hypothesis
stringlengths 11
215
| context
stringlengths 0
2.9k
| hypothesis_formula
stringlengths 3
39
| context_formula
stringlengths 0
905
| proofs
sequence | proof_label
stringclasses 3
values | proofs_formula
sequence | world_assump_label
stringclasses 3
values | 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
| negative_hypothesis
stringlengths 15
193
⌀ | negative_hypothesis_formula
stringlengths 3
37
⌀ | negative_original_tree_depth
int64 0
25
⌀ | negative_proofs
sequence | negative_proof_label
stringclasses 2
values | negative_world_assump_label
stringclasses 2
values | prompt_serial
stringlengths 89
3.09k
| proof_serial
stringlengths 11
654
| version
stringclasses 1
value | premise
stringlengths 0
195
| assumptions
sequence | paraphrased_premises
sequence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
the fact that the upstage does not groom hold. | sent1: if something is non-public but it is a quack it does not groom. sent2: the fact that the upstage is not a kind of a quack hold. sent3: the upstage is not a quack if it does not recommend upstage. sent4: the upstage is a kind of non-public thing that is not a quack if it does not recommend upstage. sent5: if the upstage is not public and is a quack then it does not groom. sent6: if something is both not a public and not a quack then it does not groom. sent7: The upstage does not recommend upstage. | ¬{B}{aa} | sent1: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent2: ¬{AB}{aa} sent3: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬{AB}{aa} sent4: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent5: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent6: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent7: ¬{AC}{ab} | [
"sent6 -> int1: the upstage is not a kind of a groom if it is not a public and not a quack.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent6 -> int1: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa};"
] | UNKNOWN | 2 | null | 5 | 0 | 5 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the upstage does not groom hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is non-public but it is a quack it does not groom. sent2: the fact that the upstage is not a kind of a quack hold. sent3: the upstage is not a quack if it does not recommend upstage. sent4: the upstage is a kind of non-public thing that is not a quack if it does not recommend upstage. sent5: if the upstage is not public and is a quack then it does not groom. sent6: if something is both not a public and not a quack then it does not groom. sent7: The upstage does not recommend upstage. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | if something is both not a public and not a quack then it does not groom. | [] | [
"if something is both not a public and not a quack then it does not groom."
] |
there is something such that if it is a kind of a counterfeit then the fact that it does not blitz or it is a kind of a sunburned or both is correct. | sent1: the rooting is inelegant or is counterfeit or both if it is Jewish. sent2: that the grosgrain is not the blitz and/or it sunburns if the grosgrain is a counterfeit is true. | (Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) | sent1: {BM}{fs} -> (¬{AU}{fs} v {A}{fs}) sent2: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) | [
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is a kind of a counterfeit then the fact that it does not blitz or it is a kind of a sunburned or both is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the rooting is inelegant or is counterfeit or both if it is Jewish. sent2: that the grosgrain is not the blitz and/or it sunburns if the grosgrain is a counterfeit is true. ; $proof$ = | sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that the grosgrain is not the blitz and/or it sunburns if the grosgrain is a counterfeit is true. | [] | [
"that the grosgrain is not the blitz and/or it sunburns if the grosgrain is a counterfeit is true."
] |
that the foster-mother is not Sabahan and it is not a arsenical is incorrect. | sent1: the fact that something is a kind of chiasmal thing that is not irreconcilable is wrong if it is not autoradiographic. sent2: the synovia is not a signaler. sent3: something is not Sabahan if that it stagnates and it is not an ovulation is not true. sent4: the pentode does accompany and is a kind of a radicalism if it is not a LGV. sent5: the synovia is not chiasmal if that the warfarin is chiasmal and is not irreconcilable is not true. sent6: if that the sexton is not a signaler is correct then that the fact that the synovia does stagnate and is not an ovulation does not hold is true. sent7: the fact that the foster-mother is not a Sabahan and it is not a kind of a arsenical is not right if the sexton is a kind of a signaler. sent8: the warfarin is not autoradiographic and is not a stein if the pentode is a radicalism. sent9: that the fact that something is respectful but not a signaler hold is wrong if it backpacks fingertip. sent10: if something is not chiasmal it does backpack fingertip. sent11: if the synovia is