not prolusory hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 -> int1: that the puka habituates configurationism and it is alphabetic hold.; sent11 & int1 -> int2: the fact that the mitomycin is not immaterial hold.; sent6 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the nummulite is a chauffeur and fossil.
|
({B}{b} & {C}{b})
|
sent1: the premises is not a bush or it is not a kind of a hatchery or both if the hornblende is not corvine. sent2: if something does not reissue Kakatoe then it is not corvine and it does not unman rubdown. sent3: the cosmopolitan does not habituate Panini and does go if it is not diamagnetic. sent4: the nummulite is a kind of a hatchery if that the premises is not a bush is not false. sent5: if the fact that the grissino is diamagnetic but it is not a kind of a speedboat is wrong then the cosmopolitan is not diamagnetic. sent6: the nummulite is a kind of a fossil if it is corvine. sent7: the nummulite is a kind of a chauffeur if the premises is not a hatchery. sent8: the belfry does chauffeur. sent9: if the cosmopolitan does not habituate Panini but it does go the hornblende does not reissue Kakatoe. sent10: the premises chauffeurs if it is not a kind of a hatchery. sent11: the premises is not a hatchery. sent12: if something is not a kind of a hatchery the fact that it is a chauffeur and is a fossil is incorrect. sent13: the fact that the nummulite is a bush and is not corvine does not hold.
|
sent1: ¬{E}{c} -> (¬{D}{a} v ¬{A}{a}) sent2: (x): ¬{G}x -> (¬{E}x & ¬{F}x) sent3: ¬{J}{d} -> (¬{I}{d} & {H}{d}) sent4: ¬{D}{a} -> {A}{b} sent5: ¬({J}{e} & ¬{K}{e}) -> ¬{J}{d} sent6: {E}{b} -> {C}{b} sent7: ¬{A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent8: {B}{hm} sent9: (¬{I}{d} & {H}{d}) -> ¬{G}{c} sent10: ¬{A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent11: ¬{A}{a} sent12: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}x & {C}x) sent13: ¬({D}{b} & ¬{E}{b})
|
[
"sent7 & sent11 -> int1: the nummulite chauffeurs.;"
] |
[
"sent7 & sent11 -> int1: {B}{b};"
] |
the fact that the nummulite is a chauffeur and it is fossil does not hold.
|
¬({B}{b} & {C}{b})
|
[
"sent12 -> int2: that the nummulite is both a chauffeur and a fossil is not correct if it is not a hatchery.; sent2 -> int3: if the hornblende does not reissue Kakatoe it is not corvine and does not unman rubdown.;"
] | 9 | 2 | null | 10 | 0 | 10 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the nummulite is a chauffeur and fossil. ; $context$ = sent1: the premises is not a bush or it is not a kind of a hatchery or both if the hornblende is not corvine. sent2: if something does not reissue Kakatoe then it is not corvine and it does not unman rubdown. sent3: the cosmopolitan does not habituate Panini and does go if it is not diamagnetic. sent4: the nummulite is a kind of a hatchery if that the premises is not a bush is not false. sent5: if the fact that the grissino is diamagnetic but it is not a kind of a speedboat is wrong then the cosmopolitan is not diamagnetic. sent6: the nummulite is a kind of a fossil if it is corvine. sent7: the nummulite is a kind of a chauffeur if the premises is not a hatchery. sent8: the belfry does chauffeur. sent9: if the cosmopolitan does not habituate Panini but it does go the hornblende does not reissue Kakatoe. sent10: the premises chauffeurs if it is not a kind of a hatchery. sent11: the premises is not a hatchery. sent12: if something is not a kind of a hatchery the fact that it is a chauffeur and is a fossil is incorrect. sent13: the fact that the nummulite is a bush and is not corvine does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 & sent11 -> int1: the nummulite chauffeurs.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the alb is a kind of a grit.
|
{B}{a}
|
sent1: everything does reissue subsection and it does not reissue Antarctic. sent2: if the alb is a Rubus then the subsection is a Rubus. sent3: the alb is a kind of a eyecup. sent4: the alb is a grit if the antipodes is not aspectual and it does not counterweight. sent5: the fact that something does habituate deer and grits is not correct if it is not a eyecup. sent6: the switchblade is not aspectual and it is not Gabonese. sent7: something that habituates deer is a kind of non-aspectual thing that is not a counterweight. sent8: the antipodes is a kind of a eyecup. sent9: if something that does reissue subsection does not reissue Antarctic it is not a notch. sent10: the forgery is not wolflike and does not familiarize. sent11: everything is a Rubus. sent12: if something does not habituate deer and it is not a grit then it is a kind of a eyecup. sent13: the antipodes is a kind of a eyecup that does habituate deer. sent14: the alb is a Rubus if the fact that the icaco is not a Rubus and/or it is a kind of a Chiroptera is wrong. sent15: that the icaco is not a Rubus and/or is a Chiroptera is wrong if there exists something such that it does not notch. sent16: the antipodes is not aspectual. sent17: if something does habituate deer then that it is not aspectual is not incorrect. sent18: if the savior dominates then it is not a fakery and does not habituate Graham. sent19: the antipodes is a kind of a counterweight if the alb is not a grit and it does not habituate deer.
|
sent1: (x): ({G}x & ¬{H}x) sent2: {D}{a} -> {D}{dm} sent3: {C}{a} sent4: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{a} sent5: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({A}x & {B}x) sent6: (¬{AA}{gf} & ¬{GC}{gf}) sent7: (x): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent8: {C}{aa} sent9: (x): ({G}x & ¬{H}x) -> ¬{E}x sent10: (¬{AR}{cp} & ¬{CU}{cp}) sent11: (x): {D}x sent12: (x): (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) -> {C}x sent13: ({C}{aa} & {A}{aa}) sent14: ¬(¬{D}{b} v {F}{b}) -> {D}{a} sent15: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬(¬{D}{b} v {F}{b}) sent16: ¬{AA}{aa} sent17: (x): {A}x -> ¬{AA}x sent18: {IE}{ao} -> (¬{GG}{ao} & ¬{JI}{ao}) sent19: (¬{B}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> {AB}{aa}
|
[
"sent7 -> int1: the antipodes is a kind of non-aspectual thing that is not a counterweight if it habituates deer.; sent13 -> int2: the antipodes does habituate deer.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the antipodes is both not aspectual and not a counterweight.; int3 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent7 -> int1: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); sent13 -> int2: {A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> int3: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int3 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the subsection is a kind of a eyecup.
|
{C}{dm}
|
[
"sent1 -> int4: the ropewalker does reissue subsection but it does not reissue Antarctic.; sent9 -> int5: if the ropewalker reissues subsection and does not reissue Antarctic then it is not a kind of a notch.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the ropewalker is not a notch.; int6 -> int7: everything is not a notch.; int7 -> int8: the alizarin does not notch.; int8 -> int9: there is something such that it is not a notch.; sent15 & int9 -> int10: that the icaco is not a Rubus and/or is a Chiroptera is not true.; sent14 & int10 -> int11: the alb is a kind of a Rubus.; sent2 & int11 -> int12: the subsection is a Rubus.; sent12 -> int13: that the subsection is a eyecup is true if it does not habituate deer and it is not a grit.;"
] | 10 | 3 | 3 | 16 | 0 | 16 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the alb is a kind of a grit. ; $context$ = sent1: everything does reissue subsection and it does not reissue Antarctic. sent2: if the alb is a Rubus then the subsection is a Rubus. sent3: the alb is a kind of a eyecup. sent4: the alb is a grit if the antipodes is not aspectual and it does not counterweight. sent5: the fact that something does habituate deer and grits is not correct if it is not a eyecup. sent6: the switchblade is not aspectual and it is not Gabonese. sent7: something that habituates deer is a kind of non-aspectual thing that is not a counterweight. sent8: the antipodes is a kind of a eyecup. sent9: if something that does reissue subsection does not reissue Antarctic it is not a notch. sent10: the forgery is not wolflike and does not familiarize. sent11: everything is a Rubus. sent12: if something does not habituate deer and it is not a grit then it is a kind of a eyecup. sent13: the antipodes is a kind of a eyecup that does habituate deer. sent14: the alb is a Rubus if the fact that the icaco is not a Rubus and/or it is a kind of a Chiroptera is wrong. sent15: that the icaco is not a Rubus and/or is a Chiroptera is wrong if there exists something such that it does not notch. sent16: the antipodes is not aspectual. sent17: if something does habituate deer then that it is not aspectual is not incorrect. sent18: if the savior dominates then it is not a fakery and does not habituate Graham. sent19: the antipodes is a kind of a counterweight if the alb is not a grit and it does not habituate deer. ; $proof$ =
|
sent7 -> int1: the antipodes is a kind of non-aspectual thing that is not a counterweight if it habituates deer.; sent13 -> int2: the antipodes does habituate deer.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the antipodes is both not aspectual and not a counterweight.; int3 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the jaconet is advective.
|
{D}{b}
|
sent1: the dacryon is a kind of a milliwatt that reissues wristlet. sent2: the jaconet is true-false. sent3: if the dacryon is advective then it is a milliwatt. sent4: the jaconet does reissue monogram if the dacryon is a milliwatt.
|
sent1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent2: {FF}{b} sent3: {D}{a} -> {A}{a} sent4: {A}{a} -> {C}{b}
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: the dacryon is a milliwatt.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the jaconet does reissue monogram.;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: {A}{a}; int1 & sent4 -> int2: {C}{b};"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | null | 2 | 0 | 2 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the jaconet is advective. ; $context$ = sent1: the dacryon is a kind of a milliwatt that reissues wristlet. sent2: the jaconet is true-false. sent3: if the dacryon is advective then it is a milliwatt. sent4: the jaconet does reissue monogram if the dacryon is a milliwatt. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: the dacryon is a milliwatt.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the jaconet does reissue monogram.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if it is both not a pustule and not neurotoxic it is ethnocentric.
|
(Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x
|
sent1: there is something such that if it does not reissue insectivore and is a Cebu then it habituates stonework. sent2: the fusion is a kind of a Villahermosa if it is not litigious and it is not neurotoxic. sent3: if the pocketcomb is not deaf and it does not reissue handed then it is a kind of a phrontistery. sent4: if something is non-ethnocentric thing that is not dipolar then it is supraorbital. sent5: if the sinapism is a kind of non-neurotoxic thing that is not a deaf it is a Thermidor. sent6: if the pocketcomb is not distributive and it is not a overpressure it is trochaic. sent7: something is ethnocentric if it is not a pustule but neurotoxic. sent8: there is something such that if it is a pustule but not neurotoxic it is ethnocentric. sent9: there is something such that if it is not femoral and it is not non-pyknotic then the fact that it is trochaic is true. sent10: if the pocketcomb does not habituate disrespect and it is not a spike then it is a kind of a left-handedness. sent11: there is something such that if it does not sink and it is a Zapus it habituates pecan. sent12: if something that is not a kind of a pustule is not neurotoxic then it is ethnocentric. sent13: if something is a pustule but it is not neurotoxic then it is ethnocentric. sent14: if the nephelinite is non-supernaturalist thing that is not typical then it does file. sent15: if the pocketcomb is not a pustule but neurotoxic it is ethnocentric. sent16: if something that is not a sereness is not a weed then it is cognitive. sent17: the fact that there is something such that if it does not habituate Meissner and does not antisepticize verb then it is trochaic hold. sent18: the pocketcomb is ethnocentric if it is a pustule and it is not neurotoxic. sent19: there exists something such that if it is not bituminoid and it is a Austrian it is a kind of a inverter.
|
sent1: (Ex): (¬{HN}x & {HH}x) -> {HL}x sent2: (¬{BJ}{u} & ¬{AB}{u}) -> {HO}{u} sent3: (¬{BN}{aa} & ¬{IL}{aa}) -> {FM}{aa} sent4: (x): (¬{B}x & ¬{FR}x) -> {DA}x sent5: (¬{AB}{gq} & ¬{BN}{gq}) -> {JC}{gq} sent6: (¬{GA}{aa} & ¬{ED}{aa}) -> {HQ}{aa} sent7: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent8: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent9: (Ex): (¬{D}x & {IG}x) -> {HQ}x sent10: (¬{HR}{aa} & ¬{CO}{aa}) -> {M}{aa} sent11: (Ex): (¬{EF}x & {IJ}x) -> {JJ}x sent12: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent13: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent14: (¬{K}{ci} & ¬{IB}{ci}) -> {DP}{ci} sent15: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent16: (x): (¬{GS}x & ¬{A}x) -> {FB}x sent17: (Ex): (¬{P}x & ¬{GJ}x) -> {HQ}x sent18: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent19: (Ex): (¬{DL}x & {BT}x) -> {IC}x
|
[
"sent12 -> int1: if the pocketcomb is both not a pustule and not neurotoxic it is ethnocentric.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent12 -> int1: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the pocketcomb is supraorbital if it is not ethnocentric and it is not dipolar.
|
(¬{B}{aa} & ¬{FR}{aa}) -> {DA}{aa}
|
[
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 2 | 2 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is both not a pustule and not neurotoxic it is ethnocentric. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it does not reissue insectivore and is a Cebu then it habituates stonework. sent2: the fusion is a kind of a Villahermosa if it is not litigious and it is not neurotoxic. sent3: if the pocketcomb is not deaf and it does not reissue handed then it is a kind of a phrontistery. sent4: if something is non-ethnocentric thing that is not dipolar then it is supraorbital. sent5: if the sinapism is a kind of non-neurotoxic thing that is not a deaf it is a Thermidor. sent6: if the pocketcomb is not distributive and it is not a overpressure it is trochaic. sent7: something is ethnocentric if it is not a pustule but neurotoxic. sent8: there is something such that if it is a pustule but not neurotoxic it is ethnocentric. sent9: there is something such that if it is not femoral and it is not non-pyknotic then the fact that it is trochaic is true. sent10: if the pocketcomb does not habituate disrespect and it is not a spike then it is a kind of a left-handedness. sent11: there is something such that if it does not sink and it is a Zapus it habituates pecan. sent12: if something that is not a kind of a pustule is not neurotoxic then it is ethnocentric. sent13: if something is a pustule but it is not neurotoxic then it is ethnocentric. sent14: if the nephelinite is non-supernaturalist thing that is not typical then it does file. sent15: if the pocketcomb is not a pustule but neurotoxic it is ethnocentric. sent16: if something that is not a sereness is not a weed then it is cognitive. sent17: the fact that there is something such that if it does not habituate Meissner and does not antisepticize verb then it is trochaic hold. sent18: the pocketcomb is ethnocentric if it is a pustule and it is not neurotoxic. sent19: there exists something such that if it is not bituminoid and it is a Austrian it is a kind of a inverter. ; $proof$ =
|
sent12 -> int1: if the pocketcomb is both not a pustule and not neurotoxic it is ethnocentric.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if either it does not reissue trifle or it is not a Rhenish or both then it is unpronounceable.
|
(Ex): (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x
|
sent1: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a Rhenish it is unpronounceable. sent2: if the nalorphine does not reissue trifle then it is unpronounceable. sent3: the nalorphine is unpronounceable if it either does not reissue trifle or is a kind of a Rhenish or both. sent4: there is something such that if it does not antisepticize NC then the fact that it habituates bunny is right. sent5: there is something such that if it is not agonistic and/or it is not a kind of a pennycress it is a hyperbola. sent6: the nalorphine is unpronounceable if it does not reissue trifle or it is not a Rhenish or both. sent7: the nalorphine is a Anglican if it either is not an orderly or is unpronounceable or both. sent8: there exists something such that if it does not trot and/or it is phonetics then it is a overachievement. sent9: there exists something such that if it does not reissue trifle it is unpronounceable.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬{AB}x -> {B}x sent2: ¬{AA}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent3: (¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent4: (Ex): ¬{IN}x -> {JD}x sent5: (Ex): (¬{FH}x v ¬{GD}x) -> {AR}x sent6: (¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent7: (¬{IC}{aa} v {B}{aa}) -> {IL}{aa} sent8: (Ex): (¬{ES}x v {HI}x) -> {GI}x sent9: (Ex): ¬{AA}x -> {B}x
|
[
"sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if either it does not reissue trifle or it is not a Rhenish or both then it is unpronounceable. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a Rhenish it is unpronounceable. sent2: if the nalorphine does not reissue trifle then it is unpronounceable. sent3: the nalorphine is unpronounceable if it either does not reissue trifle or is a kind of a Rhenish or both. sent4: there is something such that if it does not antisepticize NC then the fact that it habituates bunny is right. sent5: there is something such that if it is not agonistic and/or it is not a kind of a pennycress it is a hyperbola. sent6: the nalorphine is unpronounceable if it does not reissue trifle or it is not a Rhenish or both. sent7: the nalorphine is a Anglican if it either is not an orderly or is unpronounceable or both. sent8: there exists something such that if it does not trot and/or it is phonetics then it is a overachievement. sent9: there exists something such that if it does not reissue trifle it is unpronounceable. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the dichondra is not a Graham but a paintbrush.
|
(¬{B}{c} & {C}{c})
|
sent1: the fact that the dichondra is not a Graham and is a kind of a paintbrush is not wrong if the venturer is not a kind of a Graham. sent2: if the brimstone is not a Fonteyn but it does impregnate then the venturer is not a Graham. sent3: if something is not a nardoo it is not a paintbrush and it legitimates.
|
sent1: ¬{B}{b} -> (¬{B}{c} & {C}{c}) sent2: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent3: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{C}x & {HN}x)
|
[] |
[] |
that the coxcomb is not a kind of a paintbrush but it does legitimate is not wrong.
|
(¬{C}{au} & {HN}{au})
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: the coxcomb is not a paintbrush but it legitimates if it is not a kind of a nardoo.;"
] | 4 | 2 | null | 1 | 0 | 1 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the dichondra is not a Graham but a paintbrush. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the dichondra is not a Graham and is a kind of a paintbrush is not wrong if the venturer is not a kind of a Graham. sent2: if the brimstone is not a Fonteyn but it does impregnate then the venturer is not a Graham. sent3: if something is not a nardoo it is not a paintbrush and it legitimates. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if it is not inconsistent it is a cubitiere.
|
(Ex): ¬{B}x -> {C}x
|
sent1: the oca is a cubitiere if it is inconsistent. sent2: something that does not spray is acrogenic. sent3: there is something such that if it is non-allotropic then it is a Bergen. sent4: there is something such that if it is inconsistent it is a cubitiere. sent5: there exists something such that if it is not basophilic it is a Burundi. sent6: the boarding is inconsistent if it is not a kind of a nightwear. sent7: there is something such that if it is not orthopedics then it is responsive. sent8: if something is not a detour then it is a kind of a businessman. sent9: something does antisepticize chloroform if it does not habituate partner. sent10: there exists something such that if it does not unman anthrax it is a beanball. sent11: if the oca is not a kind of a cubitiere that it habituates Elaeagnus is not incorrect. sent12: if the oca is not inconsistent then it is a cubitiere.
|
sent1: {B}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent2: (x): ¬{EK}x -> {AP}x sent3: (Ex): ¬{II}x -> {AQ}x sent4: (Ex): {B}x -> {C}x sent5: (Ex): ¬{ES}x -> {HA}x sent6: ¬{IT}{ga} -> {B}{ga} sent7: (Ex): ¬{BN}x -> {ET}x sent8: (x): ¬{BC}x -> {DF}x sent9: (x): ¬{FN}x -> {HL}x sent10: (Ex): ¬{R}x -> {CL}x sent11: ¬{C}{aa} -> {EH}{aa} sent12: ¬{B}{aa} -> {C}{aa}
|
[
"sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there exists something such that if it does not habituate partner then it antisepticizes chloroform.
|
(Ex): ¬{FN}x -> {HL}x
|
[
"sent9 -> int1: if the foe does not habituate partner then it does antisepticize chloroform.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is not inconsistent it is a cubitiere. ; $context$ = sent1: the oca is a cubitiere if it is inconsistent. sent2: something that does not spray is acrogenic. sent3: there is something such that if it is non-allotropic then it is a Bergen. sent4: there is something such that if it is inconsistent it is a cubitiere. sent5: there exists something such that if it is not basophilic it is a Burundi. sent6: the boarding is inconsistent if it is not a kind of a nightwear. sent7: there is something such that if it is not orthopedics then it is responsive. sent8: if something is not a detour then it is a kind of a businessman. sent9: something does antisepticize chloroform if it does not habituate partner. sent10: there exists something such that if it does not unman anthrax it is a beanball. sent11: if the oca is not a kind of a cubitiere that it habituates Elaeagnus is not incorrect. sent12: if the oca is not inconsistent then it is a cubitiere. ; $proof$ =
|
sent12 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the relevantness occurs.
|
{D}
|
sent1: that the habituating Trachelospermum and the fossil happens is not wrong if the comicness does not occur. sent2: the relevantness happens if the habituating Trachelospermum occurs. sent3: the relevantness does not occur if the fact that the relevantness and the fossil happens does not hold. sent4: the antisepticizing mildew happens. sent5: if the comicness does not occur that both the relevantness and the fossilness happens is not true. sent6: the habituating Trachelospermum happens if the fact that the scheduling happens is right. sent7: if the subjugation does not occur the comicness does not occur and the intramolecularness does not occur.
|
sent1: ¬{F} -> ({C} & {E}) sent2: {C} -> {D} sent3: ¬({D} & {E}) -> ¬{D} sent4: {A} sent5: ¬{F} -> ¬({D} & {E}) sent6: {B} -> {C} sent7: ¬{H} -> (¬{F} & ¬{G})
|
[] |
[] |
the relevantness does not occur.
|
¬{D}
|
[] | 7 | 3 | null | 4 | 0 | 4 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the relevantness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that the habituating Trachelospermum and the fossil happens is not wrong if the comicness does not occur. sent2: the relevantness happens if the habituating Trachelospermum occurs. sent3: the relevantness does not occur if the fact that the relevantness and the fossil happens does not hold. sent4: the antisepticizing mildew happens. sent5: if the comicness does not occur that both the relevantness and the fossilness happens is not true. sent6: the habituating Trachelospermum happens if the fact that the scheduling happens is right. sent7: if the subjugation does not occur the comicness does not occur and the intramolecularness does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the shimmy occurs.
|
{D}
|
sent1: the relief happens. sent2: the recombinant happens. sent3: if the fact that the grilling occurs and the extrasensoriness occurs hold then the shimmying does not occur. sent4: the extrasensoriness and the relief occurs. sent5: the boiling occurs. sent6: the boiling occurs and the grilling occurs.
|
sent1: {E} sent2: {CP} sent3: ({B} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent4: ({C} & {E}) sent5: {A} sent6: ({A} & {B})
|
[
"sent6 -> int1: the grill happens.; sent4 -> int2: that the extrasensoriness occurs hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the grilling occurs and the extrasensoriness occurs.; int3 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 -> int1: {B}; sent4 -> int2: {C}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({B} & {C}); int3 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the shimmy occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the relief happens. sent2: the recombinant happens. sent3: if the fact that the grilling occurs and the extrasensoriness occurs hold then the shimmying does not occur. sent4: the extrasensoriness and the relief occurs. sent5: the boiling occurs. sent6: the boiling occurs and the grilling occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 -> int1: the grill happens.; sent4 -> int2: that the extrasensoriness occurs hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the grilling occurs and the extrasensoriness occurs.; int3 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there is something such that the fact that it is not onomatopoeic and it is not lipless is not true is wrong.
|
¬((Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x))
|
sent1: the insectivore is not onomatopoeic. sent2: the tanbark is not puerperal. sent3: the fact that the tanbark is lipped thing that scavenges is false. sent4: there is something such that it is a kind of non-morphophonemics thing that is not a tramcar. sent5: there exists something such that it is a kind of non-onomatopoeic thing that is not lipless. sent6: that the thane does not habituate personhood and is not an absentee is wrong. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is not vestibular and it is a Sheffield is not true. sent8: the fact that the tanbark is not onomatopoeic but it is lipless does not hold if it does not unman tanbark. sent9: the fact that the tanbark does unman tanbark is false. sent10: if the tanbark does not reissue propanol the fact that it is not unshapely and it is not lipless is not correct. sent11: if the tanbark is not high-tech then that it is not a batting and not a jazz is not correct. sent12: if something is not an absentee then the fact that it is not a hobbyist and it is not a shoelace does not hold. sent13: if something is not a kind of a billboard the fact that the fact that it unmans babble and it is not suburban is not wrong does not hold. sent14: the fact that the tanbark is a kind of a billboard but it is not a kind of a candlenut is not correct if it is not duodenal. sent15: there is something such that the fact that it is a lotto but not a shoelace is incorrect. sent16: there is something such that that it is not a cobalamin and it is a collateral is not true. sent17: The fact that the tanbark does unman tanbark is false. sent18: that the tanbark is a kind of non-megakaryocytic thing that does not unman tanbark does not hold. sent19: that something is both not a carissa and not a Sherrington is wrong if it is not a razor-fish. sent20: that the tanbark is not a kind of a rapeseed and it is not lipless is not true. sent21: that the tanbark does unman tanbark and is not a apophatism is false if it is not a kind of a Anasazi. sent22: that the tanbark is not a solvation and it is not onomatopoeic is incorrect if it is not a roan. sent23: if something does not unman tanbark the fact that it is not onomatopoeic and it is not lipless is wrong.