not a kind of a Sabahan the fact that the foster-mother is both not Sabahan and not arsenical is correct. sent12: the sexton is not a signaler. sent13: the pentode is not a kind of a LGV. | ¬(¬{B}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) | sent1: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬({F}x & ¬{G}x) sent2: ¬{A}{b} sent3: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent4: ¬{L}{e} -> ({K}{e} & {J}{e}) sent5: ¬({F}{d} & ¬{G}{d}) -> ¬{F}{b} sent6: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent7: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{B}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) sent8: {J}{e} -> (¬{H}{d} & ¬{I}{d}) sent9: (x): {E}x -> ¬({D}x & ¬{A}x) sent10: (x): ¬{F}x -> {E}x sent11: ¬{B}{b} -> (¬{B}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) sent12: ¬{A}{a} sent13: ¬{L}{e} | [
"sent6 & sent12 -> int1: that the synovia stagnates and is not an ovulation is not correct.; sent3 -> int2: if that the synovia does stagnate and is not an ovulation is not true then that it is not a kind of a Sabahan is correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the synovia is not Sabahan.; int3 & sent11 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent6 & sent12 -> int1: ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}); sent3 -> int2: ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬{B}{b}; int3 & sent11 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 9 | 0 | 9 | the fact that the foster-mother is both not Sabahan and not a arsenical does not hold. | ¬(¬{B}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) | 11 | [
"sent9 -> int4: that the synovia is respectful but not a signaler is not right if it does backpack fingertip.; sent10 -> int5: if the synovia is not chiasmal it does backpack fingertip.; sent1 -> int6: that the warfarin is a kind of chiasmal thing that is not irreconcilable is false if it is not autoradiographic.; sent4 & sent13 -> int7: the pentode does accompany and it is a kind of a radicalism.; int7 -> int8: the pentode is a kind of a radicalism.; sent8 & int8 -> int9: the warfarin is not autoradiographic and it is not a stein.; int9 -> int10: the warfarin is not autoradiographic.; int6 & int10 -> int11: the fact that the warfarin is chiasmal and not irreconcilable is not correct.; sent5 & int11 -> int12: the synovia is not chiasmal.; int5 & int12 -> int13: the synovia backpacks fingertip.; int4 & int13 -> int14: the fact that the synovia is a kind of respectful thing that is not a kind of a signaler is false.; int14 -> int15: there exists something such that the fact that it is respectful and it is not a signaler does not hold.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = that the foster-mother is not Sabahan and it is not a arsenical is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is a kind of chiasmal thing that is not irreconcilable is wrong if it is not autoradiographic. sent2: the synovia is not a signaler. sent3: something is not Sabahan if that it stagnates and it is not an ovulation is not true. sent4: the pentode does accompany and is a kind of a radicalism if it is not a LGV. sent5: the synovia is not chiasmal if that the warfarin is chiasmal and is not irreconcilable is not true. sent6: if that the sexton is not a signaler is correct then that the fact that the synovia does stagnate and is not an ovulation does not hold is true. sent7: the fact that the foster-mother is not a Sabahan and it is not a kind of a arsenical is not right if the sexton is a kind of a signaler. sent8: the warfarin is not autoradiographic and is not a stein if the pentode is a radicalism. sent9: that the fact that something is respectful but not a signaler hold is wrong if it backpacks fingertip. sent10: if something is not chiasmal it does backpack fingertip. sent11: if the synovia is not a kind of a Sabahan the fact that the foster-mother is both not Sabahan and not arsenical is correct. sent12: the sexton is not a signaler. sent13: the pentode is not a kind of a LGV. ; $proof$ = | sent6 & sent12 -> int1: that the synovia stagnates and is not an ovulation is not correct.; sent3 -> int2: if that the synovia does stagnate and is not an ovulation is not true then that it is not a kind of a Sabahan is correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the synovia is not Sabahan.; int3 & sent11 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if that the sexton is not a signaler is correct then that the fact that the synovia does stagnate and is not an ovulation does not hold is true. | [
"the sexton is not a signaler.",
"something is not Sabahan if that it stagnates and it is not an ovulation is not true.",
"if the synovia is not a kind of a Sabahan the fact that the foster-mother is both not Sabahan and not arsenical is correct."
] | [
"The fact that the synovia does not hold an ovulation and that the sexton is not a signaler is correct.",
"The fact that the sexton is not a signaler is correct.",
"The fact that the synovia does not hold an ovulation and that the sexton is not a signaler is true."