|
sent1: ¬{AA}{db} sent2: ¬{ET}{aa} sent3: ¬(¬{AB}{aa} & {K}{aa}) sent4: (Ex): (¬{DA}x & ¬{BJ}x) sent5: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent6: ¬(¬{I}{a} & ¬{EQ}{a}) sent7: (Ex): ¬(¬{JK}x & {DN}x) sent8: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent9: ¬{A}{aa} sent10: ¬{HT}{aa} -> ¬(¬{DM}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent11: ¬{FA}{aa} -> ¬(¬{GI}{aa} & ¬{AU}{aa}) sent12: (x): ¬{EQ}x -> ¬(¬{JH}x & ¬{GT}x) sent13: (x): ¬{ES}x -> ¬({DI}x & ¬{J}x) sent14: ¬{AS}{aa} -> ¬({ES}{aa} & ¬{C}{aa}) sent15: (Ex): ¬({EP}x & ¬{GT}x) sent16: (Ex): ¬(¬{FB}x & {GG}x) sent17: ¬{AC}{ab} sent18: ¬(¬{BG}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa}) sent19: (x): ¬{BK}x -> ¬(¬{IC}x & ¬{CJ}x) sent20: ¬(¬{GA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent21: ¬{BQ}{aa} -> ¬({A}{aa} & ¬{BU}{aa}) sent22: ¬{DS}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AF}{aa} & ¬{AA}{aa}) sent23: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
[
"sent23 -> int1: the fact that if the tanbark does not unman tanbark then the fact that the tanbark is not onomatopoeic and not lipless is wrong is not wrong.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the fact that the tanbark is non-onomatopoeic and lipped is wrong.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent23 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 & sent9 -> int2: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 21 | 0 | 21 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that the fact that it is not onomatopoeic and it is not lipless is not true is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the insectivore is not onomatopoeic. sent2: the tanbark is not puerperal. sent3: the fact that the tanbark is lipped thing that scavenges is false. sent4: there is something such that it is a kind of non-morphophonemics thing that is not a tramcar. sent5: there exists something such that it is a kind of non-onomatopoeic thing that is not lipless. sent6: that the thane does not habituate personhood and is not an absentee is wrong. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is not vestibular and it is a Sheffield is not true. sent8: the fact that the tanbark is not onomatopoeic but it is lipless does not hold if it does not unman tanbark. sent9: the fact that the tanbark does unman tanbark is false. sent10: if the tanbark does not reissue propanol the fact that it is not unshapely and it is not lipless is not correct. sent11: if the tanbark is not high-tech then that it is not a batting and not a jazz is not correct. sent12: if something is not an absentee then the fact that it is not a hobbyist and it is not a shoelace does not hold. sent13: if something is not a kind of a billboard the fact that the fact that it unmans babble and it is not suburban is not wrong does not hold. sent14: the fact that the tanbark is a kind of a billboard but it is not a kind of a candlenut is not correct if it is not duodenal. sent15: there is something such that the fact that it is a lotto but not a shoelace is incorrect. sent16: there is something such that that it is not a cobalamin and it is a collateral is not true. sent17: The fact that the tanbark does unman tanbark is false. sent18: that the tanbark is a kind of non-megakaryocytic thing that does not unman tanbark does not hold. sent19: that something is both not a carissa and not a Sherrington is wrong if it is not a razor-fish. sent20: that the tanbark is not a kind of a rapeseed and it is not lipless is not true. sent21: that the tanbark does unman tanbark and is not a apophatism is false if it is not a kind of a Anasazi. sent22: that the tanbark is not a solvation and it is not onomatopoeic is incorrect if it is not a roan. sent23: if something does not unman tanbark the fact that it is not onomatopoeic and it is not lipless is wrong. ; $proof$ =
|
sent23 -> int1: the fact that if the tanbark does not unman tanbark then the fact that the tanbark is not onomatopoeic and not lipless is wrong is not wrong.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the fact that the tanbark is non-onomatopoeic and lipped is wrong.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the backlessness does not occur is not wrong.
|
¬{A}
|
sent1: that the dislocation occurs is triggered by that the roughness occurs and the expectoration happens. sent2: that the clanger occurs or that the dropping does not occur or both prevents the commination. sent3: the dislocation happens if the roughness does not occur and the expectoration happens. sent4: if the reissuing flighted does not occur then the cockfighting and the dislocation occurs. sent5: the picking does not occur and the unknown does not occur if the castling happens. sent6: if the uncongenialness does not occur the apostrophicness happens and the colored occurs. sent7: both the fisheyeness and the castling occurs if the equitableness does not occur. sent8: that the apostrophicness and the coloredness occurs prevents the equitableness. sent9: the roughness does not occur and the expectoration occurs. sent10: the drop does not occur if the picking does not occur and the unknown does not occur. sent11: the fact that the uncongenialness does not occur hold if the Timorese does not occur. sent12: that the cockfighting and the dislocation happens causes the non-backlessness. sent13: the fact that the trembling occurs and the bryophyticness occurs is not true if the commination does not occur. sent14: the backlessness occurs if the dislocation occurs. sent15: the bryophyticness does not occur if that the trembles and the bryophyticness occurs is not true. sent16: the antisepticizing grope does not occur and the reissuing flighted does not occur if the reissuing expectoration does not occur. sent17: if the bryophyticness does not occur the subcorticalness does not occur and the reissuing expectoration does not occur.
|
sent1: ({AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent2: ({L} v ¬{K}) -> ¬{J} sent3: (¬{AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent4: ¬{D} -> ({C} & {B}) sent5: {O} -> (¬{N} & ¬{M}) sent6: ¬{T} -> ({S} & {R}) sent7: ¬{Q} -> ({P} & {O}) sent8: ({S} & {R}) -> ¬{Q} sent9: (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent10: (¬{N} & ¬{M}) -> ¬{K} sent11: ¬{U} -> ¬{T} sent12: ({C} & {B}) -> ¬{A} sent13: ¬{J} -> ¬({I} & {H}) sent14: {B} -> {A} sent15: ¬({I} & {H}) -> ¬{H} sent16: ¬{F} -> (¬{E} & ¬{D}) sent17: ¬{H} -> (¬{G} & ¬{F})
|
[
"sent3 & sent9 -> int1: the dislocation happens.; sent14 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent9 -> int1: {B}; sent14 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the backlessness does not occur is not wrong.
|
¬{A}
|
[] | 18 | 2 | 2 | 14 | 0 | 14 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the backlessness does not occur is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: that the dislocation occurs is triggered by that the roughness occurs and the expectoration happens. sent2: that the clanger occurs or that the dropping does not occur or both prevents the commination. sent3: the dislocation happens if the roughness does not occur and the expectoration happens. sent4: if the reissuing flighted does not occur then the cockfighting and the dislocation occurs. sent5: the picking does not occur and the unknown does not occur if the castling happens. sent6: if the uncongenialness does not occur the apostrophicness happens and the colored occurs. sent7: both the fisheyeness and the castling occurs if the equitableness does not occur. sent8: that the apostrophicness and the coloredness occurs prevents the equitableness. sent9: the roughness does not occur and the expectoration occurs. sent10: the drop does not occur if the picking does not occur and the unknown does not occur. sent11: the fact that the uncongenialness does not occur hold if the Timorese does not occur. sent12: that the cockfighting and the dislocation happens causes the non-backlessness. sent13: the fact that the trembling occurs and the bryophyticness occurs is not true if the commination does not occur. sent14: the backlessness occurs if the dislocation occurs. sent15: the bryophyticness does not occur if that the trembles and the bryophyticness occurs is not true. sent16: the antisepticizing grope does not occur and the reissuing flighted does not occur if the reissuing expectoration does not occur. sent17: if the bryophyticness does not occur the subcorticalness does not occur and the reissuing expectoration does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent9 -> int1: the dislocation happens.; sent14 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the extremist is a predicate is not wrong.
|
{A}{a}
|
sent1: the fact that something is a kind of a certiorari but it does not antisepticize portwatcher does not hold if it is not a kind of a predicate. sent2: the extremist unmans granary but it is not a kind of a wintergreen if the cunnilingus is not a Northampton. sent3: that the extremist is anaclitic and is not a predicate is not correct. sent4: the visitor is anaclitic. sent5: there exists nothing such that it is a predicate and it is non-anaclitic. sent6: if the granary is not bismuthal then the extremist is a predicate. sent7: something does not predicate if that it does unman granary and predicate does not hold. sent8: the fact that the extremist is a predicate is not wrong if that the granary is bismuthal but it is not anaclitic does not hold.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({DB}x & ¬{CB}x) sent2: ¬{D}{b} -> ({C}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent3: ¬({AB}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent4: {AB}{gh} sent5: (x): ¬({A}x & ¬{AB}x) sent6: ¬{AA}{aa} -> {A}{a} sent7: (x): ¬({C}x & {A}x) -> ¬{A}x sent8: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {A}{a}
|
[] |
[] |
the fact that the extremist is not a predicate hold.
|
¬{A}{a}
|
[] | 6 | 2 | null | 7 | 0 | 7 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the extremist is a predicate is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is a kind of a certiorari but it does not antisepticize portwatcher does not hold if it is not a kind of a predicate. sent2: the extremist unmans granary but it is not a kind of a wintergreen if the cunnilingus is not a Northampton. sent3: that the extremist is anaclitic and is not a predicate is not correct. sent4: the visitor is anaclitic. sent5: there exists nothing such that it is a predicate and it is non-anaclitic. sent6: if the granary is not bismuthal then the extremist is a predicate. sent7: something does not predicate if that it does unman granary and predicate does not hold. sent8: the fact that the extremist is a predicate is not wrong if that the granary is bismuthal but it is not anaclitic does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that it does antisepticize portraitist and unmans Pitman.
|
(Ex): ({B}x & {A}x)
|
sent1: something unmans Pitman if the fact that it does unman bat or is not lotic or both is not correct. sent2: the nonconformist does antisepticize portraitist and is a Gypsy.
|
sent1: (x): ¬({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> {A}x sent2: ({B}{aa} & {C}{aa})
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: if the fact that the nonconformist either unmans bat or is not lotic or both is not true it does unman Pitman.; sent2 -> int2: the nonconformist does antisepticize portraitist.;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: ¬({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {A}{aa}; sent2 -> int2: {B}{aa};"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 4 | null | 0 | 0 | 0 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that it does antisepticize portraitist and unmans Pitman. ; $context$ = sent1: something unmans Pitman if the fact that it does unman bat or is not lotic or both is not correct. sent2: the nonconformist does antisepticize portraitist and is a Gypsy. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: if the fact that the nonconformist either unmans bat or is not lotic or both is not true it does unman Pitman.; sent2 -> int2: the nonconformist does antisepticize portraitist.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that it is a GABA that is not staphylococcal.
|
(Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
sent1: everything is a fairlead and a coyol. sent2: something is a GABA but it is not a Champaign if it is diabatic. sent3: the inula is a GABA but it is not staphylococcal.
|
sent1: (x): ({C}x & {D}x) sent2: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{GH}x) sent3: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})
|
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the cuckoopint is a GABA that is not a Champaign.
|
({AA}{fa} & ¬{GH}{fa})
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: the cuckoopint is a GABA and is not a kind of a Champaign if it is diabatic.; sent1 -> int2: the choc-ice is a fairlead and it is a kind of a coyol.; int2 -> int3: the choc-ice is a fairlead.; int3 -> int4: everything is a kind of a fairlead.; int4 -> int5: the fossilization is a fairlead.; int5 -> int6: something is a fairlead.;"
] | 8 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that it is a GABA that is not staphylococcal. ; $context$ = sent1: everything is a fairlead and a coyol. sent2: something is a GABA but it is not a Champaign if it is diabatic. sent3: the inula is a GABA but it is not staphylococcal. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the axle is a Austerlitz.
|
{E}{b}
|
sent1: if something is not non-pubic that it does not unman keypad and it is not fleshy does not hold. sent2: if the lizard is a kind of a dot-com then it does unman neigh. sent3: the Lister is both pubic and dot-com. sent4: the fact that the Lister does not unman keypad and is fleshy is not correct. sent5: the axle is a Austerlitz if the fact that the Lister does not unman keypad and it is not fleshy is wrong. sent6: the topknot is pubic.
|
sent1: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{D}x) sent2: {B}{o} -> {ET}{o} sent3: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent4: ¬(¬{C}{a} & {D}{a}) sent5: ¬(¬{C}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) -> {E}{b} sent6: {A}{dj}
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: the Lister is pubic.; sent1 -> int2: if the Lister is pubic then that it does not unman keypad and is not fleshy does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the Lister does not unman keypad and it is not fleshy does not hold.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> int1: {A}{a}; sent1 -> int2: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{C}{a} & ¬{D}{a}); int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬(¬{C}{a} & ¬{D}{a}); int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the lizard unmans neigh and it is a antediluvian hold.
|
({ET}{o} & {GK}{o})
|
[] | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the axle is a Austerlitz. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not non-pubic that it does not unman keypad and it is not fleshy does not hold. sent2: if the lizard is a kind of a dot-com then it does unman neigh. sent3: the Lister is both pubic and dot-com. sent4: the fact that the Lister does not unman keypad and is fleshy is not correct. sent5: the axle is a Austerlitz if the fact that the Lister does not unman keypad and it is not fleshy is wrong. sent6: the topknot is pubic. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> int1: the Lister is pubic.; sent1 -> int2: if the Lister is pubic then that it does not unman keypad and is not fleshy does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the Lister does not unman keypad and it is not fleshy does not hold.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the equivocalness occurs.
|
{A}
|
sent1: the efflorescing does not occur. sent2: the tagging does not occur. sent3: if the inquest happens the tagging but not the habituating kind occurs. sent4: the Djiboutian does not occur. sent5: the censorialness does not occur and the internment does not occur. sent6: the fact that if the tagging happens that the internment does not occur but the equivocalness happens is incorrect hold. sent7: the equivocalness does not occur if the fact that the internment does not occur and the equivocalness occurs does not hold. sent8: the variolarness occurs. sent9: both the entrancing and the gerrymander happens. sent10: the phrasing occurs. sent11: if the equivocalness does not occur that the phrasing happens is not incorrect. sent12: the fact that the orientation does not occur is correct. sent13: the restraining occurs. sent14: if the gravity-assist does not occur then the cordlessness happens. sent15: the starvation happens. sent16: the housework occurs and the souring occurs. sent17: that both the phrasing and the level happens is caused by that the equivocalness does not occur.
|
sent1: ¬{EK} sent2: ¬{B} sent3: {E} -> ({B} & ¬{D}) sent4: ¬{BB} sent5: (¬{BR} & ¬{C}) sent6: {B} -> ¬(¬{C} & {A}) sent7: ¬(¬{C} & {A}) -> ¬{A} sent8: {DM} sent9: ({IU} & {BL}) sent10: {AA} sent11: ¬{A} -> {AA} sent12: ¬{BA} sent13: {IG} sent14: ¬{CA} -> {CC} sent15: {EM} sent16: ({EH} & {BD}) sent17: ¬{A} -> ({AA} & {AB})
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the equivocalness does not occur.; sent17 & assump1 -> int1: the phrasing and the leveling occurs.; int1 -> int2: the level happens.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ¬{A}; sent17 & assump1 -> int1: ({AA} & {AB}); int1 -> int2: {AB};"
] |
the fact that the equivocalness does not occur hold.
|
¬{A}
|
[] | 8 | 4 | null | 16 | 0 | 16 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the equivocalness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the efflorescing does not occur. sent2: the tagging does not occur. sent3: if the inquest happens the tagging but not the habituating kind occurs. sent4: the Djiboutian does not occur. sent5: the censorialness does not occur and the internment does not occur. sent6: the fact that if the tagging happens that the internment does not occur but the equivocalness happens is incorrect hold. sent7: the equivocalness does not occur if the fact that the internment does not occur and the equivocalness occurs does not hold. sent8: the variolarness occurs. sent9: both the entrancing and the gerrymander happens. sent10: the phrasing occurs. sent11: if the equivocalness does not occur that the phrasing happens is not incorrect. sent12: the fact that the orientation does not occur is correct. sent13: the restraining occurs. sent14: if the gravity-assist does not occur then the cordlessness happens. sent15: the starvation happens. sent16: the housework occurs and the souring occurs. sent17: that both the phrasing and the level happens is caused by that the equivocalness does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the equivocalness does not occur.; sent17 & assump1 -> int1: the phrasing and the leveling occurs.; int1 -> int2: the level happens.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the wardrobe is a fife.
|
{A}{b}
|
sent1: if the rhodolite is not a Tallchief and it is not a kind of a tortoise it does not habituate frill. sent2: if the rhodolite does not habituate frill then the wardrobe is a fife. sent3: the rhodolite is not a Tallchief and not a tortoise. sent4: that the rhodolite is not gothic is right. sent5: the fact that the mosaic is not a Tallchief is right.
|
sent1: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent2: ¬{B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent3: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent4: ¬{AJ}{a} sent5: ¬{AA}{bu}
|
[
"sent1 & sent3 -> int1: the rhodolite does not habituate frill.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 & sent3 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the wardrobe is a fife. ; $context$ = sent1: if the rhodolite is not a Tallchief and it is not a kind of a tortoise it does not habituate frill. sent2: if the rhodolite does not habituate frill then the wardrobe is a fife. sent3: the rhodolite is not a Tallchief and not a tortoise. sent4: that the rhodolite is not gothic is right. sent5: the fact that the mosaic is not a Tallchief is right. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 & sent3 -> int1: the rhodolite does not habituate frill.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there exists something such that if it is both a golf and underhand then it is non-amphitheatric is not wrong.
|
(Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x
|
sent1: the instrument is a golf if it unmans linuron and it is chauvinistic. sent2: there is something such that if that it golfs and is underhand is not false it is amphitheatric. sent3: there exists something such that if it is amphoric and it is a kind of a stalking-horse then it does antisepticize OV. sent4: that there is something such that if it habituates Dubonnet and is a kind of a supernatural then it is a barium is true. sent5: if something is a kind of a golf and it habituates Dysdercus the fact that it does not get is not false. sent6: the instrument is not amphitheatric if it does golf and it is underhand.
|
sent1: ({FH}{aa} & {ES}{aa}) -> {AA}{aa} sent2: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent3: (Ex): ({CE}x & {EQ}x) -> {DE}x sent4: (Ex): ({HQ}x & {AD}x) -> {AR}x sent5: (x): ({AA}x & {DK}x) -> ¬{FC}x sent6: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}
|
[
"sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
if the linuron does golf and does habituate Dysdercus it is not a kind of a get.
|
({AA}{u} & {DK}{u}) -> ¬{FC}{u}
|
[
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it is both a golf and underhand then it is non-amphitheatric is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the instrument is a golf if it unmans linuron and it is chauvinistic. sent2: there is something such that if that it golfs and is underhand is not false it is amphitheatric. sent3: there exists something such that if it is amphoric and it is a kind of a stalking-horse then it does antisepticize OV. sent4: that there is something such that if it habituates Dubonnet and is a kind of a supernatural then it is a barium is true. sent5: if something is a kind of a golf and it habituates Dysdercus the fact that it does not get is not false. sent6: the instrument is not amphitheatric if it does golf and it is underhand. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the amide is non-hypothermic thing that repositions is not true.
|
¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})
|
sent1: something is a kind of non-hypothermic thing that does reposition if it is Afghani. sent2: something is a Narcissus but it does not yacht. sent3: the amide is Afghani if something is a kind of a Narcissus but it does not yacht.
|
sent1: (x): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent2: (Ex): ({C}x & ¬{B}x) sent3: (x): ({C}x & ¬{B}x) -> {A}{aa}
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: the amide is not hypothermic but it does reposition if it is Afghani.; sent2 & sent3 -> int2: the amide is Afghani.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> int1: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); sent2 & sent3 -> int2: {A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = that the amide is non-hypothermic thing that repositions is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a kind of non-hypothermic thing that does reposition if it is Afghani. sent2: something is a Narcissus but it does not yacht. sent3: the amide is Afghani if something is a kind of a Narcissus but it does not yacht. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> int1: the amide is not hypothermic but it does reposition if it is Afghani.; sent2 & sent3 -> int2: the amide is Afghani.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if it is not a falcon then it does habituate Orientalism and it antisepticizes redact.
|
(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x)
|
sent1: something habituates Orientalism and it does antisepticize redact if it falcons. sent2: there is something such that if it does falcon then it habituates Orientalism and it does antisepticize redact. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a falcon it antisepticizes redact. sent4: something is not non-subjective and it pinks if the fact that it is a bishopry is not true. sent5: if something does not falcon then it habituates Orientalism and does antisepticize redact. sent6: the cubby does habituate Orientalism if it is not a falcon. sent7: there is something such that if it is not millennial it does recount.
|
sent1: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent2: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> {AB}x sent4: (x): ¬{GF}x -> ({CN}x & {BD}x) sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent6: ¬{A}{aa} -> {AA}{aa} sent7: (Ex): ¬{Q}x -> {BO}x
|
[
"sent5 -> int1: if the cubby does not falcon it does habituate Orientalism and does antisepticize redact.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there exists something such that if it is not a bishopry it is subjective a pink.
|
(Ex): ¬{GF}x -> ({CN}x & {BD}x)
|
[
"sent4 -> int2: the pimp is subjective and it is a pink if it is not a bishopry.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 6 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is not a falcon then it does habituate Orientalism and it antisepticizes redact. ; $context$ = sent1: something habituates Orientalism and it does antisepticize redact if it falcons. sent2: there is something such that if it does falcon then it habituates Orientalism and it does antisepticize redact. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a falcon it antisepticizes redact. sent4: something is not non-subjective and it pinks if the fact that it is a bishopry is not true. sent5: if something does not falcon then it habituates Orientalism and does antisepticize redact. sent6: the cubby does habituate Orientalism if it is not a falcon. sent7: there is something such that if it is not millennial it does recount. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 -> int1: if the cubby does not falcon it does habituate Orientalism and does antisepticize redact.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the sulla is a kind of a Aqaba.
|
{B}{c}
|
sent1: something that reissues Murillo does volley. sent2: if the fact that the xanthate is spectral but it is non-hydrophilic is wrong then the case is not a Oman. sent3: either the sulla is a Aqaba or it is a preventive or both. sent4: the sulla is a kind of a Aqaba if the case volleys. sent5: the fact that something is not a two-piece and it does not reissue Murillo is not right if it is not a Oman. sent6: that the xanthate is both spectral and not hydrophilic does not hold if it is adenocarcinomatous. sent7: something is not a kind of a preventive but it is a kind of a Aqaba. sent8: there are clausal things. sent9: if the case unmans ecarte then the xenotime unmans ecarte. sent10: if the xenotime is non-preventive the case does volley and/or it is a kind of a non-preventive. sent11: the xenotime reissues Murillo if that the case is not a two-piece and does not reissues Murillo is wrong. sent12: there is something such that it does not unman ecarte. sent13: the sulla is a Aqaba if the case is preventive. sent14: something does not unman ecarte and is clausal. sent15: something unmans ecarte and it is clausal.
|
sent1: (x): {D}x -> {C}x sent2: ¬({G}{d} & ¬{H}{d}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent3: ({B}{c} v {A}{c}) sent4: {C}{b} -> {B}{c} sent5: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{D}x) sent6: {I}{d} -> ¬({G}{d} & ¬{H}{d}) sent7: (Ex): (¬{A}x & {B}x) sent8: (Ex): {AB}x sent9: {AA}{b} -> {AA}{a} sent10: ¬{A}{a} -> ({C}{b} v {A}{b}) sent11: ¬(¬{F}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) -> {D}{a} sent12: (Ex): ¬{AA}x sent13: {A}{b} -> {B}{c} sent14: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent15: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x)
|
[] |
[] |
the sulla is not a Aqaba.
|
¬{B}{c}
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: that if the xenotime does reissue Murillo the xenotime does volley is correct.; sent5 -> int2: that the case is non-two-piece thing that does not reissue Murillo does not hold if it is not a kind of a Oman.;"
] | 8 | 3 | null | 11 | 0 | 11 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the sulla is a kind of a Aqaba. ; $context$ = sent1: something that reissues Murillo does volley. sent2: if the fact that the xanthate is spectral but it is non-hydrophilic is wrong then the case is not a Oman. sent3: either the sulla is a Aqaba or it is a preventive or both. sent4: the sulla is a kind of a Aqaba if the case volleys. sent5: the fact that something is not a two-piece and it does not reissue Murillo is not right if it is not a Oman. sent6: that the xanthate is both spectral and not hydrophilic does not hold if it is adenocarcinomatous. sent7: something is not a kind of a preventive but it is a kind of a Aqaba. sent8: there are clausal things. sent9: if the case unmans ecarte then the xenotime unmans ecarte. sent10: if the xenotime is non-preventive the case does volley and/or it is a kind of a non-preventive. sent11: the xenotime reissues Murillo if that the case is not a two-piece and does not reissues Murillo is wrong. sent12: there is something such that it does not unman ecarte. sent13: the sulla is a Aqaba if the case is preventive. sent14: something does not unman ecarte and is clausal. sent15: something unmans ecarte and it is clausal. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fastnacht does not reissue benzocaine.
|
¬{C}{b}
|
sent1: the fastnacht is a disk. sent2: the clasp does reissue board if the fastnacht is not a sonnet. sent3: the serine does not reissue benzocaine. sent4: the clasp is not a serotine. sent5: the fastnacht is tympanic and is a disk if the clasp does not reissue benzocaine. sent6: the fastnacht is tympanic. sent7: that the clasp is a kind of a sonnet that is a kind of a disk is wrong. sent8: if the fastnacht is not tympanic then the clasp reissues board. sent9: if the clasp is not a disk the fastnacht reissues benzocaine and is a sonnet. sent10: if the fact that the clasp does reissue board and does reissue benzocaine is wrong it is not a sonnet. sent11: the fact that if that the clasp sonnets and is the disk is not true the clasp is not tympanic hold. sent12: the clasp is a isometric. sent13: the fastnacht does reissue benzocaine and it reissues board if that the clasp is not tympanic is true. sent14: the fastnacht reissues board. sent15: that the faille is not tympanic is not wrong. sent16: the fastnacht is a free-liver. sent17: the fact that the tisane is a disk is not incorrect. sent18: if the clasp is tympanic and reissues benzocaine then the fastnacht does not reissues benzocaine.
|
sent1: {AB}{b} sent2: ¬{AA}{b} -> {A}{a} sent3: ¬{C}{di} sent4: ¬{FE}{a} sent5: ¬{C}{a} -> ({B}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent6: {B}{b} sent7: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent8: ¬{B}{b} -> {A}{a} sent9: ¬{AB}{a} -> ({C}{b} & {AA}{b}) sent10: ¬({A}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{AA}{a} sent11: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent12: {FL}{a} sent13: ¬{B}{a} -> ({C}{b} & {A}{b}) sent14: {A}{b} sent15: ¬{B}{gl} sent16: {DQ}{b} sent17: {AB}{ij} sent18: ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b}
|
[
"sent11 & sent7 -> int1: the fact that the clasp is not tympanic hold.; sent13 & int1 -> int2: the fastnacht reissues benzocaine and it does reissue board.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent11 & sent7 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; sent13 & int1 -> int2: ({C}{b} & {A}{b}); int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fastnacht does not reissue benzocaine.