] |
the councilwoman is a kind of a surrealist. | sent1: everything is a Podilymbus but not a Psithyrus. sent2: something that is conductive is a riposte. sent3: everything is not a reflectance. sent4: if that the Masorete is a laterality is true the Milanese is antennal. sent5: if that the buntal is not a kind of a superscript is right then the bootstrap is reliable and it recommends Hirundo. sent6: the Masorete is a laterality if the zero is a kind of a laterality. sent7: if something that is a kind of a Podilymbus is not a Psithyrus it is not a surrealist. sent8: if something is antennal then it does not recommend population or does not recommend pliability or both. sent9: if the fact that the hearer is not an ether and it is not conductive is false then the councilwoman is conductive. sent10: everything is not a Psithyrus. sent11: the bootstrap does boat Ficus if it does recommend Hirundo. sent12: the councilwoman does not recommend Masorete. sent13: the masterpiece serves unattractiveness but it does not backpack nosology. sent14: the shawm is not a boulder if the Milanese does not recommend population and/or it does not recommend pliability. sent15: something is not an apparition if it elaborates and it is not a muslin. sent16: everything is not a kind of a graviton. sent17: the buntal is not a superscript. sent18: the councilwoman is not a absconder. sent19: that something is a kind of a surrealist is correct if it does riposte. sent20: if the shawm is not a boulder the fact that the hearer is not an ether and it is not conductive is wrong. sent21: the councilwoman does not serve bootstrap if it is a surrealist and it is impalpable. | {A}{aa} | sent1: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent2: (x): {C}x -> {B}x sent3: (x): ¬{AJ}x sent4: {I}{d} -> {H}{c} sent5: ¬{M}{g} -> ({L}{f} & {K}{f}) sent6: {I}{e} -> {I}{d} sent7: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}x sent8: (x): {H}x -> (¬{F}x v ¬{G}x) sent9: ¬(¬{D}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {C}{aa} sent10: (x): ¬{AB}x sent11: {K}{f} -> {J}{f} sent12: ¬{IJ}{aa} sent13: ({FU}{ha} & ¬{FI}{ha}) sent14: (¬{F}{c} v ¬{G}{c}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent15: (x): ({FO}x & ¬{IN}x) -> ¬{CC}x sent16: (x): ¬{U}x sent17: ¬{M}{g} sent18: ¬{GB}{aa} sent19: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent20: ¬{E}{b} -> ¬(¬{D}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent21: ({A}{aa} & {CK}{aa}) -> ¬{HA}{aa} | [
"sent1 -> int1: the councilwoman is a Podilymbus but it is not a Psithyrus.; sent7 -> int2: the fact that the councilwoman is not a surrealist is true if it is both a Podilymbus and not a Psithyrus.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent1 -> int1: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); sent7 -> int2: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 19 | 0 | 19 | the councilwoman is a surrealist. | {A}{aa} | 13 | [
"sent19 -> int3: if the fact that the councilwoman ripostes is not incorrect then it is a kind of a surrealist.; sent2 -> int4: the councilwoman does riposte if it is conductive.; sent8 -> int5: the Milanese does not recommend population and/or it does not recommend pliability if it is antennal.; sent5 & sent17 -> int6: the bootstrap is reliable and does recommend Hirundo.; int6 -> int7: the bootstrap recommends Hirundo.; sent11 & int7 -> int8: that the bootstrap does boat Ficus hold.; int8 -> int9: there exists something such that the fact that it does boat Ficus is not wrong.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the councilwoman is a kind of a surrealist. ; $context$ = sent1: everything is a Podilymbus but not a Psithyrus. sent2: something that is conductive is a riposte. sent3: everything is not a reflectance. sent4: if that the Masorete is a laterality is true the Milanese is antennal. sent5: if that the buntal is not a kind of a superscript is right then the bootstrap is reliable and it recommends Hirundo. sent6: the Masorete is a laterality if the zero is a kind of a laterality. sent7: if something that is a kind of a Podilymbus is not a Psithyrus it is not a surrealist. sent8: if something is antennal then it does not recommend population or does not recommend pliability or both. sent9: if the fact that the hearer is not an ether and it is not conductive is false then the councilwoman is conductive. sent10: everything is not a Psithyrus. sent11: the bootstrap does boat Ficus if it does recommend Hirundo. sent12: the councilwoman does not recommend Masorete. sent13: the masterpiece serves unattractiveness but it does not backpack nosology. sent14: the shawm is not a boulder if the Milanese does not recommend population and/or it does not recommend pliability. sent15: something is not an apparition if it elaborates and it is not a muslin. sent16: everything is not a kind of a graviton. sent17: the buntal is not a superscript. sent18: the councilwoman is not a absconder. sent19: that something is a kind of a surrealist is correct if it does riposte. sent20: if the shawm is not a boulder the fact that the hearer is not an ether and it is not conductive is wrong. sent21: the councilwoman does not serve bootstrap if it is a surrealist and it is impalpable. ; $proof$ = | sent1 -> int1: the councilwoman is a Podilymbus but it is not a Psithyrus.; sent7 -> int2: the fact that the councilwoman is not a surrealist is true if it is both a Podilymbus and not a Psithyrus.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | everything is a Podilymbus but not a Psithyrus. | [
"if something that is a kind of a Podilymbus is not a Psithyrus it is not a surrealist."
] | [
"everything is a Podilymbus but not a Psithyrus."
] |
that the utensil does recommend lumpfish and is a stake is false. | sent1: the harpsichordist is Deweyan if it is climactic. sent2: that the utensil does recommend lumpfish is not false if it is postglacial. sent3: if the Catholic does recommend lifeboat then the fact that the hydrosphere does not recommend lumpfish and it is not a clearway does not hold. sent4: something that is upper-class is intracellular. sent5: if something is strong it is ctenoid. sent6: the utensil is a stake. sent7: if the lifeboat is not a clearway then the Catholic recommends lifeboat and/or it is not Deweyan. sent8: that the utensil is a kind of a clearway is correct if the ultramarine does recommend lifeboat. sent9: if the utensil recommends lifeboat then the ultramarine is a clearway. sent10: that something recommends lumpfish if it is a clearway is not incorrect. sent11: the obsessive-compulsive is a kind of a Phalacrocorax and it clears. sent12: the ultramarine is a stake if the utensil is Deweyan. sent13: the ultramarine is Deweyan and/or does recommend lifeboat. sent14: the utensil is oblate. sent15: the porter is a cellularity and it is a kind of a stake. sent16: the ultramarine stakes if the utensil is a clearway. sent17: the ultramarine does recommend lumpfish if it is Deweyan. sent18: if that the Catholic is a kind of a stake that is Deweyan is incorrect then the ultramarine is not a stake. sent19: if the ultramarine is a kind of a stake then the utensil is Deweyan. sent20: if the Catholic recommends lifeboat or it is not Deweyan or both the ultramarine is not a stake. sent21: the ghat is a stake and it is a kind of a checker. sent22: if the convertible is not a mineralogy and not anuran the dangleberry is anuran. sent23: that the utensil is a clearway is correct if the ultramarine is Deweyan. sent24: the utensil does recommend lifeboat. | ¬({D}{c} & {E}{c}) | sent1: {IN}{fl} -> {A}{fl} sent2: {DP}{c} -> {D}{c} sent3: {B}{b} -> ¬(¬{D}{jk} & ¬{C}{jk}) sent4: (x): {AF}x -> {ED}x sent5: (x): {DF}x -> {FM}x sent6: {E}{c} sent7: ¬{C}{d} -> ({B}{b} v ¬{A}{b}) sent8: {B}{a} -> {C}{c} sent9: {B}{c} -> {C}{a} sent10: (x): {C}x -> {D}x sent11: ({DQ}{hr} & {CQ}{hr}) sent12: {A}{c} -> {E}{a} sent13: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}) sent14: {U}{c} sent15: ({HI}{gs} & {E}{gs}) sent16: {C}{c} -> {E}{a} sent17: {A}{a} -> {D}{a} sent18: ¬({E}{b} & {A}{b}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent19: {E}{a} -> {A}{c} sent20: ({B}{b} v ¬{A}{b}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent21: ({E}{it} & {IR}{it}) sent22: (¬{H}{f} & ¬{F}{f}) -> {F}{e} sent23: {A}{a} -> {C}{c} sent24: {B}{c} | [
"sent13 & sent23 & sent8 -> int1: the utensil is a kind of a clearway.; sent10 -> int2: if the utensil is a kind of a clearway then the fact that it recommends lumpfish is true.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the utensil recommends lumpfish.; int3 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent13 & sent23 & sent8 -> int1: {C}{c}; sent10 -> int2: {C}{c} -> {D}{c}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {D}{c}; int3 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 19 | 0 | 19 | the hydrosphere recommends lumpfish and it is a lapdog. | ({D}{jk} & {HS}{jk}) | 3 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = that the utensil does recommend lumpfish and is a stake is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the harpsichordist is Deweyan if it is climactic. sent2: that the utensil does recommend lumpfish is not false if it is postglacial. sent3: if the Catholic does recommend lifeboat then the fact that the hydrosphere does not recommend lumpfish and it is not a clearway does not hold. sent4: something that is upper-class is intracellular. sent5: if something is strong it is ctenoid. sent6: the utensil is a stake. sent7: if the lifeboat is not a clearway then the Catholic recommends lifeboat and/or it is not Deweyan. sent8: that the utensil is a kind of a clearway is correct if the ultramarine does recommend lifeboat. sent9: if the utensil recommends lifeboat then the ultramarine is a clearway. sent10: that something recommends lumpfish if it is a clearway is not incorrect. sent11: the obsessive-compulsive is a kind of a Phalacrocorax and it clears. sent12: the ultramarine is a stake if the utensil is Deweyan. sent13: the ultramarine is Deweyan and/or does recommend lifeboat. sent14: the utensil is oblate. sent15: the porter is a cellularity and it is a kind of a stake. sent16: the ultramarine stakes if the utensil is a clearway. sent17: the ultramarine does recommend lumpfish if it is Deweyan. sent18: if that the Catholic is a kind of a stake that is Deweyan is incorrect then the ultramarine is not a stake. sent19: if the ultramarine is a kind of a stake then the utensil is Deweyan. sent20: if the Catholic recommends lifeboat or it is not Deweyan or both the ultramarine is not a stake. sent21: the ghat is a stake and it is a kind of a checker. sent22: if the convertible is not a mineralogy and not anuran the dangleberry is anuran. sent23: that the utensil is a clearway is correct if the ultramarine is Deweyan. sent24: the utensil does recommend lifeboat. ; $proof$ = | sent13 & sent23 & sent8 -> int1: the utensil is a kind of a clearway.; sent10 -> int2: if the utensil is a kind of a clearway then the fact that it recommends lumpfish is true.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the utensil recommends lumpfish.; int3 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the ultramarine is Deweyan and/or does recommend lifeboat. | [
"that the utensil is a clearway is correct if the ultramarine is Deweyan.",
"that the utensil is a kind of a clearway is correct if the ultramarine does recommend lifeboat.",
"that something recommends lumpfish if it is a clearway is not incorrect.",
"the utensil is a stake."