|
¬{C}{b}
|
[] | 4 | 3 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fastnacht does not reissue benzocaine. ; $context$ = sent1: the fastnacht is a disk. sent2: the clasp does reissue board if the fastnacht is not a sonnet. sent3: the serine does not reissue benzocaine. sent4: the clasp is not a serotine. sent5: the fastnacht is tympanic and is a disk if the clasp does not reissue benzocaine. sent6: the fastnacht is tympanic. sent7: that the clasp is a kind of a sonnet that is a kind of a disk is wrong. sent8: if the fastnacht is not tympanic then the clasp reissues board. sent9: if the clasp is not a disk the fastnacht reissues benzocaine and is a sonnet. sent10: if the fact that the clasp does reissue board and does reissue benzocaine is wrong it is not a sonnet. sent11: the fact that if that the clasp sonnets and is the disk is not true the clasp is not tympanic hold. sent12: the clasp is a isometric. sent13: the fastnacht does reissue benzocaine and it reissues board if that the clasp is not tympanic is true. sent14: the fastnacht reissues board. sent15: that the faille is not tympanic is not wrong. sent16: the fastnacht is a free-liver. sent17: the fact that the tisane is a disk is not incorrect. sent18: if the clasp is tympanic and reissues benzocaine then the fastnacht does not reissues benzocaine. ; $proof$ =
|
sent11 & sent7 -> int1: the fact that the clasp is not tympanic hold.; sent13 & int1 -> int2: the fastnacht reissues benzocaine and it does reissue board.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the tanbark is not a provocation but it chisels does not hold.
|
¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})
|
sent1: the coffeeberry is sanitary and a chiseled. sent2: the tanbark is not a NOC. sent3: the fact that the tanbark is not a kind of a chiseled but it does reissue tanbark does not hold. sent4: the tanbark chisels. sent5: the gunnery is eremitic and a testing. sent6: the tanbark is eremitic. sent7: the tanbark does not reissue keypad but it is a kind of a singlet. sent8: the fact that the gunnery is a testing is not false. sent9: the gunnery is not a rotation. sent10: that the gunnery does not chisel hold if the tanbark is not a provocation and is eremitic. sent11: the gunnery is not a provocation. sent12: the tanbark does not test. sent13: that the tanbark is estrous is not wrong. sent14: if the Moor is eremitic that the gunnery is not a testing and not an isle is not true. sent15: if the tanbark is not a provocation but it does chisel the gunnery is not eremitic. sent16: the tormentor is a testing. sent17: the scraper is eremitic. sent18: the tanbark is not a blush. sent19: if that something does not test and it is not a kind of an isle is false then it is a test.
|
sent1: ({FS}{dn} & {AB}{dn}) sent2: ¬{EE}{a} sent3: ¬(¬{AB}{a} & {GU}{a}) sent4: {AB}{a} sent5: ({B}{b} & {A}{b}) sent6: {B}{a} sent7: (¬{JB}{a} & {HK}{a}) sent8: {A}{b} sent9: ¬{FQ}{b} sent10: (¬{AA}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{AB}{b} sent11: ¬{AA}{b} sent12: ¬{A}{a} sent13: {HH}{a} sent14: {B}{c} -> ¬(¬{A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent15: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent16: {A}{bs} sent17: {B}{er} sent18: ¬{HT}{a} sent19: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{C}x) -> {A}x
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the tanbark is not a provocation and is a chiseled.; sent15 & assump1 -> int1: the gunnery is not eremitic.; sent5 -> int2: the gunnery is eremitic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}); sent15 & assump1 -> int1: ¬{B}{b}; sent5 -> int2: {B}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the tanbark is both not a provocation and a chiseled.
|
(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})
|
[
"sent19 -> int4: the gunnery is a kind of a testing if the fact that it is not a testing and is not an isle is incorrect.;"
] | 5 | 3 | 3 | 17 | 0 | 17 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the tanbark is not a provocation but it chisels does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the coffeeberry is sanitary and a chiseled. sent2: the tanbark is not a NOC. sent3: the fact that the tanbark is not a kind of a chiseled but it does reissue tanbark does not hold. sent4: the tanbark chisels. sent5: the gunnery is eremitic and a testing. sent6: the tanbark is eremitic. sent7: the tanbark does not reissue keypad but it is a kind of a singlet. sent8: the fact that the gunnery is a testing is not false. sent9: the gunnery is not a rotation. sent10: that the gunnery does not chisel hold if the tanbark is not a provocation and is eremitic. sent11: the gunnery is not a provocation. sent12: the tanbark does not test. sent13: that the tanbark is estrous is not wrong. sent14: if the Moor is eremitic that the gunnery is not a testing and not an isle is not true. sent15: if the tanbark is not a provocation but it does chisel the gunnery is not eremitic. sent16: the tormentor is a testing. sent17: the scraper is eremitic. sent18: the tanbark is not a blush. sent19: if that something does not test and it is not a kind of an isle is false then it is a test. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the tanbark is not a provocation and is a chiseled.; sent15 & assump1 -> int1: the gunnery is not eremitic.; sent5 -> int2: the gunnery is eremitic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if it is not a mesocarp that it is a kind of sarcolemmic thing that does not prank does not hold.
|
(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
sent1: that the HCG is sarcolemmic thing that does not prank is incorrect if it is a mesocarp. sent2: if something is a mesocarp that it is sarcolemmic and it does not prank is wrong. sent3: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a mesocarp then it is sarcolemmic and it does not prank. sent4: there exists something such that if it is a mesocarp that it is sarcolemmic and it does not prank does not hold. sent5: the fact that the HCG is sarcolemmic and does prank is wrong if it is not a kind of a mesocarp. sent6: that the HCG is sarcolemmic but it does not prank if the HCG is not a mesocarp is true. sent7: if something is not a mesocarp then it is sarcolemmic and does not prank. sent8: there is something such that if it is not a mesocarp the fact that it is sarcolemmic and does prank is not true.
|
sent1: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent2: (x): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent3: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent4: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent5: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent6: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent8: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x)
|
[] |
[] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | null | 8 | 0 | 8 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is not a mesocarp that it is a kind of sarcolemmic thing that does not prank does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that the HCG is sarcolemmic thing that does not prank is incorrect if it is a mesocarp. sent2: if something is a mesocarp that it is sarcolemmic and it does not prank is wrong. sent3: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a mesocarp then it is sarcolemmic and it does not prank. sent4: there exists something such that if it is a mesocarp that it is sarcolemmic and it does not prank does not hold. sent5: the fact that the HCG is sarcolemmic and does prank is wrong if it is not a kind of a mesocarp. sent6: that the HCG is sarcolemmic but it does not prank if the HCG is not a mesocarp is true. sent7: if something is not a mesocarp then it is sarcolemmic and does not prank. sent8: there is something such that if it is not a mesocarp the fact that it is sarcolemmic and does prank is not true. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the comb-out happens.
|
{C}
|
sent1: that the antisepticizing tinkerer and the uneagerness happens is incorrect. sent2: the waver happens if that the unmanning Sydenham does not occur and the reissuing silkgrass happens is not correct. sent3: if the nark occurs the comb-out does not occur. sent4: that the reissuing Scotland does not occur but the habituating guardsman happens is not correct if the habituating placer does not occur. sent5: if the fact that not the cannonading but the millennialness happens does not hold the calculousness happens. sent6: if that not the lying but the crosscheck happens is incorrect the narking happens. sent7: the coloring does not occur. sent8: that not the lying but the crosscheck happens is wrong if the coloring does not occur.
|
sent1: ¬({CJ} & {HT}) sent2: ¬(¬{IT} & {GP}) -> {HD} sent3: {B} -> ¬{C} sent4: ¬{EH} -> ¬(¬{DO} & {EI}) sent5: ¬(¬{BN} & {HK}) -> {CE} sent6: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent7: ¬{A} sent8: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & {AB})
|
[
"sent8 & sent7 -> int1: that the lying does not occur but the crosscheck happens is not true.; sent6 & int1 -> int2: the fact that the narking happens is right.; sent3 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 & sent7 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}); sent6 & int1 -> int2: {B}; sent3 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the comb-out happens. ; $context$ = sent1: that the antisepticizing tinkerer and the uneagerness happens is incorrect. sent2: the waver happens if that the unmanning Sydenham does not occur and the reissuing silkgrass happens is not correct. sent3: if the nark occurs the comb-out does not occur. sent4: that the reissuing Scotland does not occur but the habituating guardsman happens is not correct if the habituating placer does not occur. sent5: if the fact that not the cannonading but the millennialness happens does not hold the calculousness happens. sent6: if that not the lying but the crosscheck happens is incorrect the narking happens. sent7: the coloring does not occur. sent8: that not the lying but the crosscheck happens is wrong if the coloring does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 & sent7 -> int1: that the lying does not occur but the crosscheck happens is not true.; sent6 & int1 -> int2: the fact that the narking happens is right.; sent3 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there is something such that if that it is a Flemish and it is unofficial does not hold it does not pulsate is incorrect.
|
¬((Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x)
|
sent1: there is something such that if it is not unofficial then it does not pulsate. sent2: there is something such that if it is not a Flemish then it does not pulsate. sent3: if that something is a kind of a covalence that is a Alca is wrong it does not reissue Myxinidae. sent4: if the fact that the hydrometer is a kind of Flemish thing that is unofficial does not hold it does not pulsate. sent5: the hydrometer does pulsate if the fact that it is a kind of an inmate that is pneumonic is not correct. sent6: the hydrometer does not pulsate if it is not non-Flemish and it is unofficial.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬{AB}x -> ¬{B}x sent2: (Ex): ¬{AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent3: (x): ¬({IS}x & {HK}x) -> ¬{DO}x sent4: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent5: ¬({FC}{aa} & {CA}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent6: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}
|
[
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that there is something such that if that it is a covalence and it is a kind of a Alca is incorrect it does not reissue Myxinidae hold.
|
(Ex): ¬({IS}x & {HK}x) -> ¬{DO}x
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: the Nasturtium does not reissue Myxinidae if that it is a covalence and is a kind of a Alca is not correct.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if that it is a Flemish and it is unofficial does not hold it does not pulsate is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is not unofficial then it does not pulsate. sent2: there is something such that if it is not a Flemish then it does not pulsate. sent3: if that something is a kind of a covalence that is a Alca is wrong it does not reissue Myxinidae. sent4: if the fact that the hydrometer is a kind of Flemish thing that is unofficial does not hold it does not pulsate. sent5: the hydrometer does pulsate if the fact that it is a kind of an inmate that is pneumonic is not correct. sent6: the hydrometer does not pulsate if it is not non-Flemish and it is unofficial. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the fact that there exists something such that if it habituates usance it is a bicentennial is not wrong is wrong.
|
¬((Ex): {A}x -> {C}x)
|
sent1: the fact that the crop is a bicentennial is not false if it is balletic. sent2: if the crop does habituate usance it is a bicentennial. sent3: if something is a bicentennial then it does shake. sent4: the wingback is bicentennial if it is a Brunhild. sent5: there exists something such that if it is prehensile it is a lap. sent6: there is something such that if it laps it is prosthetics. sent7: the crop habituates usance if it is a main. sent8: the crop is a kind of a lioness if it does habituate usance. sent9: the crop is a bicentennial if it reissues zoomorphism. sent10: the crop is unwholesome if it does habituate usance. sent11: there is something such that if it is a Kakatoe that it is a Saharan hold. sent12: there is something such that if it is a kind of a psychiatry the fact that it is not doctoral is not right. sent13: if the crop unmans optimization it does habituate usance. sent14: there is something such that if that it does condescend is not wrong it is a model. sent15: if that the riddle does habituate usance is correct it is plus. sent16: the celibate is a diastrophism if it is a bicentennial. sent17: if the crop is a kind of a Gogol then it shakes. sent18: if the crop does habituate usance it antisepticizes campfire.
|
sent1: {GG}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent2: {A}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent3: (x): {C}x -> {CI}x sent4: {DA}{p} -> {C}{p} sent5: (Ex): {FC}x -> {HI}x sent6: (Ex): {HI}x -> {JH}x sent7: {GT}{aa} -> {A}{aa} sent8: {A}{aa} -> {CH}{aa} sent9: {GB}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent10: {A}{aa} -> {GS}{aa} sent11: (Ex): {JJ}x -> {HM}x sent12: (Ex): {DN}x -> {J}x sent13: {BJ}{aa} -> {A}{aa} sent14: (Ex): {D}x -> {HK}x sent15: {A}{j} -> {CB}{j} sent16: {C}{fk} -> {AL}{fk} sent17: {DC}{aa} -> {CI}{aa} sent18: {A}{aa} -> {AH}{aa}
|
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the sump shakes if it is bicentennial.
|
{C}{c} -> {CI}{c}
|
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 17 | 0 | 17 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = that the fact that there exists something such that if it habituates usance it is a bicentennial is not wrong is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the crop is a bicentennial is not false if it is balletic. sent2: if the crop does habituate usance it is a bicentennial. sent3: if something is a bicentennial then it does shake. sent4: the wingback is bicentennial if it is a Brunhild. sent5: there exists something such that if it is prehensile it is a lap. sent6: there is something such that if it laps it is prosthetics. sent7: the crop habituates usance if it is a main. sent8: the crop is a kind of a lioness if it does habituate usance. sent9: the crop is a bicentennial if it reissues zoomorphism. sent10: the crop is unwholesome if it does habituate usance. sent11: there is something such that if it is a Kakatoe that it is a Saharan hold. sent12: there is something such that if it is a kind of a psychiatry the fact that it is not doctoral is not right. sent13: if the crop unmans optimization it does habituate usance. sent14: there is something such that if that it does condescend is not wrong it is a model. sent15: if that the riddle does habituate usance is correct it is plus. sent16: the celibate is a diastrophism if it is a bicentennial. sent17: if the crop is a kind of a Gogol then it shakes. sent18: if the crop does habituate usance it antisepticizes campfire. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the bachelor is not a Fuego.
|
¬{B}{b}
|
sent1: the calligrapher does not reissue pecan. sent2: that the bachelor is not a kind of a Fuego and does joint is not true. sent3: the fact that something does reissue diabolatry and it is punctual is wrong if it is not a kind of a ministrant. sent4: the fact that the ventilation is not technical does not hold. sent5: if something is not a Titus it is not a Fuego. sent6: if the fact that the fact that the lycopene is a kind of non-jointed a technical is incorrect is true the bachelor is a Fuego. sent7: the fact that the fact that the bachelor is not a Fuego but it is a Titus does not hold hold if that it is jointed is true. sent8: if the lycopene is a Titus then the fact that it is both not jointed and not nontechnical is incorrect. sent9: the bachelor is a kind of a Fuego if the lycopene is not a kind of a technical. sent10: that the lycopene is unwoven and it is unimpressionable does not hold if it is a multiversity. sent11: the fact that the lycopene is a kind of a Titus is not false. sent12: the bachelor is a kind of a Titus if the lycopene is a kind of a Fuego.
|
sent1: ¬{F}{c} sent2: ¬(¬{B}{b} & {AA}{b}) sent3: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬({C}x & {D}x) sent4: {AB}{h} sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{B}x sent6: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent7: {AA}{b} -> ¬(¬{B}{b} & {A}{b}) sent8: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent9: ¬{AB}{a} -> {B}{b} sent10: {GD}{a} -> ¬({GH}{a} & {JF}{a}) sent11: {A}{a} sent12: {B}{a} -> {A}{b}
|
[
"sent8 & sent11 -> int1: that the lycopene does not joint and is a technical is not true.; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 & sent11 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}); sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the bachelor is not a Fuego.
|
¬{B}{b}
|
[
"sent5 -> int2: the bachelor is not a Fuego if the fact that it is not a Titus is not false.; sent3 -> int3: that if the lycopene is not the ministrant that the lycopene does reissue diabolatry and is punctual is wrong is true.; sent1 -> int4: there is something such that it does not reissue pecan.;"
] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the bachelor is not a Fuego. ; $context$ = sent1: the calligrapher does not reissue pecan. sent2: that the bachelor is not a kind of a Fuego and does joint is not true. sent3: the fact that something does reissue diabolatry and it is punctual is wrong if it is not a kind of a ministrant. sent4: the fact that the ventilation is not technical does not hold. sent5: if something is not a Titus it is not a Fuego. sent6: if the fact that the fact that the lycopene is a kind of non-jointed a technical is incorrect is true the bachelor is a Fuego. sent7: the fact that the fact that the bachelor is not a Fuego but it is a Titus does not hold hold if that it is jointed is true. sent8: if the lycopene is a Titus then the fact that it is both not jointed and not nontechnical is incorrect. sent9: the bachelor is a kind of a Fuego if the lycopene is not a kind of a technical. sent10: that the lycopene is unwoven and it is unimpressionable does not hold if it is a multiversity. sent11: the fact that the lycopene is a kind of a Titus is not false. sent12: the bachelor is a kind of a Titus if the lycopene is a kind of a Fuego. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 & sent11 -> int1: that the lycopene does not joint and is a technical is not true.; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the nonsense is meatless.
|
{B}{b}
|
sent1: the miller is net. sent2: if the miller is net the nonsense is meatless.
|
sent1: {A}{a} sent2: {A}{a} -> {B}{b}
|
[
"sent2 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the nonsense is meatless. ; $context$ = sent1: the miller is net. sent2: if the miller is net the nonsense is meatless. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the corduroy habituates commissariat and is not a barium is not correct.
|
¬({D}{b} & ¬{B}{b})
|
sent1: there exists something such that it unmans tristearin. sent2: the naif is not a bovine. sent3: if the fact that the nonconformist does not unman Oedipus and does unman view is wrong it does not unman view. sent4: the wildfowl is not a kind of a Mozambican if something is not a Rallidae and reissues Kwannon. sent5: the vespid is not a kind of a Rallidae and reissues Kwannon if the view is not a pepperwood. sent6: the fact that the nonconformist does not unman Oedipus and unmans view is not true. sent7: the fact that the azide does not habituate commissariat is not wrong. sent8: if the nonconformist does not unman view it is a pepperwood and/or it is a kind of a foster-father. sent9: the fact that if the naif is a barium then the corduroy habituates commissariat but it is not a kind of a barium is correct. sent10: the corduroy is not pyrotechnics if there is something such that it does not habituate commissariat and it is a barium. sent11: if the naif is a barium then the corduroy is not a barium. sent12: if something is not Riemannian but it does unman tristearin the naif is non-pyrotechnics. sent13: the Thiosulfil is a kind of a barium but it is not unselfish. sent14: something that is not a Mozambican is a one-sixty-fourth and/or is not a strafer. sent15: there exists something such that it does not habituate commissariat. sent16: the view is not a pepperwood if the nonconformist is a pepperwood or is a foster-father or both. sent17: something is not Riemannian but it unmans tristearin. sent18: if something is non-pyrotechnics it habituates commissariat. sent19: if something is not pyrotechnics it is a barium.
|
sent1: (Ex): {AB}x sent2: ¬{HN}{a} sent3: ¬(¬{L}{f} & {K}{f}) -> ¬{K}{f} sent4: (x): (¬{H}x & {G}x) -> ¬{F}{c} sent5: ¬{I}{e} -> (¬{H}{d} & {G}{d}) sent6: ¬(¬{L}{f} & {K}{f}) sent7: ¬{D}{iu} sent8: ¬{K}{f} -> ({I}{f} v {J}{f}) sent9: {B}{a} -> ({D}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent10: (x): (¬{D}x & {B}x) -> ¬{A}{b} sent11: {B}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent12: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent13: ({B}{gb} & ¬{GB}{gb}) sent14: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({C}x v ¬{E}x) sent15: (Ex): ¬{D}x sent16: ({I}{f} v {J}{f}) -> ¬{I}{e} sent17: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent18: (x): ¬{A}x -> {D}x sent19: (x): ¬{A}x -> {B}x
|
[
"sent17 & sent12 -> int1: the naif is not pyrotechnics.; sent19 -> int2: if the naif is not pyrotechnics then it is a kind of a barium.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the naif is a kind of a barium.; int3 & sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent17 & sent12 -> int1: ¬{A}{a}; sent19 -> int2: ¬{A}{a} -> {B}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {B}{a}; int3 & sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the corduroy does habituate commissariat but it is not a kind of a barium does not hold.
|
¬({D}{b} & ¬{B}{b})
|
[
"sent14 -> int4: if the wildfowl is not a Mozambican then it is a one-sixty-fourth and/or is not a kind of a strafer.; sent3 & sent6 -> int5: the nonconformist does not unman view.; sent8 & int5 -> int6: the nonconformist is a pepperwood and/or it is a foster-father.; sent16 & int6 -> int7: the view is not a kind of a pepperwood.; sent5 & int7 -> int8: the vespid is not a Rallidae and does reissue Kwannon.; int8 -> int9: there is something such that it is not a Rallidae and it reissues Kwannon.; int9 & sent4 -> int10: the wildfowl is not Mozambican.; int4 & int10 -> int11: the wildfowl is a one-sixty-fourth and/or is not a strafer.; int11 -> int12: there is something such that it is a one-sixty-fourth or is not a strafer or both.;"
] | 11 | 3 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the corduroy habituates commissariat and is not a barium is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it unmans tristearin. sent2: the naif is not a bovine. sent3: if the fact that the nonconformist does not unman Oedipus and does unman view is wrong it does not unman view. sent4: the wildfowl is not a kind of a Mozambican if something is not a Rallidae and reissues Kwannon. sent5: the vespid is not a kind of a Rallidae and reissues Kwannon if the view is not a pepperwood. sent6: the fact that the nonconformist does not unman Oedipus and unmans view is not true. sent7: the fact that the azide does not habituate commissariat is not wrong. sent8: if the nonconformist does not unman view it is a pepperwood and/or it is a kind of a foster-father. sent9: the fact that if the naif is a barium then the corduroy habituates commissariat but it is not a kind of a barium is correct. sent10: the corduroy is not pyrotechnics if there is something such that it does not habituate commissariat and it is a barium. sent11: if the naif is a barium then the corduroy is not a barium. sent12: if something is not Riemannian but it does unman tristearin the naif is non-pyrotechnics. sent13: the Thiosulfil is a kind of a barium but it is not unselfish. sent14: something that is not a Mozambican is a one-sixty-fourth and/or is not a strafer. sent15: there exists something such that it does not habituate commissariat. sent16: the view is not a pepperwood if the nonconformist is a pepperwood or is a foster-father or both. sent17: something is not Riemannian but it unmans tristearin. sent18: if something is non-pyrotechnics it habituates commissariat. sent19: if something is not pyrotechnics it is a barium. ; $proof$ =
|
sent17 & sent12 -> int1: the naif is not pyrotechnics.; sent19 -> int2: if the naif is not pyrotechnics then it is a kind of a barium.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the naif is a kind of a barium.; int3 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the pectin is not appetitive and is not a poisoning is wrong.
|
¬(¬{D}{a} & ¬{C}{a})
|
sent1: the pectin is not a poisoning if the bathrobe is pyemic. sent2: the bathrobe is a report if the Arcadian is seraphic but it is not a kind of a Yerevan. sent3: the passkey is not non-pyemic. sent4: the Cartwright is not appetitive. sent5: the Cartwright does strengthen knocker if the pectin is pyemic. sent6: the bathrobe is not appetitive. sent7: the fact that something is both not appetitive and not a poisoning is not true if it is not pyemic. sent8: if the bathrobe either does not strengthen knocker or is not a CD-R or both then the Cartwright does not strengthen knocker. sent9: either the glycerite is a CD-R or it does not strengthen knocker or both. sent10: if the bathrobe is not pyemic and/or is not a kind of a CD-R the pectin is not pyemic. sent11: the pectin does not poison if the bathrobe is not a poison and/or does not strengthen knocker. sent12: that something is not pyemic and it is not a kind of a neoclassicist is not correct if it reports. sent13: the Cartwright is not appetitive if there is something such that it is a CD-R and/or does not strengthen knocker. sent14: something is pyemic if that it is not pyemic and not neoclassicist does not hold. sent15: the pectin is not appetitive if the Cartwright is not appetitive. sent16: that something is not a CD-R and it does not strengthen knocker is wrong if it is not appetitive.
|
sent1: {A}{c} -> ¬{C}{a} sent2: ({H}{d} & ¬{I}{d}) -> {G}{c} sent3: {A}{cs} sent4: ¬{D}{b} sent5: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent6: ¬{D}{c} sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{C}x) sent8: (¬{B}{c} v ¬{F}{c}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent9: ({F}{e} v ¬{B}{e}) sent10: (¬{A}{c} v ¬{F}{c}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent11: (¬{C}{c} v ¬{B}{c}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent12: (x): {G}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{E}x) sent13: (x): ({F}x v ¬{B}x) -> ¬{D}{b} sent14: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{E}x) -> {A}x sent15: ¬{D}{b} -> ¬{D}{a} sent16: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{B}x)
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the pectin is pyemic.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the Cartwright strengthens knocker.; sent7 -> int2: that the pectin is not appetitive and not a poisoning is incorrect if it is not pyemic.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}{a}; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: {B}{b}; sent7 -> int2: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{D}{a} & ¬{C}{a});"
] |
the pectin is non-appetitive thing that is not a poisoning.
|
(¬{D}{a} & ¬{C}{a})
|
[
"sent9 -> int3: there exists something such that it is a CD-R and/or it does not strengthen knocker.; int3 & sent13 -> int4: the fact that the Cartwright is not appetitive hold.; sent15 & int4 -> int5: the pectin is not appetitive.; sent14 -> int6: the bathrobe is pyemic if the fact that it is not pyemic and is not a kind of a neoclassicist is incorrect.; sent12 -> int7: if the bathrobe reports that it is non-pyemic thing that is not neoclassicist is incorrect.;"
] | 7 | 4 | null | 13 | 0 | 13 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the pectin is not appetitive and is not a poisoning is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the pectin is not a poisoning if the bathrobe is pyemic. sent2: the bathrobe is a report if the Arcadian is seraphic but it is not a kind of a Yerevan. sent3: the passkey is not non-pyemic. sent4: the Cartwright is not appetitive. sent5: the Cartwright does strengthen knocker if the pectin is pyemic. sent6: the bathrobe is not appetitive. sent7: the fact that something is both not appetitive and not a poisoning is not true if it is not pyemic. sent8: if the bathrobe either does not strengthen knocker or is not a CD-R or both then the Cartwright does not strengthen knocker. sent9: either the glycerite is a CD-R or it does not strengthen knocker or both. sent10: if the bathrobe is not pyemic and/or is not a kind of a CD-R the pectin is not pyemic. sent11: the pectin does not poison if the bathrobe is not a poison and/or does not strengthen knocker. sent12: that something is not pyemic and it is not a kind of a neoclassicist is not correct if it reports. sent13: the Cartwright is not appetitive if there is something such that it is a CD-R and/or does not strengthen knocker. sent14: something is pyemic if that it is not pyemic and not neoclassicist does not hold. sent15: the pectin is not appetitive if the Cartwright is not appetitive. sent16: that something is not a CD-R and it does not strengthen knocker is wrong if it is not appetitive. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the pectin is pyemic.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the Cartwright strengthens knocker.; sent7 -> int2: that the pectin is not appetitive and not a poisoning is incorrect if it is not pyemic.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the novel is a bruising and it is electromotive.