] | [
"The ultramarine is Deweyan.",
"The ultramarine is recommended by Deweyan.",
"The ultra marine is Deweyan.",
"Deweyan is the name of the ultramarine."
] |
the schnook does recommend copyreader. | sent1: if the schnook is not ethnographic then it is a Riley and it is not obedient. sent2: if that something is vulvar and it is a freemasonry is false it is not vulvar. sent3: the reboxetine is not exculpatory. sent4: that the schnook does recommend copyreader is right if the potholder piffles. sent5: the ghat does recommend copyreader. sent6: the fact that the reboxetine is a kind of vulvar thing that is a freemasonry is false if it is not exculpatory. sent7: the reboxetine is a unit. sent8: if the pneumatophore is not a top-up it is a kind of an opening and it does not recommend copyreader. sent9: if the schnook is not a kind of a niqaabi it is a kind of a seine that does not serve Pliocene. sent10: something is not Indian but it is a microbe if it is not vulvar. sent11: the schnook is a niqaabi but it is not unnoticeable. sent12: if something is a kind of a unit it is a kind of a requital. sent13: if the schnook does not piffle then it is a niqaabi and it does not recommend copyreader. sent14: the schnook does not piffle. | {AB}{a} | sent1: ¬{EB}{a} -> ({FO}{a} & ¬{DN}{a}) sent2: (x): ¬({F}x & {H}x) -> ¬{F}x sent3: ¬{G}{c} sent4: {A}{b} -> {AB}{a} sent5: {AB}{is} sent6: ¬{G}{c} -> ¬({F}{c} & {H}{c}) sent7: {D}{c} sent8: ¬{AF}{en} -> ({GU}{en} & ¬{AB}{en}) sent9: ¬{AA}{a} -> ({JI}{a} & ¬{EU}{a}) sent10: (x): ¬{F}x -> (¬{E}x & {B}x) sent11: ({AA}{a} & ¬{EJ}{a}) sent12: (x): {D}x -> {C}x sent13: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent14: ¬{A}{a} | [
"sent13 & sent14 -> int1: the schnook is a niqaabi but it does not recommend copyreader.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent13 & sent14 -> int1: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 12 | 0 | 12 | the schnook recommends copyreader. | {AB}{a} | 8 | [
"sent12 -> int2: the reboxetine is a requital if it is a unit.; int2 & sent7 -> int3: that the reboxetine is a kind of a requital hold.; sent10 -> int4: if the fact that the reboxetine is not vulvar is correct then it is not a Indian and it is a microbe.; sent2 -> int5: if that the reboxetine is vulvar and is a freemasonry is not true it is not vulvar.; sent6 & sent3 -> int6: the fact that the reboxetine is vulvar and is a freemasonry is not true.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the reboxetine is not vulvar.; int4 & int7 -> int8: the reboxetine is not a Indian but it is a kind of a microbe.; int8 -> int9: the reboxetine is a microbe.; int3 & int9 -> int10: the reboxetine is a requital and is a microbe.; int10 -> int11: there exists something such that it is a requital and it is a kind of a microbe.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the schnook does recommend copyreader. ; $context$ = sent1: if the schnook is not ethnographic then it is a Riley and it is not obedient. sent2: if that something is vulvar and it is a freemasonry is false it is not vulvar. sent3: the reboxetine is not exculpatory. sent4: that the schnook does recommend copyreader is right if the potholder piffles. sent5: the ghat does recommend copyreader. sent6: the fact that the reboxetine is a kind of vulvar thing that is a freemasonry is false if it is not exculpatory. sent7: the reboxetine is a unit. sent8: if the pneumatophore is not a top-up it is a kind of an opening and it does not recommend copyreader. sent9: if the schnook is not a kind of a niqaabi it is a kind of a seine that does not serve Pliocene. sent10: something is not Indian but it is a microbe if it is not vulvar. sent11: the schnook is a niqaabi but it is not unnoticeable. sent12: if something is a kind of a unit it is a kind of a requital. sent13: if the schnook does not piffle then it is a niqaabi and it does not recommend copyreader. sent14: the schnook does not piffle. ; $proof$ = | sent13 & sent14 -> int1: the schnook is a niqaabi but it does not recommend copyreader.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if the schnook does not piffle then it is a niqaabi and it does not recommend copyreader. | [
"the schnook does not piffle."