|
({A}{a} & {C}{a})
|
sent1: the fact that the cocktail is a doubler that is not electromotive does not hold. sent2: the anticoagulant is a doubler. sent3: the cocktail is a SAM. sent4: the novel is a doubler. sent5: that the novel is electromotive but it is not a doubler does not hold. sent6: if that the cocktail is not a kind of a doubler and it is not electromotive is not true the fact that the novel is electromotive is true. sent7: if that the cocktail is not a bruising and not a doubler is not correct then the novel is a doubler. sent8: the cocktail is a chon and it is a rightness. sent9: if the novel is electromotive the cocktail does bruise. sent10: the fact that the novel is both not a vituperation and not a doubler is wrong. sent11: the novel is a Ayrshire. sent12: the lash is a SAM. sent13: the novel is electromotive if the cocktail is a bruising. sent14: the novel is a SAM that is a kind of a doubler. sent15: the novel is archegonial. sent16: the fact that the cocktail is not a doubler and it is not electromotive is wrong. sent17: the cocktail is a pebble and it is a SAM. sent18: the fact that the novel is not a doubler and is not electromotive does not hold. sent19: if the cocktail is a kind of a doubler then the novel is not non-electromotive. sent20: if that the cocktail is both not a doubler and not a SAM is false the novel is a SAM.
|
sent1: ¬({D}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent2: {D}{do} sent3: {B}{b} sent4: {D}{a} sent5: ¬({C}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent6: ¬(¬{D}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> {C}{a} sent7: ¬(¬{A}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) -> {D}{a} sent8: ({IA}{b} & {GA}{b}) sent9: {C}{a} -> {A}{b} sent10: ¬(¬{DU}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent11: {IC}{a} sent12: {B}{ac} sent13: {A}{b} -> {C}{a} sent14: ({B}{a} & {D}{a}) sent15: {BJ}{a} sent16: ¬(¬{D}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent17: ({FI}{b} & {B}{b}) sent18: ¬(¬{D}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent19: {D}{b} -> {C}{a} sent20: ¬(¬{D}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> {B}{a}
|
[
"sent6 & sent16 -> int1: the novel is electromotive.;"
] |
[
"sent6 & sent16 -> int1: {C}{a};"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | null | 18 | 0 | 18 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the novel is a bruising and it is electromotive. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the cocktail is a doubler that is not electromotive does not hold. sent2: the anticoagulant is a doubler. sent3: the cocktail is a SAM. sent4: the novel is a doubler. sent5: that the novel is electromotive but it is not a doubler does not hold. sent6: if that the cocktail is not a kind of a doubler and it is not electromotive is not true the fact that the novel is electromotive is true. sent7: if that the cocktail is not a bruising and not a doubler is not correct then the novel is a doubler. sent8: the cocktail is a chon and it is a rightness. sent9: if the novel is electromotive the cocktail does bruise. sent10: the fact that the novel is both not a vituperation and not a doubler is wrong. sent11: the novel is a Ayrshire. sent12: the lash is a SAM. sent13: the novel is electromotive if the cocktail is a bruising. sent14: the novel is a SAM that is a kind of a doubler. sent15: the novel is archegonial. sent16: the fact that the cocktail is not a doubler and it is not electromotive is wrong. sent17: the cocktail is a pebble and it is a SAM. sent18: the fact that the novel is not a doubler and is not electromotive does not hold. sent19: if the cocktail is a kind of a doubler then the novel is not non-electromotive. sent20: if that the cocktail is both not a doubler and not a SAM is false the novel is a SAM. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 & sent16 -> int1: the novel is electromotive.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the protectorship happens.
|
{D}
|
sent1: the protectorship is prevented by that the strengthening tare happens and the fitted occurs. sent2: that both the careering and the cabinetwork happens leads to the non-fittedness. sent3: that the Normanness does not occur yields that the careering and the elastic occurs. sent4: both the strengthening tare and the invading symphonist occurs. sent5: that that the invading symphonist does not occur and the strengthening tare does not occur hold is wrong if the fittedness does not occur. sent6: the fact that the Normanness does not occur is right. sent7: that the invading symphonist occurs is correct. sent8: the fittedness happens and the career happens. sent9: the preventive occurs. sent10: the careering happens.
|
sent1: ({A} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent2: ({E} & {F}) -> ¬{C} sent3: ¬{J} -> ({E} & {H}) sent4: ({A} & {B}) sent5: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{B} & ¬{A}) sent6: ¬{J} sent7: {B} sent8: ({C} & {E}) sent9: {GM} sent10: {E}
|
[
"sent4 -> int1: the strengthening tare occurs.; sent8 -> int2: the fittedness happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the strengthening tare and the fitting happens.; int3 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> int1: {A}; sent8 -> int2: {C}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({A} & {C}); int3 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the protectorship happens.
|
{D}
|
[
"sent3 & sent6 -> int4: the career happens and the elastic happens.; int4 -> int5: the career happens.;"
] | 7 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the protectorship happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the protectorship is prevented by that the strengthening tare happens and the fitted occurs. sent2: that both the careering and the cabinetwork happens leads to the non-fittedness. sent3: that the Normanness does not occur yields that the careering and the elastic occurs. sent4: both the strengthening tare and the invading symphonist occurs. sent5: that that the invading symphonist does not occur and the strengthening tare does not occur hold is wrong if the fittedness does not occur. sent6: the fact that the Normanness does not occur is right. sent7: that the invading symphonist occurs is correct. sent8: the fittedness happens and the career happens. sent9: the preventive occurs. sent10: the careering happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> int1: the strengthening tare occurs.; sent8 -> int2: the fittedness happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the strengthening tare and the fitting happens.; int3 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the pope fuses Lenard and is sociocultural.
|
({D}{b} & {E}{b})
|
sent1: if the elastomer does fuse Lenard but it is not a kind of a dope the nude does not fuse Lenard. sent2: that something is not robotic and it is not a kind of a wader is not true if it does chondrify bleached. sent3: the fact that the elastomer does not top and it does not invade clothier does not hold. sent4: if the hipline is not a Tropaeolum it chondrifies bleached and is baric. sent5: if the psylla does not hover then that the pope is not a reflexology and is robotic is wrong. sent6: if the fact that the pope is not a reflexology and/or does not hover is not true the psylla is a store. sent7: if that something is non-topping thing that does not invade clothier is not correct then it is not a moralism. sent8: something does fuse Lenard but it is not a dope if it is not a moralism. sent9: that the hipline is not a kind of a Tropaeolum hold. sent10: the ctenophore is a psalterium and hovers. sent11: if a chaetognathan thing is not an anterior then the psylla does not hover. sent12: the pope is sociocultural and it dopes. sent13: the psylla is sociocultural if the hipline is robotic. sent14: if that the pope is not a reflexology but it is robotic is not right then it does fuse Lenard. sent15: if that something is not robotic and it is not a wader does not hold then it is robotic.
|
sent1: ({D}{e} & ¬{F}{e}) -> ¬{D}{d} sent2: (x): {H}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{G}x) sent3: ¬(¬{L}{e} & ¬{K}{e}) sent4: ¬{M}{c} -> ({H}{c} & {I}{c}) sent5: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{B}{b} & {C}{b}) sent6: ¬(¬{B}{b} v ¬{A}{b}) -> {CT}{a} sent7: (x): ¬(¬{L}x & ¬{K}x) -> ¬{J}x sent8: (x): ¬{J}x -> ({D}x & ¬{F}x) sent9: ¬{M}{c} sent10: ({IC}{gg} & {A}{gg}) sent11: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent12: ({E}{b} & {F}{b}) sent13: {C}{c} -> {E}{a} sent14: ¬(¬{B}{b} & {C}{b}) -> {D}{b} sent15: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{G}x) -> {C}x
|
[
"sent12 -> int1: the pope is sociocultural.;"
] |
[
"sent12 -> int1: {E}{b};"
] |
the psylla is sociocultural and it is a store.
|
({E}{a} & {CT}{a})
|
[
"sent15 -> int2: if that the hipline is not robotic and is not a wader is wrong the fact that it is robotic is not wrong.; sent2 -> int3: if that the hipline does chondrify bleached is not false the fact that it is not robotic and is not a kind of a wader is not correct.; sent4 & sent9 -> int4: the hipline does chondrify bleached and is baric.; int4 -> int5: the hipline does chondrify bleached.; int3 & int5 -> int6: that the hipline is not robotic and it is not a wader does not hold.; int2 & int6 -> int7: the fact that the hipline is robotic is right.; sent13 & int7 -> int8: the psylla is sociocultural.; sent8 -> int9: the elastomer fuses Lenard and is not a dope if it is not a moralism.; sent7 -> int10: if that that the elastomer is not a topping and it does not invade clothier does not hold hold then that it is not a kind of a moralism is not wrong.; int10 & sent3 -> int11: the elastomer is not a moralism.; int9 & int11 -> int12: the elastomer fuses Lenard and is not a dope.; sent1 & int12 -> int13: the nude does not fuse Lenard.; int13 -> int14: something does not fuse Lenard.;"
] | 8 | 4 | null | 11 | 0 | 11 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the pope fuses Lenard and is sociocultural. ; $context$ = sent1: if the elastomer does fuse Lenard but it is not a kind of a dope the nude does not fuse Lenard. sent2: that something is not robotic and it is not a kind of a wader is not true if it does chondrify bleached. sent3: the fact that the elastomer does not top and it does not invade clothier does not hold. sent4: if the hipline is not a Tropaeolum it chondrifies bleached and is baric. sent5: if the psylla does not hover then that the pope is not a reflexology and is robotic is wrong. sent6: if the fact that the pope is not a reflexology and/or does not hover is not true the psylla is a store. sent7: if that something is non-topping thing that does not invade clothier is not correct then it is not a moralism. sent8: something does fuse Lenard but it is not a dope if it is not a moralism. sent9: that the hipline is not a kind of a Tropaeolum hold. sent10: the ctenophore is a psalterium and hovers. sent11: if a chaetognathan thing is not an anterior then the psylla does not hover. sent12: the pope is sociocultural and it dopes. sent13: the psylla is sociocultural if the hipline is robotic. sent14: if that the pope is not a reflexology but it is robotic is not right then it does fuse Lenard. sent15: if that something is not robotic and it is not a wader does not hold then it is robotic. ; $proof$ =
|
sent12 -> int1: the pope is sociocultural.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the chalet slugs.
|
{C}{a}
|
sent1: the trekker is a wallpaper. sent2: if that something strengthens sabbat but it does not elude is incorrect then it does not strengthens sabbat. sent3: if the trekker is not a dexterity and it does not strengthen sabbat then the chalet does slug. sent4: if the fact that the trekker eludes and is not a slug is false then the fact that it does not eludes is not wrong. sent5: something eludes if the fact that it does chondrify chalet is not false. sent6: if the alto is not metaphysical then it does chondrify chalet and it is ritualistic. sent7: everything transposes. sent8: the fact that something is not a wallpaper and is a kind of a dexterity is not correct if it does elude. sent9: if the hurdler does not strengthen sabbat then the chalet is not a slug. sent10: the chalet does not wallpaper. sent11: if something chondrifies Paracheirodon and is a transpose then it is not a dexterity. sent12: the trekker is a kind of a transpose. sent13: everything chondrifies Paracheirodon and it does transpose.
|
sent1: {D}{aa} sent2: (x): ¬({A}x & ¬{E}x) -> ¬{A}x sent3: (¬{B}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa}) -> {C}{a} sent4: ¬({E}{aa} & ¬{C}{aa}) -> ¬{E}{aa} sent5: (x): {F}x -> {E}x sent6: ¬{H}{c} -> ({F}{c} & {G}{c}) sent7: (x): {AB}x sent8: (x): {E}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & {B}x) sent9: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬{C}{a} sent10: ¬{D}{a} sent11: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent12: {AB}{aa} sent13: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x)
|
[
"sent11 -> int1: the trekker is not a kind of a dexterity if it does chondrify Paracheirodon and transposes.; sent13 -> int2: the trekker does chondrify Paracheirodon and it is a transpose.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the trekker is not a kind of a dexterity.; sent2 -> int4: the trekker does not strengthen sabbat if that it does strengthen sabbat and does not elude is incorrect.;"
] |
[
"sent11 -> int1: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; sent13 -> int2: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬{B}{aa}; sent2 -> int4: ¬({A}{aa} & ¬{E}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{aa};"
] |
the chalet is not a slug.
|
¬{C}{a}
|
[
"sent8 -> int5: the fact that the alto is not a kind of a wallpaper and is a kind of a dexterity is not correct if it does elude.; sent5 -> int6: if that the alto does chondrify chalet hold the fact that it eludes is true.;"
] | 7 | 4 | null | 8 | 0 | 8 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the chalet slugs. ; $context$ = sent1: the trekker is a wallpaper. sent2: if that something strengthens sabbat but it does not elude is incorrect then it does not strengthens sabbat. sent3: if the trekker is not a dexterity and it does not strengthen sabbat then the chalet does slug. sent4: if the fact that the trekker eludes and is not a slug is false then the fact that it does not eludes is not wrong. sent5: something eludes if the fact that it does chondrify chalet is not false. sent6: if the alto is not metaphysical then it does chondrify chalet and it is ritualistic. sent7: everything transposes. sent8: the fact that something is not a wallpaper and is a kind of a dexterity is not correct if it does elude. sent9: if the hurdler does not strengthen sabbat then the chalet is not a slug. sent10: the chalet does not wallpaper. sent11: if something chondrifies Paracheirodon and is a transpose then it is not a dexterity. sent12: the trekker is a kind of a transpose. sent13: everything chondrifies Paracheirodon and it does transpose. ; $proof$ =
|
sent11 -> int1: the trekker is not a kind of a dexterity if it does chondrify Paracheirodon and transposes.; sent13 -> int2: the trekker does chondrify Paracheirodon and it is a transpose.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the trekker is not a kind of a dexterity.; sent2 -> int4: the trekker does not strengthen sabbat if that it does strengthen sabbat and does not elude is incorrect.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that it is a kind of non-infallible thing that is not disreputable.
|
(Ex): (¬{E}x & ¬{C}x)
|
sent1: there are fallible things. sent2: the batter is not implausible. sent3: if something that is not plausible is a kind of a Gadsden the snowboarder is not disreputable. sent4: there exists something such that that it is not infallible and it is disreputable hold. sent5: the snowboarder is not infallible if the batter is infallible. sent6: there exists something such that it is both infallible and not disreputable. sent7: the batter is not disreputable if the snowboarder is not disreputable. sent8: there is something such that it is both not plausible and a Gadsden. sent9: if something is fallible then it is not uninfluential. sent10: the diviner does not strengthen batter and it does not strengthen bacon. sent11: the batter is fallible and is not disreputable if the snowboarder is disreputable. sent12: something that is not a Gadsden is not implausible and is not a kind of a caliche. sent13: the batter is not disreputable. sent14: if something is a chachalaca and it is a jam then the batter does not chondrify slur. sent15: the elk is not a kind of a Gadsden if that the fact that the snowboarder is both disreputable and uninfluential is right is false.
|
sent1: (Ex): ¬{E}x sent2: ¬{A}{b} sent3: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}{a} sent4: (Ex): (¬{E}x & {C}x) sent5: ¬{E}{b} -> ¬{E}{a} sent6: (Ex): ({E}x & ¬{C}x) sent7: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬{C}{b} sent8: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x) sent9: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬{D}x sent10: (¬{F}{il} & ¬{CB}{il}) sent11: ¬{C}{a} -> (¬{E}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent12: (x): ¬{B}x -> (¬{A}x & ¬{HA}x) sent13: ¬{C}{b} sent14: (x): ({IN}x & {BK}x) -> ¬{HD}{b} sent15: ¬({C}{a} & {D}{a}) -> ¬{B}{fl}
|
[
"sent8 & sent3 -> int1: the snowboarder is not disreputable.; sent11 & int1 -> int2: the batter is not infallible and it is not disreputable.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 & sent3 -> int1: ¬{C}{a}; sent11 & int1 -> int2: (¬{E}{b} & ¬{C}{b}); int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the elk is both not implausible and not a caliche.
|
(¬{A}{fl} & ¬{HA}{fl})
|
[
"sent12 -> int3: that the elk is plausible and it is not a caliche hold if that it is not a kind of a Gadsden is not wrong.; sent9 -> int4: the batter is not uninfluential if it is not infallible.;"
] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that it is a kind of non-infallible thing that is not disreputable. ; $context$ = sent1: there are fallible things. sent2: the batter is not implausible. sent3: if something that is not plausible is a kind of a Gadsden the snowboarder is not disreputable. sent4: there exists something such that that it is not infallible and it is disreputable hold. sent5: the snowboarder is not infallible if the batter is infallible. sent6: there exists something such that it is both infallible and not disreputable. sent7: the batter is not disreputable if the snowboarder is not disreputable. sent8: there is something such that it is both not plausible and a Gadsden. sent9: if something is fallible then it is not uninfluential. sent10: the diviner does not strengthen batter and it does not strengthen bacon. sent11: the batter is fallible and is not disreputable if the snowboarder is disreputable. sent12: something that is not a Gadsden is not implausible and is not a kind of a caliche. sent13: the batter is not disreputable. sent14: if something is a chachalaca and it is a jam then the batter does not chondrify slur. sent15: the elk is not a kind of a Gadsden if that the fact that the snowboarder is both disreputable and uninfluential is right is false. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 & sent3 -> int1: the snowboarder is not disreputable.; sent11 & int1 -> int2: the batter is not infallible and it is not disreputable.; int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the courser does invade Gilman and is not a kind of a quarter is false.
|
¬({AB}{b} & ¬{B}{b})
|
sent1: the courser is not interstate and invades Gilman if the limeade is postnatal. sent2: if the limeade quarters then the courser does not invade Gilman and is postnatal. sent3: if the limeade does chondrify kangaroo and it is a Messidor then the flip does not quarter. sent4: the limeade is an interstate. sent5: the limeade does not invade Gilman if that the courser is postnatal is correct. sent6: if the limeade is postnatal then the courser is not an interstate. sent7: the courser does not quarter. sent8: there is something such that that it apologizes and does not invade Bernhardt is wrong. sent9: the limeade does not invade Gilman and does quarter if the courser is postnatal. sent10: the limeade does not invade Gilman. sent11: the courser is not a kind of an interstate. sent12: the limeade does chondrify kangaroo and it is a kind of a Saharan. sent13: the limeade is postnatal. sent14: the curbside does legitimate but it does not invade Gilman.
|
sent1: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent2: {B}{a} -> (¬{AB}{b} & {A}{b}) sent3: ({C}{a} & {D}{a}) -> ¬{B}{hh} sent4: {AA}{a} sent5: {A}{b} -> ¬{AB}{a} sent6: {A}{a} -> ¬{AA}{b} sent7: ¬{B}{b} sent8: (Ex): ¬({F}x & ¬{E}x) sent9: {A}{b} -> (¬{AB}{a} & {B}{a}) sent10: ¬{AB}{a} sent11: ¬{AA}{b} sent12: ({C}{a} & {G}{a}) sent13: {A}{a} sent14: ({H}{ha} & ¬{AB}{ha})
|
[
"sent1 & sent13 -> int1: the courser is not an interstate but it invades Gilman.; int1 -> int2: the courser does invade Gilman.; int2 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 & sent13 -> int1: (¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}); int1 -> int2: {AB}{b}; int2 & sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the flip is not an interstate and is convex.
|
(¬{AA}{hh} & {GQ}{hh})
|
[
"sent12 -> int3: the limeade chondrifies kangaroo.;"
] | 5 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the courser does invade Gilman and is not a kind of a quarter is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the courser is not interstate and invades Gilman if the limeade is postnatal. sent2: if the limeade quarters then the courser does not invade Gilman and is postnatal. sent3: if the limeade does chondrify kangaroo and it is a Messidor then the flip does not quarter. sent4: the limeade is an interstate. sent5: the limeade does not invade Gilman if that the courser is postnatal is correct. sent6: if the limeade is postnatal then the courser is not an interstate. sent7: the courser does not quarter. sent8: there is something such that that it apologizes and does not invade Bernhardt is wrong. sent9: the limeade does not invade Gilman and does quarter if the courser is postnatal. sent10: the limeade does not invade Gilman. sent11: the courser is not a kind of an interstate. sent12: the limeade does chondrify kangaroo and it is a kind of a Saharan. sent13: the limeade is postnatal. sent14: the curbside does legitimate but it does not invade Gilman. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 & sent13 -> int1: the courser is not an interstate but it invades Gilman.; int1 -> int2: the courser does invade Gilman.; int2 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the sac is a kind of a middling.
|
{C}{b}
|
sent1: the foothill strengthens elucidation if it is a middling. sent2: the foothill is a G. sent3: something strengthens elucidation and does not strengthen kangaroo if it is not a seesaw. sent4: the fact that the sticktight does not chondrify birthmark and it is not a simvastatin is not correct. sent5: the sac is a middling if the foothill does strengthen elucidation. sent6: the sac is not a middling if the foothill strengthens elucidation but it does not strengthen kangaroo. sent7: the foothill does strengthen kangaroo. sent8: the foothill strengthens elucidation if it strengthens kangaroo. sent9: the piste is not a Vultur if there exists something such that that it does not chondrify birthmark and is not a simvastatin is not true. sent10: the ohmage is middling. sent11: The kangaroo does strengthen foothill.
|
sent1: {C}{a} -> {B}{a} sent2: {CJ}{a} sent3: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({B}x & ¬{A}x) sent4: ¬(¬{H}{e} & ¬{I}{e}) sent5: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent6: ({B}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent7: {A}{a} sent8: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent9: (x): ¬(¬{H}x & ¬{I}x) -> ¬{G}{d} sent10: {C}{eb} sent11: {AA}{aa}
|
[
"sent8 & sent7 -> int1: the foothill strengthens elucidation.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 & sent7 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the sac is not a middling.
|
¬{C}{b}
|
[
"sent3 -> int2: the foothill strengthens elucidation but it does not strengthen kangaroo if it is not a seesaw.; sent4 -> int3: there exists something such that the fact that it does not chondrify birthmark and it is not a simvastatin does not hold.; int3 & sent9 -> int4: the piste is not a Vultur.; int4 -> int5: something is not a kind of a Vultur.;"
] | 8 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the sac is a kind of a middling. ; $context$ = sent1: the foothill strengthens elucidation if it is a middling. sent2: the foothill is a G. sent3: something strengthens elucidation and does not strengthen kangaroo if it is not a seesaw. sent4: the fact that the sticktight does not chondrify birthmark and it is not a simvastatin is not correct. sent5: the sac is a middling if the foothill does strengthen elucidation. sent6: the sac is not a middling if the foothill strengthens elucidation but it does not strengthen kangaroo. sent7: the foothill does strengthen kangaroo. sent8: the foothill strengthens elucidation if it strengthens kangaroo. sent9: the piste is not a Vultur if there exists something such that that it does not chondrify birthmark and is not a simvastatin is not true. sent10: the ohmage is middling. sent11: The kangaroo does strengthen foothill. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 & sent7 -> int1: the foothill strengthens elucidation.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if it is not achondroplastic then the fact that it does chondrify guarantor and it does not exacerbate does not hold.
|
(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
sent1: if the coltsfoot does not exacerbate it does invade extradition and it is not a kind of a blatancy. sent2: if that the coltsfoot is not achondroplastic is right then the fact that it does chondrify guarantor and does exacerbate is wrong. sent3: the coltsfoot is a kind of a Nautilidae but it is not a kind of an outpost if it is not achondroplastic. sent4: the fact that the astrophysicist is big but it does not chondrify sou'-sou'-west does not hold if it is spineless. sent5: there is something such that if it does not strengthen coltsfoot it is a pirate that is not a kind of a spelter. sent6: if the coltsfoot is not achondroplastic then the fact that it chondrifies guarantor and it does not exacerbate is not right. sent7: if the coltsfoot is not a mystique then the fact that it is achondroplastic thing that packs is wrong. sent8: there is something such that if it is achondroplastic that it does chondrify guarantor and does not exacerbate is not true. sent9: there is something such that if it is not achondroplastic then that it chondrifies guarantor and it does exacerbate does not hold. sent10: if something does not fuse rathskeller that it is Gilbertian and is not calycular is not true. sent11: if the origanum is not impure it is a avadavat that does not chondrify guarantor. sent12: that something does invade Malmo but it is non-calycular is not true if it does not chondrify demographer.
|
sent1: ¬{AB}{aa} -> ({AU}{aa} & ¬{HR}{aa}) sent2: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent3: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({GQ}{aa} & ¬{M}{aa}) sent4: {IL}{bb} -> ¬({AF}{bb} & ¬{BB}{bb}) sent5: (Ex): ¬{DJ}x -> ({IH}x & ¬{GN}x) sent6: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent7: ¬{CL}{aa} -> ¬({A}{aa} & {D}{aa}) sent8: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent9: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent10: (x): ¬{GE}x -> ¬({HT}x & ¬{HS}x) sent11: ¬{DH}{hg} -> ({GJ}{hg} & ¬{AA}{hg}) sent12: (x): ¬{IG}x -> ¬({EU}x & ¬{HS}x)
|
[
"sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there is something such that if it does not fuse rathskeller then the fact that it is not non-Gilbertian and not calycular does not hold.
|
(Ex): ¬{GE}x -> ¬({HT}x & ¬{HS}x)
|
[
"sent10 -> int1: if that the 4WD does not fuse rathskeller hold that it is Gilbertian and it is not calycular is incorrect.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is not achondroplastic then the fact that it does chondrify guarantor and it does not exacerbate does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the coltsfoot does not exacerbate it does invade extradition and it is not a kind of a blatancy. sent2: if that the coltsfoot is not achondroplastic is right then the fact that it does chondrify guarantor and does exacerbate is wrong. sent3: the coltsfoot is a kind of a Nautilidae but it is not a kind of an outpost if it is not achondroplastic. sent4: the fact that the astrophysicist is big but it does not chondrify sou'-sou'-west does not hold if it is spineless. sent5: there is something such that if it does not strengthen coltsfoot it is a pirate that is not a kind of a spelter. sent6: if the coltsfoot is not achondroplastic then the fact that it chondrifies guarantor and it does not exacerbate is not right. sent7: if the coltsfoot is not a mystique then the fact that it is achondroplastic thing that packs is wrong. sent8: there is something such that if it is achondroplastic that it does chondrify guarantor and does not exacerbate is not true. sent9: there is something such that if it is not achondroplastic then that it chondrifies guarantor and it does exacerbate does not hold. sent10: if something does not fuse rathskeller that it is Gilbertian and is not calycular is not true. sent11: if the origanum is not impure it is a avadavat that does not chondrify guarantor. sent12: that something does invade Malmo but it is non-calycular is not true if it does not chondrify demographer. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the wall is not feudal.
|
¬{E}{b}
|
sent1: the prankster does not strengthen clubfoot. sent2: something is not a dainty if it does rhyme. sent3: the uraninite is a kind of a rhyme if it is a karma. sent4: if something is feudal and it is a kind of a Owens then that it is not Dostoevskian is correct. sent5: that if the fact that the pantaloon is the Owens is correct then the pantaloon is Dostoevskian is correct. sent6: if there exists something such that it is not Dostoevskian the wall is not non-feudal and it is a kind of a Owens. sent7: the fact that the minster is vaginal and it is a Newtonian if something is not a dainty is not false. sent8: the pantaloon is a kind of a Owens. sent9: something is either a karma or orthodox or both if it is not most-favored-nation. sent10: if there is something such that it is vaginal that the wall is not a scabicide but it is Dostoevskian is not true. sent11: a Newtonian thing is vaginal. sent12: the wall is a dainty. sent13: the sandpiper is feudal and it is a Owens if the pantaloon is not Dostoevskian. sent14: the wall is a kind of a scabicide if the pantaloon is Dostoevskian. sent15: the uraninite is not most-favored-nation if there is something such that that it does not strengthen clubfoot is not incorrect. sent16: an orthodox thing does rhyme. sent17: if something is a scabicide and it is vaginal it is not feudal.
|
sent1: ¬{L}{e} sent2: (x): {H}x -> ¬{G}x sent3: {J}{d} -> {H}{d} sent4: (x): ({E}x & {A}x) -> ¬{B}x sent5: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent6: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({E}{b} & {A}{b}) sent7: (x): ¬{G}x -> ({D}{c} & {F}{c}) sent8: {A}{a} sent9: (x): ¬{K}x -> ({J}x v {I}x) sent10: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{C}{b} & {B}{b}) sent11: (x): {F}x -> {D}x sent12: {G}{b} sent13: ¬{B}{a} -> ({E}{ij} & {A}{ij}) sent14: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent15: (x): ¬{L}x -> ¬{K}{d} sent16: (x): {I}x -> {H}x sent17: (x): ({C}x & {D}x) -> ¬{E}x
|
[
"sent5 & sent8 -> int1: the pantaloon is Dostoevskian.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the wall is a scabicide.; sent11 -> int3: the wall is vaginal if it is Newtonian.; sent17 -> int4: if the wall is a kind of a scabicide and it is vaginal it is not feudal.;"
] |
[
"sent5 & sent8 -> int1: {B}{a}; int1 & sent14 -> int2: {C}{b}; sent11 -> int3: {F}{b} -> {D}{b}; sent17 -> int4: ({C}{b} & {D}{b}) -> ¬{E}{b};"
] |
the sandpiper is feudal.
|
{E}{ij}
|
[
"sent2 -> int5: if the uraninite is a rhyme then it is not a dainty.; sent9 -> int6: the uraninite is a kind of a karma and/or it is orthodox if it is not most-favored-nation.; sent1 -> int7: there is something such that it does not strengthen clubfoot.; int7 & sent15 -> int8: the uraninite is not most-favored-nation.; int6 & int8 -> int9: the uraninite is a karma or is orthodox or both.; sent16 -> int10: the uraninite does rhyme if that it is orthodox is right.; int9 & sent3 & int10 -> int11: the uraninite is a rhyme.; int5 & int11 -> int12: the uraninite is not a dainty.; int12 -> int13: something is not a dainty.; int13 & sent7 -> int14: the minster is vaginal and is a Newtonian.; int14 -> int15: the minster is vaginal.; int15 -> int16: there exists something such that it is vaginal.; int16 & sent10 -> int17: that the wall is both not a scabicide and Dostoevskian does not hold.;"
] | 13 | 4 | null | 11 | 0 | 11 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the wall is not feudal. ; $context$ = sent1: the prankster does not strengthen clubfoot. sent2: something is not a dainty if it does rhyme. sent3: the uraninite is a kind of a rhyme if it is a karma. sent4: if something is feudal and it is a kind of a Owens then that it is not Dostoevskian is correct. sent5: that if the fact that the pantaloon is the Owens is correct then the pantaloon is Dostoevskian is correct. sent6: if there exists something such that it is not Dostoevskian the wall is not non-feudal and it is a kind of a Owens. sent7: the fact that the minster is vaginal and it is a Newtonian if something is not a dainty is not false. sent8: the pantaloon is a kind of a Owens. sent9: something is either a karma or orthodox or both if it is not most-favored-nation. sent10: if there is something such that it is vaginal that the wall is not a scabicide but it is Dostoevskian is not true. sent11: a Newtonian thing is vaginal. sent12: the wall is a dainty. sent13: the sandpiper is feudal and it is a Owens if the pantaloon is not Dostoevskian. sent14: the wall is a kind of a scabicide if the pantaloon is Dostoevskian. sent15: the uraninite is not most-favored-nation if there is something such that that it does not strengthen clubfoot is not incorrect. sent16: an orthodox thing does rhyme. sent17: if something is a scabicide and it is vaginal it is not feudal. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 & sent8 -> int1: the pantaloon is Dostoevskian.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the wall is a scabicide.; sent11 -> int3: the wall is vaginal if it is Newtonian.; sent17 -> int4: if the wall is a kind of a scabicide and it is vaginal it is not feudal.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the stationer is a standing.
|
{A}{aa}
|
sent1: if the firelighter is a seminar then the stachyose is not inferential and does romance. sent2: everything is not a skinny. sent3: everything is not a kind of a skinny and it is not compliant. sent4: if that the stachyose is a standing that is a Male does not hold the stationer does not standing. sent5: if that the stationer is a kind of legible thing that is not gnomic is true it is compliant. sent6: something is not a thoughtfulness and not holy if it does not stand. sent7: if something that does not fuse row is a kind of a directorate then the fact that it invades inclusion is true. sent8: something is not a standing but it is a Male if it is not meager.
|
sent1: {F}{b} -> (¬{D}{a} & {E}{a}) sent2: (x): ¬{AA}x sent3: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent4: ¬({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent5: ({GM}{aa} & ¬{EE}{aa}) -> {AB}{aa} sent6: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{BU}x & ¬{IB}x) sent7: (x): (¬{DE}x & {FK}x) -> {FG}x sent8: (x): ¬{C}x -> (¬{A}x & {B}x)
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: the stationer is not a skinny and not compliant.;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> int1: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa});"
] |
the fact that the sealskin is not a kind of a thoughtfulness and it is not holy is correct.
|
(¬{BU}{ct} & ¬{IB}{ct})
|
[
"sent6 -> int2: the sealskin is not a thoughtfulness and it is unholy if the fact that it is not a standing is correct.; sent8 -> int3: the sealskin is both not a standing and a Male if that it is not meager is right.;"
] | 6 | 2 | null | 7 | 0 | 7 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the stationer is a standing. ; $context$ = sent1: if the firelighter is a seminar then the stachyose is not inferential and does romance. sent2: everything is not a skinny. sent3: everything is not a kind of a skinny and it is not compliant. sent4: if that the stachyose is a standing that is a Male does not hold the stationer does not standing. sent5: if that the stationer is a kind of legible thing that is not gnomic is true it is compliant. sent6: something is not a thoughtfulness and not holy if it does not stand. sent7: if something that does not fuse row is a kind of a directorate then the fact that it invades inclusion is true. sent8: something is not a standing but it is a Male if it is not meager. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> int1: the stationer is not a skinny and not compliant.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the strengthening Meredith occurs and the chondrifying embellishment happens if the kayak does not occur.
|
¬{A} -> ({AA} & {B})
|
sent1: the subversion does not occur if not the chondrifying embellishment but the kayaking happens. sent2: the chondrifying generalist and the invading Krasner happens if the strengthening slur does not occur. sent3: if the saprophyticness does not occur the gust happens and the invading NAD does not occur. sent4: if the strengthening bearer does not occur the annalisticness but not the tolerance occurs. sent5: the shutout happens and the tracheostomy happens. sent6: the saprophyticness happens and the baiting occurs. sent7: the catoptricness but not the marshalship occurs if that the archiepiscopalness happens is right. sent8: if the strengthening hallmark does not occur the clocking happens and the gearing occurs. sent9: both the difficultness and the non-axiologicalness occurs. sent10: the megalithicness occurs. sent11: the invading Krasner does not occur. sent12: the Bayesianness but not the fusing distressing happens if the greaterness happens. sent13: if the kayaking does not occur the strengthening Meredith happens and the retiring does not occur. sent14: the holding but not the hostility happens. sent15: the derivation does not occur if the fact that the invading seminar does not occur is right. sent16: that the chondrifying embellishment occurs and the chondrifying Merlangus happens is brought about by the non-aoristicness. sent17: the marshalship happens and the invading guy occurs. sent18: that the slamming occurs is not wrong. sent19: the gearing occurs but the strengthening budgerigar does not occur if the charades does not occur. sent20: that the Bayesianness occurs leads to that both the subversion and the fusing distressing happens. sent21: the invading predicament does not occur.
|
sent1: (¬{B} & {A}) -> ¬{CK} sent2: ¬{JF} -> ({IR} & {O}) sent3: ¬{HQ} -> ({EO} & ¬{DD}) sent4: ¬{FF} -> ({CO} & ¬{JH}) sent5: ({GN} & {FH}) sent6: ({HQ} & {HD}) sent7: {CQ} -> ({AP} & ¬{JB}) sent8: ¬{EB} -> ({BJ} & {GE}) sent9: ({AQ} & ¬{CC}) sent10: {GB} sent11: ¬{O} sent12: {EH} -> ({BO} & ¬{EM}) sent13: ¬{A} -> ({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent14: ({HC} & ¬{CS}) sent15: ¬{DA} -> ¬{CI} sent16: ¬{D} -> ({B} & {C}) sent17: ({JB} & {E}) sent18: {EF} sent19: ¬{AR} -> ({GE} & ¬{HM}) sent20: {BO} -> ({CK} & {EM}) sent21: ¬{DP}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the kayak does not occur.; sent13 & assump1 -> int1: the strengthening Meredith but not the retiring occurs.; int1 -> int2: the strengthening Meredith happens.;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: ¬{A}; sent13 & assump1 -> int1: ({AA} & ¬{AB}); int1 -> int2: {AA};"
] |
the subversion does not occur.
|
¬{CK}
|
[] | 5 | 4 | null | 19 | 0 | 19 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the strengthening Meredith occurs and the chondrifying embellishment happens if the kayak does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the subversion does not occur if not the chondrifying embellishment but the kayaking happens. sent2: the chondrifying generalist and the invading Krasner happens if the strengthening slur does not occur. sent3: if the saprophyticness does not occur the gust happens and the invading NAD does not occur. sent4: if the strengthening bearer does not occur the annalisticness but not the tolerance occurs. sent5: the shutout happens and the tracheostomy happens. sent6: the saprophyticness happens and the baiting occurs. sent7: the catoptricness but not the marshalship occurs if that the archiepiscopalness happens is right. sent8: if the strengthening hallmark does not occur the clocking happens and the gearing occurs. sent9: both the difficultness and the non-axiologicalness occurs. sent10: the megalithicness occurs. sent11: the invading Krasner does not occur. sent12: the Bayesianness but not the fusing distressing happens if the greaterness happens. sent13: if the kayaking does not occur the strengthening Meredith happens and the retiring does not occur. sent14: the holding but not the hostility happens. sent15: the derivation does not occur if the fact that the invading seminar does not occur is right. sent16: that the chondrifying embellishment occurs and the chondrifying Merlangus happens is brought about by the non-aoristicness. sent17: the marshalship happens and the invading guy occurs. sent18: that the slamming occurs is not wrong. sent19: the gearing occurs but the strengthening budgerigar does not occur if the charades does not occur. sent20: that the Bayesianness occurs leads to that both the subversion and the fusing distressing happens. sent21: the invading predicament does not occur. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the kayak does not occur.; sent13 & assump1 -> int1: the strengthening Meredith but not the retiring occurs.; int1 -> int2: the strengthening Meredith happens.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the catmint is frictionless is right.
|
{B}{b}
|
sent1: something is a peregrination if it is a kind of a permanent. sent2: the catmint does not shrug if that the banjo does not invade sunfish but it is frictionless is not true. sent3: the xylem does chondrify Lenard and is not a kind of a Tarsiidae if the schrod is not algorithmic. sent4: if the banjo is a peregrination the catmint is frictionless. sent5: the fact that the xylem is not a Parker and it is not intergalactic does not hold. sent6: the catmint does not invade sunfish. sent7: something is not uterine if it chondrifies Lenard and is not a kind of a Tarsiidae. sent8: the banjo is not a permanent if the xylem is not a Burmese and it is not uterine. sent9: if that something is both frictionless and not a peregrination is false it is not a shrug. sent10: the banjo is not frictionless if the fact that the catmint does not invade sunfish and is a shrug does not hold. sent11: if that the banjo does not invade sunfish and is a kind of a shrug is incorrect the catmint is not frictionless. sent12: the fact that the banjo does not invade sunfish and is a shrug does not hold. sent13: the xylem is non-Burmese if that it is not a Parker and it is not intergalactic does not hold.
|
sent1: (x): {C}x -> {A}x sent2: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{AB}{b} sent3: ¬{H}{d} -> ({G}{c} & ¬{F}{c}) sent4: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent5: ¬(¬{K}{c} & ¬{J}{c}) sent6: ¬{AA}{b} sent7: (x): ({G}x & ¬{F}x) -> ¬{E}x sent8: (¬{D}{c} & ¬{E}{c}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent9: (x): ¬({B}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{AB}x sent10: ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent11: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent12: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent13: ¬(¬{K}{c} & ¬{J}{c}) -> ¬{D}{c}
|
[
"sent11 & sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent11 & sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the catmint is frictionless.
|
{B}{b}
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: the banjo is a peregrination if it is permanent.;"
] | 6 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the catmint is frictionless is right. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a peregrination if it is a kind of a permanent. sent2: the catmint does not shrug if that the banjo does not invade sunfish but it is frictionless is not true. sent3: the xylem does chondrify Lenard and is not a kind of a Tarsiidae if the schrod is not algorithmic. sent4: if the banjo is a peregrination the catmint is frictionless. sent5: the fact that the xylem is not a Parker and it is not intergalactic does not hold. sent6: the catmint does not invade sunfish. sent7: something is not uterine if it chondrifies Lenard and is not a kind of a Tarsiidae. sent8: the banjo is not a permanent if the xylem is not a Burmese and it is not uterine. sent9: if that something is both frictionless and not a peregrination is false it is not a shrug. sent10: the banjo is not frictionless if the fact that the catmint does not invade sunfish and is a shrug does not hold. sent11: if that the banjo does not invade sunfish and is a kind of a shrug is incorrect the catmint is not frictionless. sent12: the fact that the banjo does not invade sunfish and is a shrug does not hold. sent13: the xylem is non-Burmese if that it is not a Parker and it is not intergalactic does not hold. ; $proof$ =
|
sent11 & sent12 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the flagship is a kind of a crescent.
|
{B}{aa}
|
sent1: if the missile does not strengthen Velcro it is both phrenic and a catarrh. sent2: if something is phrenic then it chondrifies pocket and it is not thyrotoxic. sent3: the Pneumovax strengthens biont. sent4: the flagship is thyrotoxic if there are thyroid things. sent5: if something that strengthens biont is not a kind of a Ahvenanmaa then the fact that it is a kind of a crescent is not correct. sent6: the flagship strengthens biont and is not a Ahvenanmaa if there exists something such that the fact that it is thyrotoxic hold. sent7: the weatherman does not grain if it does invade weatherman and it does not strengthen LLD. sent8: if the missile is not ferromagnetic then it does not strengthen Velcro. sent9: something is thyrotoxic. sent10: the fact that the oxheart is pregnant thing that does strengthen pruritus is incorrect.
|
sent1: ¬{F}{a} -> ({D}{a} & {E}{a}) sent2: (x): {D}x -> ({C}x & ¬{A}x) sent3: {AA}{cp} sent4: (x): {IR}x -> {A}{aa} sent5: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent6: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent7: ({DG}{dt} & ¬{EM}{dt}) -> ¬{CT}{dt} sent8: ¬{G}{a} -> ¬{F}{a} sent9: (Ex): {A}x sent10: ¬({H}{b} & {I}{b})
|
[
"sent5 -> int1: the flagship is not a crescent if it does strengthen biont and it is not a Ahvenanmaa.; sent9 & sent6 -> int2: the flagship strengthens biont but it is not a Ahvenanmaa.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent5 -> int1: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; sent9 & sent6 -> int2: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the flagship is a crescent.
|
{B}{aa}
|
[
"sent2 -> int3: the missile chondrifies pocket and is not thyrotoxic if it is phrenic.; sent10 -> int4: there is something such that that it is pregnant and it strengthens pruritus is false.;"
] | 8 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the flagship is a kind of a crescent. ; $context$ = sent1: if the missile does not strengthen Velcro it is both phrenic and a catarrh. sent2: if something is phrenic then it chondrifies pocket and it is not thyrotoxic. sent3: the Pneumovax strengthens biont. sent4: the flagship is thyrotoxic if there are thyroid things. sent5: if something that strengthens biont is not a kind of a Ahvenanmaa then the fact that it is a kind of a crescent is not correct. sent6: the flagship strengthens biont and is not a Ahvenanmaa if there exists something such that the fact that it is thyrotoxic hold. sent7: the weatherman does not grain if it does invade weatherman and it does not strengthen LLD. sent8: if the missile is not ferromagnetic then it does not strengthen Velcro. sent9: something is thyrotoxic. sent10: the fact that the oxheart is pregnant thing that does strengthen pruritus is incorrect. ; $proof$ =
|
sent5 -> int1: the flagship is not a crescent if it does strengthen biont and it is not a Ahvenanmaa.; sent9 & sent6 -> int2: the flagship strengthens biont but it is not a Ahvenanmaa.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the promulgator does not wrong.
|
¬{B}{aa}
|
sent1: the promulgator is not a superinfection. sent2: the hourglass is not a kind of a sleeve. sent3: the salwar does not insulate. sent4: the promulgator does not strengthen Mahdism and is not a kind of a superinfection. sent5: the promulgator is not a superinfection and is not a kind of a Zeppelin if it is a self-heal. sent6: if the fact that the promulgator is a self-heal is not wrong then it is not a superinfection. sent7: something is a kind of non-crosswise a self-heal if it does not ridge. sent8: something is sad and it is euphonic if it does not insulate. sent9: something does ridge if it is sad. sent10: the fact that the hourglass does not click and it is not acentric is not right if it is not a kind of a sleeve. sent11: if the salwar is a ridge that clicks the promulgator is not a ridge. sent12: if something is not crosswise but it is a self-heal then it does not wrong. sent13: something wrongs if it is not a kind of a superinfection and is not a Zeppelin. sent14: the promulgator is a self-heal.
|
sent1: ¬{AA}{aa} sent2: ¬{J}{b} sent3: ¬{I}{a} sent4: (¬{BL}{aa} & ¬{AA}{aa}) sent5: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent6: {A}{aa} -> ¬{AA}{aa} sent7: (x): ¬{D}x -> (¬{C}x & {A}x) sent8: (x): ¬{I}x -> ({F}x & {H}x) sent9: (x): {F}x -> {D}x sent10: ¬{J}{b} -> ¬(¬{E}{b} & ¬{G}{b}) sent11: ({D}{a} & {E}{a}) -> ¬{D}{aa} sent12: (x): (¬{C}x & {A}x) -> ¬{B}x sent13: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent14: {A}{aa}
|
[
"sent13 -> int1: the fact that the promulgator is not a wrong is incorrect if it is not a superinfection and it is not a Zeppelin.; sent5 & sent14 -> int2: the promulgator is not a superinfection and is not a Zeppelin.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent13 -> int1: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}; sent5 & sent14 -> int2: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the promulgator does not wrong.
|
¬{B}{aa}
|
[
"sent12 -> int3: the promulgator is not a wrong if it is non-crosswise thing that is a self-heal.; sent7 -> int4: if the promulgator does not ridge then it is not crosswise and is a self-heal.; sent9 -> int5: the salwar is a kind of a ridge if it is sad.; sent8 -> int6: if the salwar does not insulate it is sad and is euphonic.; int6 & sent3 -> int7: the salwar is sad thing that is euphonic.; int7 -> int8: that the salwar is sad is correct.; int5 & int8 -> int9: the salwar is a ridge.; sent10 & sent2 -> int10: the fact that that the hourglass does not click and is not acentric does not hold hold.; int10 -> int11: there exists something such that the fact that it is both not a click and non-acentric does not hold.;"
] | 8 | 2 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the promulgator does not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the promulgator is not a superinfection. sent2: the hourglass is not a kind of a sleeve. sent3: the salwar does not insulate. sent4: the promulgator does not strengthen Mahdism and is not a kind of a superinfection. sent5: the promulgator is not a superinfection and is not a kind of a Zeppelin if it is a self-heal. sent6: if the fact that the promulgator is a self-heal is not wrong then it is not a superinfection. sent7: something is a kind of non-crosswise a self-heal if it does not ridge. sent8: something is sad and it is euphonic if it does not insulate. sent9: something does ridge if it is sad. sent10: the fact that the hourglass does not click and it is not acentric is not right if it is not a kind of a sleeve. sent11: if the salwar is a ridge that clicks the promulgator is not a ridge. sent12: if something is not crosswise but it is a self-heal then it does not wrong. sent13: something wrongs if it is not a kind of a superinfection and is not a Zeppelin. sent14: the promulgator is a self-heal. ; $proof$ =
|
sent13 -> int1: the fact that the promulgator is not a wrong is incorrect if it is not a superinfection and it is not a Zeppelin.; sent5 & sent14 -> int2: the promulgator is not a superinfection and is not a Zeppelin.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the intolerableness happens.
|
{D}
|
sent1: that the spectrographicness occurs is correct. sent2: the unfrozenness happens and the testing occurs. sent3: the Muhammadanness happens. sent4: if the chondrifying top-up occurs then the photoelectricness happens. sent5: if the anatropousness occurs the spinal happens. sent6: the mutagenicness occurs and the codification occurs. sent7: the utilization is brought about by that the systematism happens. sent8: the intolerableness occurs if the invading plant happens. sent9: that the ulnarness happens is correct. sent10: both the chondrifying amphibian and the rhetoricalness occurs. sent11: the chondrifying cancan occurs if the shucking occurs. sent12: the conchology happens. sent13: both the spectrographicness and the strengthening bleached happens. sent14: the Hispanic happens and the archdiocesanness happens. sent15: the staring occurs if the surmounting happens. sent16: the testing occurs. sent17: the judo and the invading asphodel happens. sent18: the rhetoricalness occurs. sent19: the invading plant happens if that the unfrozenness occurs is right.
|
sent1: {FJ} sent2: ({A} & {B}) sent3: {AO} sent4: {HU} -> {U} sent5: {DN} -> {FL} sent6: ({J} & {CF}) sent7: {JA} -> {IL} sent8: {C} -> {D} sent9: {IG} sent10: ({EG} & {JK}) sent11: {HK} -> {DM} sent12: {JE} sent13: ({FJ} & {H}) sent14: ({AG} & {IN}) sent15: {FO} -> {F} sent16: {B} sent17: ({EP} & {GH}) sent18: {JK} sent19: {A} -> {C}
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: the unfrozenness occurs.; sent19 & int1 -> int2: the invading plant occurs.; sent8 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> int1: {A}; sent19 & int1 -> int2: {C}; sent8 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 16 | 0 | 16 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the intolerableness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: that the spectrographicness occurs is correct. sent2: the unfrozenness happens and the testing occurs. sent3: the Muhammadanness happens. sent4: if the chondrifying top-up occurs then the photoelectricness happens. sent5: if the anatropousness occurs the spinal happens. sent6: the mutagenicness occurs and the codification occurs. sent7: the utilization is brought about by that the systematism happens. sent8: the intolerableness occurs if the invading plant happens. sent9: that the ulnarness happens is correct. sent10: both the chondrifying amphibian and the rhetoricalness occurs. sent11: the chondrifying cancan occurs if the shucking occurs. sent12: the conchology happens. sent13: both the spectrographicness and the strengthening bleached happens. sent14: the Hispanic happens and the archdiocesanness happens. sent15: the staring occurs if the surmounting happens. sent16: the testing occurs. sent17: the judo and the invading asphodel happens. sent18: the rhetoricalness occurs. sent19: the invading plant happens if that the unfrozenness occurs is right. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> int1: the unfrozenness occurs.; sent19 & int1 -> int2: the invading plant occurs.; sent8 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the hen does not sense and it is not unsusceptible.
|
(¬{AA}{b} & ¬{B}{b})
|
sent1: if the obstructionist is a kind of a bayonet the hen is not hymenopterous. sent2: the hen is not unsusceptible and it is not a kind of a bayonet if it is not landless. sent3: that the hen is not landless is correct. sent4: if the obstructionist invades cooperative then the hen does not sense and is not hymenopterous. sent5: the obstructionist does sense. sent6: the hen is not hymenopterous if the obstructionist invades cooperative. sent7: the obstructionist invades cooperative. sent8: if the obstructionist does not invade cooperative then it is not hymenopterous and it is not landless. sent9: The cooperative invades obstructionist.