] | [
"if the schnook does not piffle then it is a niqaabi and it does not recommend copyreader."
] |
both the recommending bitter-bark and the knelling occurs. | sent1: the serving Morgantown happens. sent2: the unfamiliarness happens. sent3: the spending occurs and the ontogeneticness occurs. sent4: if the serving Morgantown does not occur then the fact that the recommending bitter-bark occurs and the knell occurs is not right. sent5: both the serving Morgantown and the recommending bitter-bark occurs. sent6: the recommending Oklahoman occurs. sent7: the serving utilization occurs and the birth occurs. sent8: the knell occurs. sent9: that the recommending unenlightenment does not occur yields that the serving Morgantown and the backpacking skep happens. | ({B} & {C}) | sent1: {A} sent2: {GR} sent3: ({HU} & {BM}) sent4: ¬{A} -> ¬({B} & {C}) sent5: ({A} & {B}) sent6: {O} sent7: ({DF} & {T}) sent8: {C} sent9: ¬{E} -> ({A} & {HI}) | [
"sent5 -> int1: the recommending bitter-bark occurs.; int1 & sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent5 -> int1: {B}; int1 & sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 7 | the fact that the recommending bitter-bark and the knell happens is wrong. | ¬({B} & {C}) | 6 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = both the recommending bitter-bark and the knelling occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the serving Morgantown happens. sent2: the unfamiliarness happens. sent3: the spending occurs and the ontogeneticness occurs. sent4: if the serving Morgantown does not occur then the fact that the recommending bitter-bark occurs and the knell occurs is not right. sent5: both the serving Morgantown and the recommending bitter-bark occurs. sent6: the recommending Oklahoman occurs. sent7: the serving utilization occurs and the birth occurs. sent8: the knell occurs. sent9: that the recommending unenlightenment does not occur yields that the serving Morgantown and the backpacking skep happens. ; $proof$ = | sent5 -> int1: the recommending bitter-bark occurs.; int1 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | both the serving Morgantown and the recommending bitter-bark occurs. | [
"the knell occurs."
] | [
"both the serving Morgantown and the recommending bitter-bark occurs."
] |
the triquetral is not Aleutians and/or is not a Euphagus. | sent1: if something is north it is not a kind of a Euphagus. sent2: something is a north but not a gee-gee if it is not a kind of a gasbag. sent3: the centerpiece does not recommend ethics and is not Aleutians. sent4: if the triquetral does recommend isosorbide but it is not evening then it is not a Germanic. sent5: the triquetral is not Aleutians if it does not condition and it does not serve format. | (¬{B}{a} v ¬{A}{a}) | sent1: (x): {C}x -> ¬{A}x sent2: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({C}x & ¬{D}x) sent3: (¬{N}{it} & ¬{B}{it}) sent4: ({DF}{a} & ¬{BC}{a}) -> ¬{CD}{a} sent5: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} | [] | UNKNOWN | [] | UNKNOWN | 2 | null | 4 | 0 | 4 | the Casanova is both not Aleutians and not a cast. | (¬{B}{dh} & ¬{GE}{dh}) | 6 | [
"sent1 -> int1: if the triquetral is a north it is not a Euphagus.; sent2 -> int2: the triquetral is a north but it is not a gee-gee if it is not a gasbag.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the triquetral is not Aleutians and/or is not a Euphagus. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is north it is not a kind of a Euphagus. sent2: something is a north but not a gee-gee if it is not a kind of a gasbag. sent3: the centerpiece does not recommend ethics and is not Aleutians. sent4: if the triquetral does recommend isosorbide but it is not evening then it is not a Germanic. sent5: the triquetral is not Aleutians if it does not condition and it does not serve format. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | the triquetral is not Aleutians if it does not condition and it does not serve format. | [
"the centerpiece does not recommend ethics and is not Aleutians."
] | [
"the triquetral is not Aleutians if it does not condition and it does not serve format."