|
sent1: {C}{a} -> ¬{AB}{b} sent2: ¬{D}{b} -> (¬{B}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent3: ¬{D}{b} sent4: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent5: {AA}{a} sent6: {A}{a} -> ¬{AB}{b} sent7: {A}{a} sent8: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AB}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent9: {AC}{aa}
|
[
"sent4 & sent7 -> int1: the hen is both not a sense and not hymenopterous.; int1 -> int2: the hen is not a sense.; sent2 & sent3 -> int3: the hen is not unsusceptible and it does not bayonet.; int3 -> int4: the hen is not unsusceptible.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 & sent7 -> int1: (¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}); int1 -> int2: ¬{AA}{b}; sent2 & sent3 -> int3: (¬{B}{b} & ¬{C}{b}); int3 -> int4: ¬{B}{b}; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the hen does not sense and it is not unsusceptible. ; $context$ = sent1: if the obstructionist is a kind of a bayonet the hen is not hymenopterous. sent2: the hen is not unsusceptible and it is not a kind of a bayonet if it is not landless. sent3: that the hen is not landless is correct. sent4: if the obstructionist invades cooperative then the hen does not sense and is not hymenopterous. sent5: the obstructionist does sense. sent6: the hen is not hymenopterous if the obstructionist invades cooperative. sent7: the obstructionist invades cooperative. sent8: if the obstructionist does not invade cooperative then it is not hymenopterous and it is not landless. sent9: The cooperative invades obstructionist. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 & sent7 -> int1: the hen is both not a sense and not hymenopterous.; int1 -> int2: the hen is not a sense.; sent2 & sent3 -> int3: the hen is not unsusceptible and it does not bayonet.; int3 -> int4: the hen is not unsusceptible.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the fact that the pantaloon is non-Adonic and/or it is a stabilization hold is not right.
|
¬(¬{B}{aa} v {A}{aa})
|
sent1: the fact that the Monegasque invades bursa and it is parabolic does not hold. sent2: something that is a kind of Soviet thing that is not a kind of a parapsychologist does scald. sent3: something is not Adonic if the fact that it is parabolic is false. sent4: the pantaloon is not parabolic if the fact that it does migrate and it is an eyestrain is not right. sent5: the fact that the courser does migrate and is a scald is not true. sent6: the fact that the pantaloon is a kind of a scald and is funerary is false. sent7: if that the centromere is a stabilization but it is not a Adonic is false the fact that the blasphemer does not nose hold. sent8: the pantaloon is not a kind of a scald. sent9: the basinet is not a kind of a Adonic if it is not a kind of a tabulation. sent10: the fact that the pantaloon is not a Adonic is right if it is not parabolic. sent11: the fact that the pantaloon is not a Adonic and/or is a stabilization is incorrect if the blasphemer is a scald. sent12: if that something is parabolic and it does nose is not right it is not a scald. sent13: something is not a kind of a stabilization if it is not a scald. sent14: the fact that that something is a stabilization but it is not Adonic is not false does not hold if it does not scald. sent15: if that something is a kind of a nose and it is parabolic is wrong then it is not Adonic. sent16: the application is not afloat if that it is not a scald is right. sent17: that the pantaloon is a nose and it is parabolic is false if it is not a kind of a scald. sent18: the courser is not a stabilization. sent19: if the fact that the contemporary is patriarchal thing that does corbel is not correct it is not unretentive. sent20: the pantaloon does not nose or it is a kind of a pilchard or both.
|
sent1: ¬({II}{ar} & {AB}{ar}) sent2: (x): ({D}x & ¬{E}x) -> {C}x sent3: (x): ¬{AB}x -> ¬{B}x sent4: ¬({BM}{aa} & {R}{aa}) -> ¬{AB}{aa} sent5: ¬({BM}{ch} & {C}{ch}) sent6: ¬({C}{aa} & {EJ}{aa}) sent7: ¬({A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> ¬{AA}{a} sent8: ¬{C}{aa} sent9: ¬{DE}{cj} -> ¬{B}{cj} sent10: ¬{AB}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent11: {C}{a} -> ¬(¬{B}{aa} v {A}{aa}) sent12: (x): ¬({AB}x & {AA}x) -> ¬{C}x sent13: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬{A}x sent14: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({A}x & ¬{B}x) sent15: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent16: ¬{C}{ja} -> ¬{CI}{ja} sent17: ¬{C}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent18: ¬{A}{ch} sent19: ¬({CQ}{fu} & {CC}{fu}) -> ¬{HE}{fu} sent20: (¬{AA}{aa} v {IA}{aa})
|
[
"sent15 -> int1: if the fact that the pantaloon is both a nose and parabolic is not right it is not a Adonic.; sent17 & sent8 -> int2: the fact that the pantaloon is both a nose and parabolic is wrong.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the pantaloon is not Adonic.; int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent15 -> int1: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; sent17 & sent8 -> int2: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬{B}{aa}; int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the fact that the pantaloon is not Adonic and/or it is a kind of a stabilization does not hold.
|
¬(¬{B}{aa} v {A}{aa})
|
[
"sent2 -> int4: if the blasphemer is Soviet and is not a kind of a parapsychologist it scalds.;"
] | 5 | 3 | 3 | 17 | 0 | 17 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the fact that the pantaloon is non-Adonic and/or it is a stabilization hold is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the Monegasque invades bursa and it is parabolic does not hold. sent2: something that is a kind of Soviet thing that is not a kind of a parapsychologist does scald. sent3: something is not Adonic if the fact that it is parabolic is false. sent4: the pantaloon is not parabolic if the fact that it does migrate and it is an eyestrain is not right. sent5: the fact that the courser does migrate and is a scald is not true. sent6: the fact that the pantaloon is a kind of a scald and is funerary is false. sent7: if that the centromere is a stabilization but it is not a Adonic is false the fact that the blasphemer does not nose hold. sent8: the pantaloon is not a kind of a scald. sent9: the basinet is not a kind of a Adonic if it is not a kind of a tabulation. sent10: the fact that the pantaloon is not a Adonic is right if it is not parabolic. sent11: the fact that the pantaloon is not a Adonic and/or is a stabilization is incorrect if the blasphemer is a scald. sent12: if that something is parabolic and it does nose is not right it is not a scald. sent13: something is not a kind of a stabilization if it is not a scald. sent14: the fact that that something is a stabilization but it is not Adonic is not false does not hold if it does not scald. sent15: if that something is a kind of a nose and it is parabolic is wrong then it is not Adonic. sent16: the application is not afloat if that it is not a scald is right. sent17: that the pantaloon is a nose and it is parabolic is false if it is not a kind of a scald. sent18: the courser is not a stabilization. sent19: if the fact that the contemporary is patriarchal thing that does corbel is not correct it is not unretentive. sent20: the pantaloon does not nose or it is a kind of a pilchard or both. ; $proof$ =
|
sent15 -> int1: if the fact that the pantaloon is both a nose and parabolic is not right it is not a Adonic.; sent17 & sent8 -> int2: the fact that the pantaloon is both a nose and parabolic is wrong.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the pantaloon is not Adonic.; int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the office does not occur and/or the invading conic happens.
|
(¬{AA} v {AB})
|
sent1: the office happens. sent2: if that the office happens or the invading conic happens or both is not true then the autopsying does not occur. sent3: the autopsy happens. sent4: the office occurs and/or the invading conic happens.
|
sent1: {AA} sent2: ¬({AA} v {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent3: {B} sent4: ({AA} v {AB})
|
[] |
[] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | null | 3 | 0 | 3 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the office does not occur and/or the invading conic happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the office happens. sent2: if that the office happens or the invading conic happens or both is not true then the autopsying does not occur. sent3: the autopsy happens. sent4: the office occurs and/or the invading conic happens. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the convenience is inheritable or it is thyrotoxic or both.
|
({B}{aa} v {A}{aa})
|
sent1: the convenience is a weaving or is adoptive or both. sent2: there exists something such that it is dysgenic. sent3: the convenience is downmarket. sent4: there is something such that it discriminates. sent5: if there exists something such that it is thyrotoxic then the convenience is thyrotoxic and/or it is a Sunderland. sent6: if something is similar then either the chevrotain is not similar or it is a Morton or both. sent7: there is something such that it is thyrotoxic. sent8: something that is either discriminating or not alpine or both is inheritable. sent9: if the photographer is not unsold it is spectral. sent10: the convenience either invades alarmist or is not livable or both. sent11: there is something such that it immigrates. sent12: if the cosmotron is not puerperal the fact that the convenience is inheritable and/or it is thyrotoxic is not true. sent13: something that does not strengthen PIN is splashy. sent14: that either the convenience strengthens sensuality or it is a kind of a Fothergilla or both is not wrong.
|
sent1: ({JE}{aa} v {GC}{aa}) sent2: (Ex): {BO}x sent3: {EB}{aa} sent4: (Ex): {AA}x sent5: (x): {A}x -> ({A}{aa} v {IO}{aa}) sent6: (x): {CP}x -> ({CP}{dc} v {GQ}{dc}) sent7: (Ex): {A}x sent8: (x): ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent9: ¬{GM}{fc} -> {DI}{fc} sent10: ({EE}{aa} v ¬{BE}{aa}) sent11: (Ex): {DB}x sent12: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬({B}{aa} v {A}{aa}) sent13: (x): ¬{BL}x -> {DU}x sent14: ({GH}{aa} v {AP}{aa})
|
[
"sent8 -> int1: the convenience is inheritable if it does discriminate and/or it is not alpine.;"
] |
[
"sent8 -> int1: ({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa};"
] |
that the convenience is inheritable or it is thyrotoxic or both is incorrect.
|
¬({B}{aa} v {A}{aa})
|
[] | 5 | 3 | null | 12 | 0 | 12 |
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the convenience is inheritable or it is thyrotoxic or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the convenience is a weaving or is adoptive or both. sent2: there exists something such that it is dysgenic. sent3: the convenience is downmarket. sent4: there is something such that it discriminates. sent5: if there exists something such that it is thyrotoxic then the convenience is thyrotoxic and/or it is a Sunderland. sent6: if something is similar then either the chevrotain is not similar or it is a Morton or both. sent7: there is something such that it is thyrotoxic. sent8: something that is either discriminating or not alpine or both is inheritable. sent9: if the photographer is not unsold it is spectral. sent10: the convenience either invades alarmist or is not livable or both. sent11: there is something such that it immigrates. sent12: if the cosmotron is not puerperal the fact that the convenience is inheritable and/or it is thyrotoxic is not true. sent13: something that does not strengthen PIN is splashy. sent14: that either the convenience strengthens sensuality or it is a kind of a Fothergilla or both is not wrong. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 -> int1: the convenience is inheritable if it does discriminate and/or it is not alpine.; __UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there exists something such that if it is not anagrammatic and it is a kind of a drusen then it is not a kind of a materialization does not hold.
|
¬((Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x)
|
sent1: if something is not a fiberscope but it is electrophoretic it does not incorporate. sent2: there exists something such that if it does not invade arbovirus and it is a almandine then it is not bolographic. sent3: the pillar does not fuse lilting if it is not a materialization and it is Shuha. sent4: the tricycle is not anagrammatic if it is not genetic and it is an amity. sent5: if the pillar is not a materialization but it is a Moline it is not ethnographic. sent6: there exists something such that if it does not invade dyne and it is a fitfulness it does not motley. sent7: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a nanogram and invades melphalan it does not scatter. sent8: the pillar is not a kind of a materialization if it is a kind of anagrammatic thing that is a kind of a drusen. sent9: there is something such that if it is not anagrammatic and it is a kind of a drusen then it is a materialization. sent10: there exists something such that if it is a kind of anagrammatic thing that is a drusen then it is not a materialization. sent11: if the pillar is non-anagrammatic thing that is a drusen then it is not a kind of a materialization. sent12: there is something such that if it is not thallophytic and it is focal it does not strengthen hairbrush. sent13: the pillar is not a materialization if it is not receptive and is focal. sent14: there exists something such that if that it is not a kind of a Curietherapy and it is a exode hold then the fact that it is not focal is not false. sent15: there is something such that if it is not a neuropsychiatry and is a kind of a muton then it does not strengthen budgerigar. sent16: the fact that the pillar does not chondrify tricycle if the pillar is not a kind of a FHA but it is anagrammatic hold. sent17: the pillar is a materialization if it is not anagrammatic and it is a kind of a drusen.
|
sent1: (x): (¬{O}x & {GB}x) -> ¬{HI}x sent2: (Ex): (¬{CE}x & {EK}x) -> ¬{BC}x sent3: (¬{B}{aa} & {BO}{aa}) -> ¬{EJ}{aa} sent4: (¬{EQ}{hk} & {FN}{hk}) -> ¬{AA}{hk} sent5: (¬{B}{aa} & {AU}{aa}) -> ¬{JC}{aa} sent6: (Ex): (¬{FF}x & {IU}x) -> ¬{GA}x sent7: (Ex): (¬{FH}x & {GO}x) -> ¬{FU}x sent8: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent9: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent10: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent11: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent12: (Ex): (¬{U}x & {CR}x) -> ¬{FS}x sent13: (¬{JK}{aa} & {CR}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent14: (Ex): (¬{E}x & {D}x) -> ¬{CR}x sent15: (Ex): (¬{CD}x & {GT}x) -> ¬{HD}x sent16: (¬{AI}{aa} & {AA}{aa}) -> ¬{DR}{aa} sent17: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}
|
[
"sent11 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent11 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the melphalan does not incorporate is correct if that it is both not a fiberscope and electrophoretic is not wrong.
|
(¬{O}{au} & {GB}{au}) -> ¬{HI}{au}
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 16 | 0 | 16 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if it is not anagrammatic and it is a kind of a drusen then it is not a kind of a materialization does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not a fiberscope but it is electrophoretic it does not incorporate. sent2: there exists something such that if it does not invade arbovirus and it is a almandine then it is not bolographic. sent3: the pillar does not fuse lilting if it is not a materialization and it is Shuha. sent4: the tricycle is not anagrammatic if it is not genetic and it is an amity. sent5: if the pillar is not a materialization but it is a Moline it is not ethnographic. sent6: there exists something such that if it does not invade dyne and it is a fitfulness it does not motley. sent7: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a nanogram and invades melphalan it does not scatter. sent8: the pillar is not a kind of a materialization if it is a kind of anagrammatic thing that is a kind of a drusen. sent9: there is something such that if it is not anagrammatic and it is a kind of a drusen then it is a materialization. sent10: there exists something such that if it is a kind of anagrammatic thing that is a drusen then it is not a materialization. sent11: if the pillar is non-anagrammatic thing that is a drusen then it is not a kind of a materialization. sent12: there is something such that if it is not thallophytic and it is focal it does not strengthen hairbrush. sent13: the pillar is not a materialization if it is not receptive and is focal. sent14: there exists something such that if that it is not a kind of a Curietherapy and it is a exode hold then the fact that it is not focal is not false. sent15: there is something such that if it is not a neuropsychiatry and is a kind of a muton then it does not strengthen budgerigar. sent16: the fact that the pillar does not chondrify tricycle if the pillar is not a kind of a FHA but it is anagrammatic hold. sent17: the pillar is a materialization if it is not anagrammatic and it is a kind of a drusen. ; $proof$ =
|
sent11 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the coverlet is a cyan.
|
{AB}{aa}
|
sent1: if something is not ferric then it is a cyan that is a kind of a Bishkek. sent2: if the coverlet is not a Bishkek then it is a kind of a Herr. sent3: the coverlet is a Herr. sent4: the fact that the label chondrifies transferee but it is not a peripheral is wrong if it does not strengthen Mastotermitidae. sent5: if something does chondrify row then the fact that it is ferric or not a Bishkek or both does not hold. sent6: something is a kind of a Herr and it is a cyan if it is not a Bishkek. sent7: something is unwelcome thing that does not strengthen Mastotermitidae if it is not a saltbush. sent8: the coverlet is not a Bishkek. sent9: the tobogganist is abasic if that the label chondrifies transferee and is not peripheral is wrong. sent10: if there exists something such that the fact that it invades tobogganist and it does not chondrify row is not true then the pruning is not ferric. sent11: something is a Herr if it is not a kind of a Bishkek. sent12: if the diviner is not metastatic it is a cyan and osculates. sent13: a non-maxillary thing does chondrify transferee and is a Barbadian. sent14: the Durham is not a kind of a Bishkek. sent15: something is a Herr if that either it is ferric or it is not a Bishkek or both is incorrect. sent16: everything is not a kind of a saltbush.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({AB}x & {A}x) sent2: ¬{A}{aa} -> {AA}{aa} sent3: {AA}{aa} sent4: ¬{H}{d} -> ¬({G}{d} & ¬{F}{d}) sent5: (x): {C}x -> ¬({B}x v ¬{A}x) sent6: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent7: (x): ¬{J}x -> (¬{I}x & ¬{H}x) sent8: ¬{A}{aa} sent9: ¬({G}{d} & ¬{F}{d}) -> {E}{c} sent10: (x): ¬({D}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{B}{a} sent11: (x): ¬{A}x -> {AA}x sent12: ¬{CD}{hb} -> ({AB}{hb} & {IC}{hb}) sent13: (x): ¬{ED}x -> ({G}x & {EH}x) sent14: ¬{A}{jb} sent15: (x): ¬({B}x v ¬{A}x) -> {AA}x sent16: (x): ¬{J}x
|
[
"sent6 -> int1: the coverlet is a Herr and it is a kind of a cyan if it is not a Bishkek.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the coverlet is a Herr and it is a cyan.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int1 & sent8 -> int2: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the knitting is a Herr is correct.
|
{AA}{hr}
|
[
"sent15 -> int3: if the fact that the knitting is ferric and/or it is not a Bishkek does not hold it is a kind of a Herr.; sent5 -> int4: that the knitting is ferric or it is not a Bishkek or both is not correct if it does chondrify row.;"
] | 4 | 3 | 3 | 14 | 0 | 14 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the coverlet is a cyan. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not ferric then it is a cyan that is a kind of a Bishkek. sent2: if the coverlet is not a Bishkek then it is a kind of a Herr. sent3: the coverlet is a Herr. sent4: the fact that the label chondrifies transferee but it is not a peripheral is wrong if it does not strengthen Mastotermitidae. sent5: if something does chondrify row then the fact that it is ferric or not a Bishkek or both does not hold. sent6: something is a kind of a Herr and it is a cyan if it is not a Bishkek. sent7: something is unwelcome thing that does not strengthen Mastotermitidae if it is not a saltbush. sent8: the coverlet is not a Bishkek. sent9: the tobogganist is abasic if that the label chondrifies transferee and is not peripheral is wrong. sent10: if there exists something such that the fact that it invades tobogganist and it does not chondrify row is not true then the pruning is not ferric. sent11: something is a Herr if it is not a kind of a Bishkek. sent12: if the diviner is not metastatic it is a cyan and osculates. sent13: a non-maxillary thing does chondrify transferee and is a Barbadian. sent14: the Durham is not a kind of a Bishkek. sent15: something is a Herr if that either it is ferric or it is not a Bishkek or both is incorrect. sent16: everything is not a kind of a saltbush. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 -> int1: the coverlet is a Herr and it is a kind of a cyan if it is not a Bishkek.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the coverlet is a Herr and it is a cyan.; int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there is something such that if it is not unstatesmanlike the fact that it is not Levitical and does not chondrify sabbat is not right is not true.
|
¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x))
|
sent1: if the electrocutioner is not a ecrevisse then that it is not a kind of a telomere and it is not a call is not correct. sent2: there exists something such that if it is not dermatologic it is not proud and is not a springbok. sent3: if something is not unstatesmanlike then the fact that it is not Levitical and does not chondrify sabbat is incorrect.
|
sent1: ¬{AT}{aa} -> ¬(¬{GB}{aa} & ¬{GU}{aa}) sent2: (Ex): ¬{ET}x -> (¬{EF}x & ¬{EU}x) sent3: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
|
[
"sent3 -> int1: if that the electrocutioner is not unstatesmanlike is right then that it is non-Levitical thing that does not chondrify sabbat is not true.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if it is not unstatesmanlike the fact that it is not Levitical and does not chondrify sabbat is not right is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: if the electrocutioner is not a ecrevisse then that it is not a kind of a telomere and it is not a call is not correct. sent2: there exists something such that if it is not dermatologic it is not proud and is not a springbok. sent3: if something is not unstatesmanlike then the fact that it is not Levitical and does not chondrify sabbat is incorrect. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> int1: if that the electrocutioner is not unstatesmanlike is right then that it is non-Levitical thing that does not chondrify sabbat is not true.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a wealth is not incorrect the fact that it is avifaunal and/or it is not contralateral is not correct.
|
(Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x v ¬{AB}x)
|
sent1: the fact that something does fuse huck or it is not a XX or both is not right if that it is not a modernization is correct. sent2: there exists something such that if it is a Methodism then that it does invade bacon and/or it is not a kind of a fear is incorrect. sent3: there is something such that if the fact that it does sob is true the fact that it is an implementation and/or it is not ectomorphic is false. sent4: that either the bacon is contralateral or it does not chondrify Arminianism or both is wrong if the fact that it is not a fear is correct. sent5: something is avifaunal or it is not contralateral or both if it is not a kind of a wealth. sent6: there exists something such that if it is not a wealth it is contralateral. sent7: there is something such that if it is not a surrealism it does chondrify clumber or is not a kind of a Polyangium or both. sent8: there exists something such that if it is not Shavian either it is a snake or it is not episcopal or both. sent9: if the bacon is a wealth the fact that either it is avifaunal or it is not contralateral or both is false. sent10: the fact that something is avifaunal or it is not contralateral or both does not hold if it is a wealth. sent11: the bacon is not avifaunal if it is not a kind of a wealth. sent12: there is something such that if it does not strengthen Pharsalus the fact that it does take or it is not a kind of a triphammer or both is not correct. sent13: if the bacon does not strengthen Pharsalus that it is testate or it is a wealth or both is false. sent14: the bacon is avifaunal or is not contralateral or both if it is not a wealth. sent15: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a wealth that either it is avifaunal or it is contralateral or both is not true. sent16: there exists something such that if it does not fuse Micawber that it does invade Lenard and/or it is not leprous is incorrect.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{AR}x -> ¬({EG}x v ¬{EK}x) sent2: (Ex): {DC}x -> ¬({AC}x v ¬{BT}x) sent3: (Ex): {AI}x -> ¬({HM}x v ¬{DN}x) sent4: ¬{BT}{aa} -> ¬({AB}{aa} v ¬{EM}{aa}) sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent6: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> {AB}x sent7: (Ex): ¬{ID}x -> ({JA}x v ¬{EP}x) sent8: (Ex): ¬{FG}x -> ({BE}x v ¬{IE}x) sent9: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent10: (x): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent11: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬{AA}{aa} sent12: (Ex): ¬{H}x -> ¬({GF}x v ¬{CU}x) sent13: ¬{H}{aa} -> ¬({AN}{aa} v {A}{aa}) sent14: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent15: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x v {AB}x) sent16: (Ex): ¬{AL}x -> ¬({GR}x v ¬{BN}x)
|
[] |
[] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | null | 16 | 0 | 16 |
UNKNOWN
| null |
UNKNOWN
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a wealth is not incorrect the fact that it is avifaunal and/or it is not contralateral is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something does fuse huck or it is not a XX or both is not right if that it is not a modernization is correct. sent2: there exists something such that if it is a Methodism then that it does invade bacon and/or it is not a kind of a fear is incorrect. sent3: there is something such that if the fact that it does sob is true the fact that it is an implementation and/or it is not ectomorphic is false. sent4: that either the bacon is contralateral or it does not chondrify Arminianism or both is wrong if the fact that it is not a fear is correct. sent5: something is avifaunal or it is not contralateral or both if it is not a kind of a wealth. sent6: there exists something such that if it is not a wealth it is contralateral. sent7: there is something such that if it is not a surrealism it does chondrify clumber or is not a kind of a Polyangium or both. sent8: there exists something such that if it is not Shavian either it is a snake or it is not episcopal or both. sent9: if the bacon is a wealth the fact that either it is avifaunal or it is not contralateral or both is false. sent10: the fact that something is avifaunal or it is not contralateral or both does not hold if it is a wealth. sent11: the bacon is not avifaunal if it is not a kind of a wealth. sent12: there is something such that if it does not strengthen Pharsalus the fact that it does take or it is not a kind of a triphammer or both is not correct. sent13: if the bacon does not strengthen Pharsalus that it is testate or it is a wealth or both is false. sent14: the bacon is avifaunal or is not contralateral or both if it is not a wealth. sent15: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a wealth that either it is avifaunal or it is contralateral or both is not true. sent16: there exists something such that if it does not fuse Micawber that it does invade Lenard and/or it is not leprous is incorrect. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the nonfictionalness does not occur.
|
¬{C}
|
sent1: the nonfictionalness is prevented by that the strengthening dryopithecine occurs and the discoloration does not occur. sent2: if the fact that the fact that the impressionist occurs but the misdirection does not occur is wrong hold then the strengthening dryopithecine occurs. sent3: the discoloration does not occur. sent4: that the impressionist but not the misdirection occurs is not correct.
|
sent1: ({B} & ¬{A}) -> ¬{C} sent2: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent3: ¬{A} sent4: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB})
|
[
"sent2 & sent4 -> int1: the strengthening dryopithecine happens.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the strengthening dryopithecine happens and the discoloration does not occur.; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 & sent4 -> int1: {B}; int1 & sent3 -> int2: ({B} & ¬{A}); int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the nonfictionalness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the nonfictionalness is prevented by that the strengthening dryopithecine occurs and the discoloration does not occur. sent2: if the fact that the fact that the impressionist occurs but the misdirection does not occur is wrong hold then the strengthening dryopithecine occurs. sent3: the discoloration does not occur. sent4: that the impressionist but not the misdirection occurs is not correct. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 & sent4 -> int1: the strengthening dryopithecine happens.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the strengthening dryopithecine happens and the discoloration does not occur.; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the unpaidness happens.
|
{A}
|
sent1: that the chondrifying leanness happens is correct. sent2: that the concaveness does not occur is triggered by that both the prolapse and the makeshift occurs. sent3: the crocheting does not occur. sent4: the hydropathy does not occur if the chondrifying Paracheirodon happens. sent5: if not the impacting but the strengthening mange occurs the kneading does not occur. sent6: the prolapse does not occur if the fact that the transcendentalness does not occur but the prolapse happens is false. sent7: if the Latinizing does not occur the horticulturalness does not occur and the laddering happens. sent8: if the kneading does not occur then the fact that the non-transcendentalness and the prolapse happens is incorrect. sent9: if that the uncutness and the Latinizing happens is not correct then the Latinizing does not occur. sent10: if the prolapse does not occur the unpaidness happens and the invading achondrite occurs. sent11: the prolapsing does not occur if the fact that the radiating and the prolapsing happens is not right. sent12: the prolapse but not the makeshift occurs. sent13: the fact that the makeshift does not occur is not incorrect. sent14: the strengthening honeycomb occurs but the chondrifying vulvectomy does not occur. sent15: the non-horticulturalness brings about that the titillation does not occur but the bottling happens. sent16: that the cut does not occur and the Latinizing happens is not right if the hydropathy does not occur. sent17: the bagatelle happens. sent18: the kneading does not occur if that not the strengthening mange but the impact happens is false. sent19: the makeshift does not occur and the transcendentalness occurs if the kneading does not occur. sent20: the concaveness does not occur if the prolapsing happens but the makeshift does not occur. sent21: both the unpaidness and the concaveness occurs if the prolapse does not occur. sent22: that not the strengthening mange but the impacting occurs is false if the titillation does not occur. sent23: the concaveness happens if the unpaidness happens.
|
sent1: {EB} sent2: ({C} & {D}) -> ¬{B} sent3: ¬{ED} sent4: {Q} -> ¬{O} sent5: (¬{H} & {I}) -> ¬{G} sent6: ¬(¬{F} & {C}) -> ¬{C} sent7: ¬{N} -> (¬{L} & {M}) sent8: ¬{G} -> ¬(¬{F} & {C}) sent9: ¬(¬{P} & {N}) -> ¬{N} sent10: ¬{C} -> ({A} & {JB}) sent11: ¬({E} & {C}) -> ¬{C} sent12: ({C} & ¬{D}) sent13: ¬{D} sent14: ({JI} & ¬{FK}) sent15: ¬{L} -> (¬{J} & {K}) sent16: ¬{O} -> ¬(¬{P} & {N}) sent17: {EN} sent18: ¬(¬{I} & {H}) -> ¬{G} sent19: ¬{G} -> (¬{D} & {F}) sent20: ({C} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{B} sent21: ¬{C} -> ({A} & {B}) sent22: ¬{J} -> ¬(¬{I} & {H}) sent23: {A} -> {B}
|
[
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the unpaidness occurs is true.; sent23 & assump1 -> int1: the concaveness occurs.; sent20 & sent12 -> int2: the concaveness does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"void -> assump1: {A}; sent23 & assump1 -> int1: {B}; sent20 & sent12 -> int2: ¬{B}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the invading achondrite but not the epilithicness occurs.
|
({JB} & ¬{IR})
|
[] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 20 | 0 | 20 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the unpaidness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: that the chondrifying leanness happens is correct. sent2: that the concaveness does not occur is triggered by that both the prolapse and the makeshift occurs. sent3: the crocheting does not occur. sent4: the hydropathy does not occur if the chondrifying Paracheirodon happens. sent5: if not the impacting but the strengthening mange occurs the kneading does not occur. sent6: the prolapse does not occur if the fact that the transcendentalness does not occur but the prolapse happens is false. sent7: if the Latinizing does not occur the horticulturalness does not occur and the laddering happens. sent8: if the kneading does not occur then the fact that the non-transcendentalness and the prolapse happens is incorrect. sent9: if that the uncutness and the Latinizing happens is not correct then the Latinizing does not occur. sent10: if the prolapse does not occur the unpaidness happens and the invading achondrite occurs. sent11: the prolapsing does not occur if the fact that the radiating and the prolapsing happens is not right. sent12: the prolapse but not the makeshift occurs. sent13: the fact that the makeshift does not occur is not incorrect. sent14: the strengthening honeycomb occurs but the chondrifying vulvectomy does not occur. sent15: the non-horticulturalness brings about that the titillation does not occur but the bottling happens. sent16: that the cut does not occur and the Latinizing happens is not right if the hydropathy does not occur. sent17: the bagatelle happens. sent18: the kneading does not occur if that not the strengthening mange but the impact happens is false. sent19: the makeshift does not occur and the transcendentalness occurs if the kneading does not occur. sent20: the concaveness does not occur if the prolapsing happens but the makeshift does not occur. sent21: both the unpaidness and the concaveness occurs if the prolapse does not occur. sent22: that not the strengthening mange but the impacting occurs is false if the titillation does not occur. sent23: the concaveness happens if the unpaidness happens. ; $proof$ =
|
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the unpaidness occurs is true.; sent23 & assump1 -> int1: the concaveness occurs.; sent20 & sent12 -> int2: the concaveness does not occur.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if the fact that it is a archiannelid and it is uncousinly is not correct the fact that it is not saponaceous is not false.
|
(Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x
|
sent1: the wetland is not saponaceous if that it is a archiannelid and is uncousinly is false. sent2: if the fact that the fact that something strengthens gob and is saponaceous is correct is incorrect then it is not a kind of an arroyo.
|
sent1: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent2: (x): ¬({BH}x & {B}x) -> ¬{CJ}x
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
if the fact that the wetland does strengthen gob and is saponaceous is not right then it is not an arroyo.
|
¬({BH}{aa} & {B}{aa}) -> ¬{CJ}{aa}
|
[
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if the fact that it is a archiannelid and it is uncousinly is not correct the fact that it is not saponaceous is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: the wetland is not saponaceous if that it is a archiannelid and is uncousinly is false. sent2: if the fact that the fact that something strengthens gob and is saponaceous is correct is incorrect then it is not a kind of an arroyo. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the amalgamativeness does not occur.
|
¬{D}
|
sent1: that the amalgamativeness or the stupidity or both occurs is false if the chondrifying firstborn does not occur. sent2: if the deification does not occur the fact that the fusing amaretto does not occur or the Kazakhstaniness occurs or both is not correct. sent3: the reexamination brings about that the strengthening Peziza but not the working occurs. sent4: that the chondrifying Downing does not occur prevents the amalgamativeness. sent5: if the fact that the amalgamativeness does not occur and the chondrifying Downing happens is not correct the fact that the amalgamativeness occurs is not false. sent6: if the reversedness does not occur the fact that the ergotropicness and the chondrifying Downing happens does not hold. sent7: if that the fusing amaretto does not occur and/or the Kazakhstaniness occurs is false then the evening does not occur. sent8: the damascene does not occur if the algebraicness does not occur. sent9: if that the chondrifying Downing and the reversedness occurs is false then the bow-wow does not occur. sent10: the abscondment happens and the lasting happens if the damasceneness does not occur. sent11: if the works does not occur then the asynchronousness happens and the chondrifying firstborn does not occur. sent12: if the evening does not occur then the reexamination and the veinalness happens. sent13: that both the chondrifying Downing and the reversedness happens is not correct if the ergotropicness does not occur. sent14: the amalgamativeness does not occur if the fact that the ergotropicness occurs and the chondrifying Downing occurs is not true. sent15: that the ergotropicness occurs and the stupidity happens is brought about by that the chondrifying firstborn does not occur. sent16: if that the fact that the amalgamativeness or the stupidity or both happens is right is not true then the ergotropicness does not occur. sent17: if the practicalness happens and the releasing occurs the reversedness does not occur. sent18: that both the non-amalgamativeness and the chondrifying Downing happens is false if the reversedness occurs. sent19: if the abscondment occurs that the deification occurs but the drunkenness does not occur is false. sent20: the docileness does not occur. sent21: that the practicalness and the release happens is not false. sent22: the deification does not occur if the fact that the deification occurs but the drunkenness does not occur is not true.
|
sent1: ¬{F} -> ¬({D} v {E}) sent2: ¬{O} -> ¬(¬{N} v {M}) sent3: {J} -> ({I} & ¬{H}) sent4: ¬{A} -> ¬{D} sent5: ¬(¬{D} & {A}) -> {D} sent6: ¬{B} -> ¬({C} & {A}) sent7: ¬(¬{N} v {M}) -> ¬{L} sent8: ¬{T} -> ¬{S} sent9: ¬({A} & {B}) -> ¬{EQ} sent10: ¬{S} -> ({Q} & {R}) sent11: ¬{H} -> ({G} & ¬{F}) sent12: ¬{L} -> ({J} & {K}) sent13: ¬{C} -> ¬({A} & {B}) sent14: ¬({C} & {A}) -> ¬{D} sent15: ¬{F} -> ({C} & {E}) sent16: ¬({D} v {E}) -> ¬{C} sent17: ({AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent18: {B} -> ¬(¬{D} & {A}) sent19: {Q} -> ¬({O} & ¬{P}) sent20: ¬{GO} sent21: ({AA} & {AB}) sent22: ¬({O} & ¬{P}) -> ¬{O}
|
[
"sent17 & sent21 -> int1: the reversedness does not occur.; sent6 & int1 -> int2: that the ergotropicness and the chondrifying Downing occurs does not hold.; sent14 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent17 & sent21 -> int1: ¬{B}; sent6 & int1 -> int2: ¬({C} & {A}); sent14 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the amalgamativeness happens.
|
{D}
|
[] | 8 | 3 | 3 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the amalgamativeness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the amalgamativeness or the stupidity or both occurs is false if the chondrifying firstborn does not occur. sent2: if the deification does not occur the fact that the fusing amaretto does not occur or the Kazakhstaniness occurs or both is not correct. sent3: the reexamination brings about that the strengthening Peziza but not the working occurs. sent4: that the chondrifying Downing does not occur prevents the amalgamativeness. sent5: if the fact that the amalgamativeness does not occur and the chondrifying Downing happens is not correct the fact that the amalgamativeness occurs is not false. sent6: if the reversedness does not occur the fact that the ergotropicness and the chondrifying Downing happens does not hold. sent7: if that the fusing amaretto does not occur and/or the Kazakhstaniness occurs is false then the evening does not occur. sent8: the damascene does not occur if the algebraicness does not occur. sent9: if that the chondrifying Downing and the reversedness occurs is false then the bow-wow does not occur. sent10: the abscondment happens and the lasting happens if the damasceneness does not occur. sent11: if the works does not occur then the asynchronousness happens and the chondrifying firstborn does not occur. sent12: if the evening does not occur then the reexamination and the veinalness happens. sent13: that both the chondrifying Downing and the reversedness happens is not correct if the ergotropicness does not occur. sent14: the amalgamativeness does not occur if the fact that the ergotropicness occurs and the chondrifying Downing occurs is not true. sent15: that the ergotropicness occurs and the stupidity happens is brought about by that the chondrifying firstborn does not occur. sent16: if that the fact that the amalgamativeness or the stupidity or both happens is right is not true then the ergotropicness does not occur. sent17: if the practicalness happens and the releasing occurs the reversedness does not occur. sent18: that both the non-amalgamativeness and the chondrifying Downing happens is false if the reversedness occurs. sent19: if the abscondment occurs that the deification occurs but the drunkenness does not occur is false. sent20: the docileness does not occur. sent21: that the practicalness and the release happens is not false. sent22: the deification does not occur if the fact that the deification occurs but the drunkenness does not occur is not true. ; $proof$ =
|
sent17 & sent21 -> int1: the reversedness does not occur.; sent6 & int1 -> int2: that the ergotropicness and the chondrifying Downing occurs does not hold.; sent14 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there exists something such that if the fact that it does not strengthen melphalan and it is a Banjul is incorrect then it does not fuse Morocco.
|
(Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x
|
sent1: the melphalan is not a preconditioned if the fact that it is not a Banjul and it is a kind of a grand is not correct. sent2: the doughnut does not fuse Morocco if it does strengthen melphalan. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not a Banjul it does not fuse Morocco. sent4: there exists something such that if that it strengthens melphalan and is a Banjul is incorrect then it does not fuse Morocco. sent5: there exists something such that if that it does not strengthen melphalan and it is a Banjul is not correct the fact that it does fuse Morocco is right. sent6: if the fact that something does not strengthen melphalan but it is a kind of a Banjul does not hold then it does not fuse Morocco. sent7: there is something such that if it does not strengthen melphalan and it is a kind of a Banjul then that it does not fuse Morocco is true. sent8: if the fact that the doughnut does not strengthen melphalan but it is a Banjul is not right it fuses Morocco. sent9: there exists something such that if it strengthens melphalan the fact that it does not fuse Morocco is right.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{AB}{ae} & {AI}{ae}) -> ¬{GN}{ae} sent2: {AA}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent3: (Ex): ¬{AB}x -> ¬{B}x sent4: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent5: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent6: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent7: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent8: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent9: (Ex): {AA}x -> ¬{B}x
|
[
"sent6 -> int1: the fact that if the fact that the doughnut does not strengthen melphalan but it is the Banjul does not hold then the doughnut does not fuse Morocco is not wrong.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent6 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 8 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if the fact that it does not strengthen melphalan and it is a Banjul is incorrect then it does not fuse Morocco. ; $context$ = sent1: the melphalan is not a preconditioned if the fact that it is not a Banjul and it is a kind of a grand is not correct. sent2: the doughnut does not fuse Morocco if it does strengthen melphalan. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not a Banjul it does not fuse Morocco. sent4: there exists something such that if that it strengthens melphalan and is a Banjul is incorrect then it does not fuse Morocco. sent5: there exists something such that if that it does not strengthen melphalan and it is a Banjul is not correct the fact that it does fuse Morocco is right. sent6: if the fact that something does not strengthen melphalan but it is a kind of a Banjul does not hold then it does not fuse Morocco. sent7: there is something such that if it does not strengthen melphalan and it is a kind of a Banjul then that it does not fuse Morocco is true. sent8: if the fact that the doughnut does not strengthen melphalan but it is a Banjul is not right it fuses Morocco. sent9: there exists something such that if it strengthens melphalan the fact that it does not fuse Morocco is right. ; $proof$ =
|
sent6 -> int1: the fact that if the fact that the doughnut does not strengthen melphalan but it is the Banjul does not hold then the doughnut does not fuse Morocco is not wrong.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the pallium is not an unfamiliarity.
|
¬{C}{aa}
|
sent1: the madrilene is a Goodyera that is a columbo. sent2: the pallium strengthens hybridization if the charcoal does not strengthens hybridization and it is not an unfamiliarity. sent3: something does chondrify Auchincloss and does not strengthen pallium if it is not Prakritic. sent4: the charcoal is a threat but it does not strengthen titillation if the postbox chondrifies Auchincloss. sent5: the charcoal is a kind of an unfamiliarity. sent6: the postbox chondrifies Auchincloss if the write-in does chondrifies Auchincloss but it does not strengthen pallium. sent7: the madrilene chondrifies disappointment if it is a columbo. sent8: the charcoal does not strengthen hybridization. sent9: the chalet does not strengthen hybridization if the fact that the charcoal is a bantam and/or it does not strengthen hybridization is wrong. sent10: if the charcoal does not strengthen hybridization and is not a bantam then the pallium does strengthen hybridization. sent11: the charcoal is a bantam if the pallium is not a bantam and it does not strengthen hybridization. sent12: the pallium does strengthen hybridization if the charcoal strengthen hybridization and is not a kind of a bantam. sent13: if the madrilene chondrifies disappointment then it strengthens projection and it is not Prakritic. sent14: the charcoal is not a kind of a colonizer. sent15: if something does strengthen hybridization then it is not an unfamiliarity. sent16: if the madrilene does strengthen projection and is non-Prakritic then the write-in is not non-Prakritic. sent17: if something is a trigeminal then it is not a swagman. sent18: the charcoal does not strengthen hybridization and it is not a bantam.
|
sent1: ({L}{d} & {K}{d}) sent2: (¬{A}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {A}{aa} sent3: (x): ¬{H}x -> ({F}x & ¬{G}x) sent4: {F}{b} -> ({D}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) sent5: {C}{a} sent6: ({F}{c} & ¬{G}{c}) -> {F}{b} sent7: {K}{d} -> {I}{d} sent8: ¬{A}{a} sent9: ¬({B}{a} v ¬{A}{a}) -> ¬{A}{dk} sent10: (¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> {A}{aa} sent11: (¬{B}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa}) -> {B}{a} sent12: ({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> {A}{aa} sent13: {I}{d} -> ({J}{d} & ¬{H}{d}) sent14: ¬{EH}{a} sent15: (x): {A}x -> ¬{C}x sent16: ({J}{d} & ¬{H}{d}) -> ¬{H}{c} sent17: (x): {BU}x -> ¬{BO}x sent18: (¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a})
|
[
"sent15 -> int1: the pallium is not a kind of an unfamiliarity if the fact that it strengthens hybridization is correct.; sent10 & sent18 -> int2: that the pallium does not strengthen hybridization is not true.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent15 -> int1: {A}{aa} -> ¬{C}{aa}; sent10 & sent18 -> int2: {A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the chalet does not strengthen hybridization hold.
|
¬{A}{dk}
|
[] | 5 | 2 | 2 | 15 | 0 | 15 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the pallium is not an unfamiliarity. ; $context$ = sent1: the madrilene is a Goodyera that is a columbo. sent2: the pallium strengthens hybridization if the charcoal does not strengthens hybridization and it is not an unfamiliarity. sent3: something does chondrify Auchincloss and does not strengthen pallium if it is not Prakritic. sent4: the charcoal is a threat but it does not strengthen titillation if the postbox chondrifies Auchincloss. sent5: the charcoal is a kind of an unfamiliarity. sent6: the postbox chondrifies Auchincloss if the write-in does chondrifies Auchincloss but it does not strengthen pallium. sent7: the madrilene chondrifies disappointment if it is a columbo. sent8: the charcoal does not strengthen hybridization. sent9: the chalet does not strengthen hybridization if the fact that the charcoal is a bantam and/or it does not strengthen hybridization is wrong. sent10: if the charcoal does not strengthen hybridization and is not a bantam then the pallium does strengthen hybridization. sent11: the charcoal is a bantam if the pallium is not a bantam and it does not strengthen hybridization. sent12: the pallium does strengthen hybridization if the charcoal strengthen hybridization and is not a kind of a bantam. sent13: if the madrilene chondrifies disappointment then it strengthens projection and it is not Prakritic. sent14: the charcoal is not a kind of a colonizer. sent15: if something does strengthen hybridization then it is not an unfamiliarity. sent16: if the madrilene does strengthen projection and is non-Prakritic then the write-in is not non-Prakritic. sent17: if something is a trigeminal then it is not a swagman. sent18: the charcoal does not strengthen hybridization and it is not a bantam. ; $proof$ =
|
sent15 -> int1: the pallium is not a kind of an unfamiliarity if the fact that it strengthens hybridization is correct.; sent10 & sent18 -> int2: that the pallium does not strengthen hybridization is not true.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that there is something such that if it is not ponderable then that it is a travel and/or does tout is false does not hold.
|
¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x v {AB}x))
|
sent1: the fact that the necklace travels or it touts or both is not true if it is not ponderable. sent2: there is something such that if it is ponderable then that it does travel or it is a tout or both is not true. sent3: if the esker is not non-monoecious then that it does invade lint or is ponderable or both is wrong. sent4: the necklace does not tout if it is not ponderable. sent5: there is something such that if it is not ponderable either it is a kind of a travel or it touts or both.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent2: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x v {AB}x) sent3: {IQ}{hm} -> ¬({L}{hm} v {A}{hm}) sent4: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬{AB}{aa} sent5: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x v {AB}x)
|
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
DISPROVED
| null |
DISPROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if it is not ponderable then that it is a travel and/or does tout is false does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the necklace travels or it touts or both is not true if it is not ponderable. sent2: there is something such that if it is ponderable then that it does travel or it is a tout or both is not true. sent3: if the esker is not non-monoecious then that it does invade lint or is ponderable or both is wrong. sent4: the necklace does not tout if it is not ponderable. sent5: there is something such that if it is not ponderable either it is a kind of a travel or it touts or both. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the invading synthesis occurs.
|
{A}
|
sent1: the biosystematicsness does not occur if the crop does not occur. sent2: if the fact that that the invading synthesis does not occur and the invading bushel occurs is not wrong is incorrect then the invading bushel does not occur. sent3: the dislodgment does not occur. sent4: the invading synthesis does not occur. sent5: the non-biosystematicsness triggers that the overheating does not occur and the strategicness does not occur. sent6: the bottom does not occur. sent7: the inconstantness does not occur. sent8: the adenocarcinomatousness does not occur. sent9: the pragmatics does not occur if that the strategicness occurs and the overheating occurs is not true. sent10: the self-gratification does not occur. sent11: that not the invading synthesis but the invading bushel occurs does not hold if the pragmaticsness does not occur. sent12: if the overheating does not occur both the invading synthesis and the pragmaticsness happens.
|
sent1: ¬{F} -> ¬{E} sent2: ¬(¬{A} & {IJ}) -> ¬{IJ} sent3: ¬{AN} sent4: ¬{A} sent5: ¬{E} -> (¬{C} & ¬{D}) sent6: ¬{GG} sent7: ¬{L} sent8: ¬{CC} sent9: ¬({D} & {C}) -> ¬{B} sent10: ¬{EK} sent11: ¬{B} -> ¬(¬{A} & {IJ}) sent12: ¬{C} -> ({A} & {B})
|
[
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the invading synthesis happens.
|
{A}
|
[] | 8 | 1 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the invading synthesis occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the biosystematicsness does not occur if the crop does not occur. sent2: if the fact that that the invading synthesis does not occur and the invading bushel occurs is not wrong is incorrect then the invading bushel does not occur. sent3: the dislodgment does not occur. sent4: the invading synthesis does not occur. sent5: the non-biosystematicsness triggers that the overheating does not occur and the strategicness does not occur. sent6: the bottom does not occur. sent7: the inconstantness does not occur. sent8: the adenocarcinomatousness does not occur. sent9: the pragmatics does not occur if that the strategicness occurs and the overheating occurs is not true. sent10: the self-gratification does not occur. sent11: that not the invading synthesis but the invading bushel occurs does not hold if the pragmaticsness does not occur. sent12: if the overheating does not occur both the invading synthesis and the pragmaticsness happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the superhighway is not a gryphon.
|
¬{E}{b}
|
sent1: the subbase is not a warhorse if there is something such that the fact that it is not distrustful is true. sent2: that the subbase is spicate is not wrong if that it does not chondrify apomict and/or is a warhorse is false. sent3: if that the subbase does not strengthen alacrity or does chondrify apomict or both is false then it is an airliner. sent4: the subbase is not a gryphon if something is not spicate. sent5: the fact that the subbase fuses Trondheim is right. sent6: there exists something such that it is a gryphon. sent7: the subbase is a kind of an imagination. sent8: the superhighway is not a gryphon and it is not distrustful if the subbase does not chondrify apomict. sent9: if the subbase is spicate then the superhighway is a gryphon. sent10: if something is not a warhorse the subbase is not a gryphon. sent11: the fact that the subbase does not chondrify apomict and/or is a warhorse is not right if there exists something such that it is not distrustful. sent12: the superhighway invades alarmism if that it does not beset or colors or both does not hold. sent13: the scriptorium is a kind of non-spicate a warhorse if the hawthorn chondrifies superhighway. sent14: there are non-distrustful things. sent15: the fact that the subbase either is not cared-for or is fathomable or both is not right.
|
sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{C}{a} sent2: ¬(¬{B}{a} v {C}{a}) -> {D}{a} sent3: ¬(¬{HB}{a} v {B}{a}) -> {AH}{a} sent4: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬{E}{a} sent5: {GQ}{a} sent6: (Ex): {E}x sent7: {EL}{a} sent8: ¬{B}{a} -> (¬{E}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent9: {D}{a} -> {E}{b} sent10: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬{E}{a} sent11: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} v {C}{a}) sent12: ¬(¬{HM}{b} v {FM}{b}) -> {JE}{b} sent13: {F}{d} -> (¬{D}{c} & {C}{c}) sent14: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent15: ¬(¬{DE}{a} v {CE}{a})
|
[
"sent14 & sent11 -> int1: the fact that the subbase does not chondrify apomict or it is a warhorse or both is wrong.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the fact that the subbase is spicate hold.; int2 & sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent14 & sent11 -> int1: ¬(¬{B}{a} v {C}{a}); int1 & sent2 -> int2: {D}{a}; int2 & sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the superhighway is not a gryphon.
|
¬{E}{b}
|
[] | 7 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the superhighway is not a gryphon. ; $context$ = sent1: the subbase is not a warhorse if there is something such that the fact that it is not distrustful is true. sent2: that the subbase is spicate is not wrong if that it does not chondrify apomict and/or is a warhorse is false. sent3: if that the subbase does not strengthen alacrity or does chondrify apomict or both is false then it is an airliner. sent4: the subbase is not a gryphon if something is not spicate. sent5: the fact that the subbase fuses Trondheim is right. sent6: there exists something such that it is a gryphon. sent7: the subbase is a kind of an imagination. sent8: the superhighway is not a gryphon and it is not distrustful if the subbase does not chondrify apomict. sent9: if the subbase is spicate then the superhighway is a gryphon. sent10: if something is not a warhorse the subbase is not a gryphon. sent11: the fact that the subbase does not chondrify apomict and/or is a warhorse is not right if there exists something such that it is not distrustful. sent12: the superhighway invades alarmism if that it does not beset or colors or both does not hold. sent13: the scriptorium is a kind of non-spicate a warhorse if the hawthorn chondrifies superhighway. sent14: there are non-distrustful things. sent15: the fact that the subbase either is not cared-for or is fathomable or both is not right. ; $proof$ =
|
sent14 & sent11 -> int1: the fact that the subbase does not chondrify apomict or it is a warhorse or both is wrong.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the fact that the subbase is spicate hold.; int2 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the artiodactyl does not occur.
|
¬{B}
|
sent1: that the sluicing occurs prevents the non-artiodactylness. sent2: the fact that the artiodactyl but not the sluicing occurs is not true if the painting happens. sent3: that the strengthening Calvary happens is triggered by that the invading regularity occurs. sent4: the fact that that the paint does not occur and/or that the strengthening unicorn does not occur hold is brought about by that the fusing Tiu does not occur. sent5: the sluicing happens.
|
sent1: {A} -> {B} sent2: {C} -> ¬({B} & ¬{A}) sent3: {AF} -> {AT} sent4: ¬{E} -> (¬{C} v ¬{D}) sent5: {A}
|
[
"sent1 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent1 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the artiodactyl does not occur.
|
¬{B}
|
[] | 6 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the artiodactyl does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the sluicing occurs prevents the non-artiodactylness. sent2: the fact that the artiodactyl but not the sluicing occurs is not true if the painting happens. sent3: that the strengthening Calvary happens is triggered by that the invading regularity occurs. sent4: the fact that that the paint does not occur and/or that the strengthening unicorn does not occur hold is brought about by that the fusing Tiu does not occur. sent5: the sluicing happens. ; $proof$ =
|
sent1 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that the oscillator is both a lector and an altitude is false.
|
¬({C}{a} & {B}{a})
|
sent1: the fact that the oscillator does grit and it is a lector is not correct. sent2: the fact that there is something such that the fact that it is an altitude is correct is not incorrect. sent3: the oscillator invades quinone. sent4: the Bailey is a lector. sent5: that there is something such that it is fugal is true. sent6: if there is something such that it is a kind of a lector that the Bailey is arteriosclerotic and it is an altitude does not hold. sent7: the chimney is a lector. sent8: the Bailey is arteriosclerotic. sent9: there exists something such that it is a lector. sent10: something does freshen. sent11: the downhill is a lector. sent12: if something is a lector the fact that the Bailey is an altitude and is arteriosclerotic does not hold. sent13: that the oscillator is a lector and it is an altitude does not hold if something is arteriosclerotic. sent14: the fact that the oscillator is a lector and is arteriosclerotic is not right if something is an altitude. sent15: there is something such that that it does philander is not wrong.
|
sent1: ¬({DI}{a} & {C}{a}) sent2: (Ex): {B}x sent3: {GP}{a} sent4: {C}{aa} sent5: (Ex): {CT}x sent6: (x): {C}x -> ¬({A}{aa} & {B}{aa}) sent7: {C}{hu} sent8: {A}{aa} sent9: (Ex): {C}x sent10: (Ex): {FC}x sent11: {C}{el} sent12: (x): {C}x -> ¬({B}{aa} & {A}{aa}) sent13: (x): {A}x -> ¬({C}{a} & {B}{a}) sent14: (x): {B}x -> ¬({C}{a} & {A}{a}) sent15: (Ex): {BO}x
|
[
"sent8 -> int1: something is arteriosclerotic.; int1 & sent13 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent8 -> int1: (Ex): {A}x; int1 & sent13 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 2 | 2 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the oscillator is both a lector and an altitude is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the oscillator does grit and it is a lector is not correct. sent2: the fact that there is something such that the fact that it is an altitude is correct is not incorrect. sent3: the oscillator invades quinone. sent4: the Bailey is a lector. sent5: that there is something such that it is fugal is true. sent6: if there is something such that it is a kind of a lector that the Bailey is arteriosclerotic and it is an altitude does not hold. sent7: the chimney is a lector. sent8: the Bailey is arteriosclerotic. sent9: there exists something such that it is a lector. sent10: something does freshen. sent11: the downhill is a lector. sent12: if something is a lector the fact that the Bailey is an altitude and is arteriosclerotic does not hold. sent13: that the oscillator is a lector and it is an altitude does not hold if something is arteriosclerotic. sent14: the fact that the oscillator is a lector and is arteriosclerotic is not right if something is an altitude. sent15: there is something such that that it does philander is not wrong. ; $proof$ =
|
sent8 -> int1: something is arteriosclerotic.; int1 & sent13 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that either the humanity is not a Rawalpindi or it is not a sunburned or both is false.
|
¬(¬{C}{b} v ¬{D}{b})
|
sent1: either the colter is not a Rawalpindi or it is a kind of a candy or both. sent2: if the colter sunburns either the humanity invades jabberwocky or it is not a candy or both. sent3: if the fact that something does not invade jabberwocky and it is not a kind of a Rawalpindi is not true it is a Rawalpindi. sent4: if the fact that the colter is a Rawalpindi is correct then the humanity is a candy and/or it does not invade jabberwocky. sent5: the colter either does not fuse portcullis or does not strengthen Confederacy or both. sent6: the colter does not invade jabberwocky if the loch is not a straggler. sent7: if the colter invades jabberwocky then the humanity is not a kind of a Rawalpindi and/or it is not a candy. sent8: the colter is not a candy and/or it is not a Rawalpindi. sent9: the humanity is a Rawalpindi or it is not a candy or both. sent10: if the colter does not invade jabberwocky then the humanity is not a candy. sent11: either the humanity is not a Rawalpindi or it is not a sunburned or both if the fact that the colter is a candy is right. sent12: the colter is a candy but it does not invade jabberwocky. sent13: if the humanity is a candy then either the colter is not a sunburned or it is a Rawalpindi or both.
|
sent1: (¬{C}{a} v {A}{a}) sent2: {D}{a} -> ({B}{b} v ¬{A}{b}) sent3: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) -> {C}x sent4: {C}{a} -> ({A}{b} v ¬{B}{b}) sent5: (¬{EO}{a} v ¬{CI}{a}) sent6: ¬{E}{c} -> ¬{B}{a} sent7: {B}{a} -> (¬{C}{b} v ¬{A}{b}) sent8: (¬{A}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) sent9: ({C}{b} v ¬{A}{b}) sent10: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬{A}{b} sent11: {A}{a} -> (¬{C}{b} v ¬{D}{b}) sent12: ({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent13: {A}{b} -> (¬{D}{a} v {C}{a})
|
[
"sent12 -> int1: the colter is a kind of a candy.; sent11 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent12 -> int1: {A}{a}; sent11 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the urn is a Rawalpindi.
|
{C}{hr}
|
[
"sent3 -> int2: the urn is a Rawalpindi if the fact that it does not invade jabberwocky and it is not a Rawalpindi is false.;"
] | 4 | 2 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that either the humanity is not a Rawalpindi or it is not a sunburned or both is false. ; $context$ = sent1: either the colter is not a Rawalpindi or it is a kind of a candy or both. sent2: if the colter sunburns either the humanity invades jabberwocky or it is not a candy or both. sent3: if the fact that something does not invade jabberwocky and it is not a kind of a Rawalpindi is not true it is a Rawalpindi. sent4: if the fact that the colter is a Rawalpindi is correct then the humanity is a candy and/or it does not invade jabberwocky. sent5: the colter either does not fuse portcullis or does not strengthen Confederacy or both. sent6: the colter does not invade jabberwocky if the loch is not a straggler. sent7: if the colter invades jabberwocky then the humanity is not a kind of a Rawalpindi and/or it is not a candy. sent8: the colter is not a candy and/or it is not a Rawalpindi. sent9: the humanity is a Rawalpindi or it is not a candy or both. sent10: if the colter does not invade jabberwocky then the humanity is not a candy. sent11: either the humanity is not a Rawalpindi or it is not a sunburned or both if the fact that the colter is a candy is right. sent12: the colter is a candy but it does not invade jabberwocky. sent13: if the humanity is a candy then either the colter is not a sunburned or it is a Rawalpindi or both. ; $proof$ =
|
sent12 -> int1: the colter is a kind of a candy.; sent11 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that the tobogganist fuses hartebeest is not right.
|
¬{B}{c}
|
sent1: the reinforcement is not a kind of a recoil. sent2: if the reinforcement is not a kind of a Thorpe the tobogganist is not a ceriman and is not a recoil. sent3: the fetoscope is not a greenmail and it does not fuse ready if the reinforcement is not a recoil. sent4: if that the fetoscope is not a kind of a greenmail and does not fuse ready hold then the tobogganist does not fuse hartebeest. sent5: the fetoscope is not a kind of a recoil. sent6: if the fetoscope is a kind of a greenmail but it does not fuse ready the tobogganist does not fuse hartebeest. sent7: the fetoscope does not fuse hartebeest and it is not a recoil if that the reinforcement is not a greenmail hold. sent8: if something is not seedless then the fact that it is a Thorpe and it is extraordinary is incorrect. sent9: the fetoscope is not a greenmail if the fact that the reinforcement does not recoil is true.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{a} sent2: ¬{D}{a} -> (¬{C}{c} & ¬{A}{c}) sent3: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent4: (¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{c} sent5: ¬{A}{b} sent6: ({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{c} sent7: ¬{AA}{a} -> (¬{B}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent8: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬({D}x & {F}x) sent9: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{AA}{b}
|
[
"sent3 & sent1 -> int1: the fetoscope is not a greenmail and does not fuse ready.; int1 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent1 -> int1: (¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}); int1 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] |
that the tobogganist does not fuse hartebeest is not correct.
|
{B}{c}
|
[
"sent8 -> int2: the fact that the fetoscope is a Thorpe and it is not non-extraordinary does not hold if it is seedy.;"
] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 6 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that the tobogganist fuses hartebeest is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the reinforcement is not a kind of a recoil. sent2: if the reinforcement is not a kind of a Thorpe the tobogganist is not a ceriman and is not a recoil. sent3: the fetoscope is not a greenmail and it does not fuse ready if the reinforcement is not a recoil. sent4: if that the fetoscope is not a kind of a greenmail and does not fuse ready hold then the tobogganist does not fuse hartebeest. sent5: the fetoscope is not a kind of a recoil. sent6: if the fetoscope is a kind of a greenmail but it does not fuse ready the tobogganist does not fuse hartebeest. sent7: the fetoscope does not fuse hartebeest and it is not a recoil if that the reinforcement is not a greenmail hold. sent8: if something is not seedless then the fact that it is a Thorpe and it is extraordinary is incorrect. sent9: the fetoscope is not a greenmail if the fact that the reinforcement does not recoil is true. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent1 -> int1: the fetoscope is not a greenmail and does not fuse ready.; int1 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
that something does neglect and it is a collection is not true.
|
¬((Ex): ({B}x & {C}x))
|
sent1: the porbeagle is a chickenshit. sent2: there is something such that it is a collection. sent3: the snakewood does neglect if it is a chickenshit. sent4: there exists something such that it invades trigonometrician and it is perigonal. sent5: the snakewood is a collection. sent6: something is a chickenshit and it is a collection. sent7: the snakewood is a levanter and a Durante. sent8: the snakewood is a chickenshit. sent9: something is a collection and it is a kind of a chickenshit. sent10: there is something such that it is a kind of a neglect. sent11: the Midland is a kind of a collection if the snakewood is not a collection but it neglects. sent12: something is archegonial.
|
sent1: {A}{hf} sent2: (Ex): {C}x sent3: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent4: (Ex): ({BL}x & {EC}x) sent5: {C}{a} sent6: (Ex): ({A}x & {C}x) sent7: ({HJ}{a} & {CS}{a}) sent8: {A}{a} sent9: (Ex): ({C}x & {A}x) sent10: (Ex): {B}x sent11: (¬{C}{a} & {B}{a}) -> {C}{am} sent12: (Ex): {HT}x
|
[
"sent3 & sent8 -> int1: the snakewood is a neglect.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the snakewood is a neglect that is a collection.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 & sent8 -> int1: {B}{a}; int1 & sent5 -> int2: ({B}{a} & {C}{a}); int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the Midland is a collection.
|
{C}{am}
|
[] | 5 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
DISPROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = that something does neglect and it is a collection is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the porbeagle is a chickenshit. sent2: there is something such that it is a collection. sent3: the snakewood does neglect if it is a chickenshit. sent4: there exists something such that it invades trigonometrician and it is perigonal. sent5: the snakewood is a collection. sent6: something is a chickenshit and it is a collection. sent7: the snakewood is a levanter and a Durante. sent8: the snakewood is a chickenshit. sent9: something is a collection and it is a kind of a chickenshit. sent10: there is something such that it is a kind of a neglect. sent11: the Midland is a kind of a collection if the snakewood is not a collection but it neglects. sent12: something is archegonial. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 & sent8 -> int1: the snakewood is a neglect.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the snakewood is a neglect that is a collection.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the fact that there exists something such that if the fact that it does not scorch and it is a kind of an engraver does not hold then the fact that it is a NRL is right hold.
|
(Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x
|
sent1: if that something is not a stretched but it does strengthen cur is not correct then it is an emoticon. sent2: if the fact that that the capitol is accordant and joyous is not right is true it is a cloveroot. sent3: the fact that the ambulance is a NRL is correct if that it does not scorch and it is an engraver is incorrect. sent4: if the ambulance is not a kind of a scorch and is an engraver then it is a kind of a NRL. sent5: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a scorch and it is an engraver it is a NRL. sent6: if the ambulance is not an engraver but it forms it is protective. sent7: if that the ambulance is not a kind of a scabicide but it is a scorch is false the fact that it is bilious is right.
|
sent1: (x): ¬(¬{DI}x & {BM}x) -> {EA}x sent2: ¬({BL}{gc} & {JH}{gc}) -> {L}{gc} sent3: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent4: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent5: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent6: (¬{AB}{aa} & {HU}{aa}) -> {EU}{aa} sent7: ¬(¬{IS}{aa} & {AA}{aa}) -> {JC}{aa}
|
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
there is something such that if that it is not a stretched and strengthens cur does not hold then it is an emoticon.
|
(Ex): ¬(¬{DI}x & {BM}x) -> {EA}x
|
[
"sent1 -> int1: the cur is a kind of an emoticon if that it is not a stretched and does strengthen cur is not true.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 6 |
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if the fact that it does not scorch and it is a kind of an engraver does not hold then the fact that it is a NRL is right hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something is not a stretched but it does strengthen cur is not correct then it is an emoticon. sent2: if the fact that that the capitol is accordant and joyous is not right is true it is a cloveroot. sent3: the fact that the ambulance is a NRL is correct if that it does not scorch and it is an engraver is incorrect. sent4: if the ambulance is not a kind of a scorch and is an engraver then it is a kind of a NRL. sent5: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a scorch and it is an engraver it is a NRL. sent6: if the ambulance is not an engraver but it forms it is protective. sent7: if that the ambulance is not a kind of a scabicide but it is a scorch is false the fact that it is bilious is right. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
there is something such that if it does not chelate it does strengthen invocation.
|
(Ex): ¬{B}x -> {C}x
|
sent1: there is something such that if it is a chelate then it does strengthen invocation. sent2: if the heart is not a Bessel then it does strengthen invocation. sent3: something does strengthen invocation if it is a chelate. sent4: if something is non-attitudinal then it is a phillipsite. sent5: there exists something such that if it is not controversial it chondrifies Giriama. sent6: something is receptive if the fact that it does not chondrify grange hold. sent7: the brave is a orphrey if it does not strengthen distressed. sent8: the grange strengthens invocation if it is a chelate. sent9: if something does not strengthen unicorn then it reconverts.
|
sent1: (Ex): {B}x -> {C}x sent2: ¬{BP}{l} -> {C}{l} sent3: (x): {B}x -> {C}x sent4: (x): ¬{IB}x -> {DJ}x sent5: (Ex): ¬{ES}x -> {CD}x sent6: (x): ¬{BT}x -> {JG}x sent7: ¬{EO}{ch} -> {EQ}{ch} sent8: {B}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent9: (x): ¬{CA}x -> {DN}x
|
[] |
[] |
there exists something such that if the fact that it does strengthen unicorn is false it reconverts.
|
(Ex): ¬{CA}x -> {DN}x
|
[
"sent9 -> int1: if the baldric does not strengthen unicorn it reconverts.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 2 | null | 9 | 0 | 9 |
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it does not chelate it does strengthen invocation. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is a chelate then it does strengthen invocation. sent2: if the heart is not a Bessel then it does strengthen invocation. sent3: something does strengthen invocation if it is a chelate. sent4: if something is non-attitudinal then it is a phillipsite. sent5: there exists something such that if it is not controversial it chondrifies Giriama. sent6: something is receptive if the fact that it does not chondrify grange hold. sent7: the brave is a orphrey if it does not strengthen distressed. sent8: the grange strengthens invocation if it is a chelate. sent9: if something does not strengthen unicorn then it reconverts. ; $proof$ =
|
__UNKNOWN__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the ion is a storm.
|
{B}{a}
|
sent1: the telephonist is not a storm but it is viral. sent2: the ion is not carbocyclic. sent3: the ion is non-carbocyclic a storm.
|
sent1: (¬{B}{bg} & {E}{bg}) sent2: ¬{A}{a} sent3: (¬{A}{a} & {B}{a})
|
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null |
[] | null | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
PROVED
| null |
PROVED
| null |
$hypothesis$ = the ion is a storm. ; $context$ = sent1: the telephonist is not a storm but it is viral. sent2: the ion is not carbocyclic. sent3: the ion is non-carbocyclic a storm. ; $proof$ =
|
sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the roughing occurs.
|
{B}
|
sent1: if that the lens does not occur and/or the spitting happens is incorrect then the roughlegness happens. sent2: the arterioscleroticness occurs. sent3: the fusing tantalum occurs. sent4: the fact that the invading Dubuque does not occur and the arterioscleroticness does not occur is false if the electrolyticness does not occur. sent5: the fact that either the lens does not occur or the spat does not occur or both does not hold. sent6: that the thermography does not occur is not right. sent7: the strengthening NEC happens. sent8: if the invading noted does not occur the nonattendance and the Tasmanianness occurs. sent9: the crocheting happens if that the pout does not occur and/or the fusing warrigal does not occur is not right. sent10: the fact that either the wine does not occur or the disproof does not occur or both is not true. sent11: that the nosohusialness does not occur and/or the invading Dubuque does not occur does not hold. sent12: the electrolyticness does not occur if the macrobioticsness and/or the electrolyticnessness happens. sent13: that the drop does not occur yields that the macrobioticsness and the unangriness happens. sent14: the Tibetanness happens. sent15: if that not the four-wheelness but the drop occurs is not true the drop does not occur. sent16: the fact that either the non-granuliferousness or the non-four-wheelness or both occurs is not correct. sent17: the spat happens. sent18: if the nonattendance happens the non-roughlegness and the strengthening bunion occurs. sent19: the rabidness happens. sent20: if the fact that either the lens does not occur or the spitting does not occur or both is wrong the roughing occurs.
|
sent1: ¬(¬{AA} v {AB}) -> {B} sent2: {F} sent3: {HK} sent4: ¬{H} -> ¬(¬{G} & ¬{F}) sent5: ¬(¬{AA} v ¬{AB}) sent6: {JC} sent7: {BP} sent8: ¬{E} -> ({C} & {D}) sent9: ¬(¬{CL} v ¬{DP}) -> {IU} sent10: ¬(¬{GT} v ¬{IA}) sent11: ¬(¬{FK} v ¬{G}) sent12: ({I} v ¬{H}) -> ¬{H} sent13: ¬{K} -> ({I} & {J}) sent14: {BG} sent15: ¬(¬{L} & {K}) -> ¬{K} sent16: ¬(¬{CD} v ¬{L}) sent17: {AB} sent18: {C} -> (¬{B} & {A}) sent19: {GR} sent20: ¬(¬{AA} v ¬{AB}) -> {B}
|
[
"sent20 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent20 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the roughleg does not occur.
|
¬{B}
|
[] | 11 | 1 | 1 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the roughing occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the lens does not occur and/or the spitting happens is incorrect then the roughlegness happens. sent2: the arterioscleroticness occurs. sent3: the fusing tantalum occurs. sent4: the fact that the invading Dubuque does not occur and the arterioscleroticness does not occur is false if the electrolyticness does not occur. sent5: the fact that either the lens does not occur or the spat does not occur or both does not hold. sent6: that the thermography does not occur is not right. sent7: the strengthening NEC happens. sent8: if the invading noted does not occur the nonattendance and the Tasmanianness occurs. sent9: the crocheting happens if that the pout does not occur and/or the fusing warrigal does not occur is not right. sent10: the fact that either the wine does not occur or the disproof does not occur or both is not true. sent11: that the nosohusialness does not occur and/or the invading Dubuque does not occur does not hold. sent12: the electrolyticness does not occur if the macrobioticsness and/or the electrolyticnessness happens. sent13: that the drop does not occur yields that the macrobioticsness and the unangriness happens. sent14: the Tibetanness happens. sent15: if that not the four-wheelness but the drop occurs is not true the drop does not occur. sent16: the fact that either the non-granuliferousness or the non-four-wheelness or both occurs is not correct. sent17: the spat happens. sent18: if the nonattendance happens the non-roughlegness and the strengthening bunion occurs. sent19: the rabidness happens. sent20: if the fact that either the lens does not occur or the spitting does not occur or both is wrong the roughing occurs. ; $proof$ =
|
sent20 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
either the complement is not womanly or it is not baptismal or both.
|
(¬{B}{aa} v ¬{C}{aa})
|
sent1: if the complement is a kind of a bound and does not chondrify trilogy then it is not a kind of a Indonesian. sent2: the inamorata is a kind of a Indonesian and is not a gender. sent3: that the complement is non-neuroendocrine and/or it does not chondrify backplate is false. sent4: if something is womanly and does not strengthen ironmongery then it is not a mischance. sent5: that the superhighway is Indonesian is right. sent6: that the complement is baptismal hold. sent7: that either the propanediol is not a synset or it is not a kind of a bound or both does not hold. sent8: if the fact that something is not Indonesian is not false that it is not womanly or it is not baptismal or both does not hold. sent9: the limekiln is a kind of baptismal thing that is not a Sauk. sent10: the complement is a demonstrative but it is not a Romneya. sent11: either the complement is not womanly or it is non-baptismal or both if something is not womanly. sent12: the complement is cryogenics. sent13: everything is a kind of a Joel and is not incomplete. sent14: everything does bind and it does not chondrify trilogy. sent15: everything does not subluxate.
|
sent1: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent2: ({A}{cg} & ¬{CA}{cg}) sent3: ¬(¬{IO}{aa} v ¬{HB}{aa}) sent4: (x): ({B}x & ¬{BK}x) -> ¬{EH}x sent5: {A}{it} sent6: {C}{aa} sent7: ¬(¬{GS}{eb} v ¬{AA}{eb}) sent8: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{B}x v ¬{C}x) sent9: ({C}{al} & ¬{HE}{al}) sent10: ({JD}{aa} & ¬{IJ}{aa}) sent11: (x): ¬{B}x -> (¬{B}{aa} v ¬{C}{aa}) sent12: {GC}{aa} sent13: (x): ({HL}x & ¬{HM}x) sent14: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent15: (x): ¬{CS}x
|
[
"sent14 -> int1: that the complement is a kind of a bound that does not chondrify trilogy hold.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the complement is non-Indonesian.; sent8 -> int3: if the complement is not a Indonesian then the fact that it is not womanly or is not baptismal or both is not correct.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent14 -> int1: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 & sent1 -> int2: ¬{A}{aa}; sent8 -> int3: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{B}{aa} v ¬{C}{aa}); int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the complement is not a mischance if it is womanly thing that does not strengthen ironmongery.
|
({B}{aa} & ¬{BK}{aa}) -> ¬{EH}{aa}
|
[
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 3 | 3 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
DISPROVED
|
PROVED
|
$hypothesis$ = either the complement is not womanly or it is not baptismal or both. ; $context$ = sent1: if the complement is a kind of a bound and does not chondrify trilogy then it is not a kind of a Indonesian. sent2: the inamorata is a kind of a Indonesian and is not a gender. sent3: that the complement is non-neuroendocrine and/or it does not chondrify backplate is false. sent4: if something is womanly and does not strengthen ironmongery then it is not a mischance. sent5: that the superhighway is Indonesian is right. sent6: that the complement is baptismal hold. sent7: that either the propanediol is not a synset or it is not a kind of a bound or both does not hold. sent8: if the fact that something is not Indonesian is not false that it is not womanly or it is not baptismal or both does not hold. sent9: the limekiln is a kind of baptismal thing that is not a Sauk. sent10: the complement is a demonstrative but it is not a Romneya. sent11: either the complement is not womanly or it is non-baptismal or both if something is not womanly. sent12: the complement is cryogenics. sent13: everything is a kind of a Joel and is not incomplete. sent14: everything does bind and it does not chondrify trilogy. sent15: everything does not subluxate. ; $proof$ =
|
sent14 -> int1: that the complement is a kind of a bound that does not chondrify trilogy hold.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the complement is non-Indonesian.; sent8 -> int3: if the complement is not a Indonesian then the fact that it is not womanly or is not baptismal or both is not correct.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
|
DeductionInstance
|
the doxorubicin is not a kind of a feudalism.
|
¬{B}{b}
|
sent1: if the scavenger does not strengthen regularity the doxorubicin is not a feudalism. sent2: the commensal does not shiver and is not atherosclerotic. sent3: there exists something such that it is not atherosclerotic. sent4: the scavenger is not atherosclerotic if that the commensal does not strengthen regularity is correct. sent5: if the fact that something is not a feudalism and it does not strengthen regularity is not correct then it is a kind of a feudalism. sent6: the scavenger does not strengthen regularity if something does not shiver and it is not atherosclerotic. sent7: a peoples is a feudalism.
|
sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent2: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent3: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent4: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬{AB}{a} sent5: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) -> {B}x sent6: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent7: (x): {C}x -> {B}x
|
[
"sent2 -> int1: there exists something such that it does not shiver and is not atherosclerotic.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the scavenger does not strengthen regularity.; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
[
"sent2 -> int1: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x); int1 & sent6 -> int2: ¬{A}{a}; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] |
the diffuser does not strengthen regularity.
|
¬{A}{cp}
|
[
"sent7 -> int3: the diffuser is a kind of a feudalism if it does people.;"
] | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
PROVED
|
UNKNOWN
|
$hypothesis$ = the doxorubicin is not a kind of a feudalism. ; $context$ = sent1: if the scavenger does not strengthen regularity the doxorubicin is not a feudalism. sent2: the commensal does not shiver and is not atherosclerotic. sent3: there exists something such that it is not atherosclerotic. sent4: the scavenger is not atherosclerotic if that the commensal does not strengthen regularity is correct. sent5: if the fact that something is not a feudalism and it does not strengthen regularity is not correct then it is a kind of a feudalism. sent6: the scavenger does not strengthen regularity if something does not shiver and it is not atherosclerotic. sent7: a peoples is a feudalism. ; $proof$ =
|
sent2 -> int1: there exists something such that it does not shiver and is not atherosclerotic.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the scavenger does not strengthen regularity.; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.