] |
the self-starter is noncritical if the pit is a readout. | sent1: the self-starter is noncritical if that the pit is a tetrahedron is correct. sent2: the fact that the self-starter is a kind of a readout hold. sent3: if something is not transitional then it is not noncritical. sent4: the pit is a Salvadoran. sent5: something is a tetrahedron and it is a readout if it is not noncritical. sent6: the pit is noncritical. sent7: if the pit is a readout then it is a tetrahedron. | {A}{a} -> {C}{b} | sent1: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent2: {A}{b} sent3: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬{C}x sent4: {HL}{a} sent5: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & {A}x) sent6: {C}{a} sent7: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the pit is a readout.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: the pit is a tetrahedron.; sent1 & int1 -> int2: that the self-starter is noncritical is true.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"void -> assump1: {A}{a}; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent1 & int1 -> int2: {C}{b}; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 5 | the algebraist is a tetrahedron. | {B}{as} | 5 | [
"sent5 -> int3: if the algebraist is not noncritical then it is a tetrahedron and it is a readout.; sent3 -> int4: the algebraist is not noncritical if it is not transitional.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the self-starter is noncritical if the pit is a readout. ; $context$ = sent1: the self-starter is noncritical if that the pit is a tetrahedron is correct. sent2: the fact that the self-starter is a kind of a readout hold. sent3: if something is not transitional then it is not noncritical. sent4: the pit is a Salvadoran. sent5: something is a tetrahedron and it is a readout if it is not noncritical. sent6: the pit is noncritical. sent7: if the pit is a readout then it is a tetrahedron. ; $proof$ = | void -> assump1: Let's assume that the pit is a readout.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: the pit is a tetrahedron.; sent1 & int1 -> int2: that the self-starter is noncritical is true.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if the pit is a readout then it is a tetrahedron. | [
"the self-starter is noncritical if that the pit is a tetrahedron is correct."
] | [
"if the pit is a readout then it is a tetrahedron."
] |
the fact that that there exists something such that if it is a kind of a Muraenidae and is basic then it does not backpack Vespertilionidae is correct is wrong. | sent1: if something is both a tallith and tabular the fact that it is a Czech hold. sent2: there is something such that if it absconds and ramifies it is not a inessential. sent3: if something is a soffit and it numerates then it is not a kind of a mealberry. sent4: the tawse is not a kind of a barbiturate if it does serve precognition and it does backpack Vespertilionidae. sent5: there is something such that if it does recommend cupflower and does appreciate then it is a pitilessness. sent6: something does not boat bylaw if it does backpack Levite and it does recommend Camelus. sent7: there exists something such that if it is a kind of Markovian thing that serves Rheum then it is a pothunter. sent8: the loaner is a kind of a fast if it is a kind of a Muraenidae that is variolar. sent9: that the poetess serves mummery is right if it is a Muraenidae and is vasomotor. sent10: if the tawse is a Muraenidae and a basic it does backpack Vespertilionidae. sent11: if a Muraenidae is basic it backpacks Vespertilionidae. sent12: if something is custard-like and it does serve Limulus it is non-basic. sent13: there exists something such that if it is a scaffold and it is a kind of a hotel it is not a kind of a Verne. sent14: there exists something such that if it is a Muraenidae and it is a basic then it backpacks Vespertilionidae. sent15: if something is both a Muraenidae and a basic that it does not backpack Vespertilionidae hold. | ¬((Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x) | sent1: (x): ({ED}x & {AD}x) -> {U}x sent2: (Ex): ({CN}x & {DF}x) -> ¬{HR}x sent3: (x): ({IU}x & {L}x) -> ¬{IF}x sent4: ({HN}{aa} & {B}{aa}) -> ¬{DN}{aa} sent5: (Ex): ({EU}x & {EB}x) -> {T}x sent6: (x): ({BU}x & {GD}x) -> ¬{AJ}x sent7: (Ex): ({CF}x & {DI}x) -> {HO}x sent8: ({AA}{ci} & {GU}{ci}) -> {EF}{ci} sent9: ({AA}{ff} & {HS}{ff}) -> {ID}{ff} sent10: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent11: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent12: (x): ({HI}x & {EL}x) -> ¬{AB}x sent13: (Ex): ({C}x & {M}x) -> ¬{BR}x sent14: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent15: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x | [
"sent15 -> int1: the tawse does not backpack Vespertilionidae if it is both a Muraenidae and basic.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent15 -> int1: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 14 | 0 | 14 | the Rheum is not a kind of a basic if it is custard-like and it serves Limulus. | ({HI}{ja} & {EL}{ja}) -> ¬{AB}{ja} | 1 | [
"sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = the fact that that there exists something such that if it is a kind of a Muraenidae and is basic then it does not backpack Vespertilionidae is correct is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is both a tallith and tabular the fact that it is a Czech hold. sent2: there is something such that if it absconds and ramifies it is not a inessential. sent3: if something is a soffit and it numerates then it is not a kind of a mealberry. sent4: the tawse is not a kind of a barbiturate if it does serve precognition and it does backpack Vespertilionidae. sent5: there is something such that if it does recommend cupflower and does appreciate then it is a pitilessness. sent6: something does not boat bylaw if it does backpack Levite and it does recommend Camelus. sent7: there exists something such that if it is a kind of Markovian thing that serves Rheum then it is a pothunter. sent8: the loaner is a kind of a fast if it is a kind of a Muraenidae that is variolar. sent9: that the poetess serves mummery is right if it is a Muraenidae and is vasomotor. sent10: if the tawse is a Muraenidae and a basic it does backpack Vespertilionidae. sent11: if a Muraenidae is basic it backpacks Vespertilionidae. sent12: if something is custard-like and it does serve Limulus it is non-basic. sent13: there exists something such that if it is a scaffold and it is a kind of a hotel it is not a kind of a Verne. sent14: there exists something such that if it is a Muraenidae and it is a basic then it backpacks Vespertilionidae. sent15: if something is both a Muraenidae and a basic that it does not backpack Vespertilionidae hold. ; $proof$ = | sent15 -> int1: the tawse does not backpack Vespertilionidae if it is both a Muraenidae and basic.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if something is both a Muraenidae and a basic that it does not backpack Vespertilionidae hold. | [] | [
"if something is both a Muraenidae and a basic that it does not backpack Vespertilionidae hold."
] |
something is a Kaufman and does surprise. | sent1: something is a Kaufman. sent2: the acumen is uneventful. sent3: the acumen is a surprise. sent4: the pheno-safranine is a surprise. | (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x) | sent1: (Ex): {A}x sent2: {FO}{a} sent3: {B}{a} sent4: {B}{hb} | [] | UNKNOWN | [] | UNKNOWN | 2 | null | 3 | 0 | 3 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = something is a Kaufman and does surprise. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a Kaufman. sent2: the acumen is uneventful. sent3: the acumen is a surprise. sent4: the pheno-safranine is a surprise. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | something is a Kaufman. | [
"the pheno-safranine is a surprise."
] | [
"something is a Kaufman."
] |
the voluptuary is a kind of a notoriety. | sent1: the voluptuary is a kind of a notoriety if the convalescence is a notoriety. sent2: something is a prostitute that does quintuple. sent3: something is a kind of uncousinly thing that does recommend neurectomy if it is a notoriety. sent4: something does not backpack pneumonectomy. sent5: there is something such that the fact that it does quintuple is not false. sent6: the Berber is either not amethystine or a bull or both if the fact that it does not serve correctness is correct. sent7: the mouth is a kind of non-endocrine thing that is a proconvertin. sent8: that the mouth is not a kind of a prostitute but it quintuples is true. sent9: the Berber does not serve correctness. sent10: the voluptuary is not a kind of a notoriety if something that is not a kind of a prostitute does quintuple. sent11: the mouth is not a prostitute. sent12: something is a kind of a notoriety and is a Cosmocampus if it is not a hoard. sent13: there is something such that it does not prostitute. sent14: that the strawworm does serve correctness is right if it bulls. sent15: the strawworm is not amethystine if there exists something such that either it is not amethystine or it does bull or both. | {A}{a} | sent1: {A}{b} -> {A}{a} sent2: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: (x): {A}x -> (¬{HU}x & {DN}x) sent4: (Ex): ¬{G}x sent5: (Ex): {AB}x sent6: ¬{E}{d} -> (¬{D}{d} v {F}{d}) sent7: (¬{EB}{aa} & {BK}{aa}) sent8: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent9: ¬{E}{d} sent10: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent11: ¬{AA}{aa} sent12: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({A}x & {B}x) sent13: (Ex): ¬{AA}x sent14: {F}{c} -> {E}{c} sent15: (x): (¬{D}x v {F}x) -> ¬{D}{c} | [
"sent8 -> int1: there is something such that it is not a prostitute and it does quintuple.; int1 & sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent8 -> int1: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x); int1 & sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 13 | 0 | 13 | the voluptuary is a kind of a notoriety. | {A}{a} | 8 | [
"sent12 -> int2: if the convalescence is not a kind of a hoard it is a notoriety and a Cosmocampus.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the voluptuary is a kind of a notoriety. ; $context$ = sent1: the voluptuary is a kind of a notoriety if the convalescence is a notoriety. sent2: something is a prostitute that does quintuple. sent3: something is a kind of uncousinly thing that does recommend neurectomy if it is a notoriety. sent4: something does not backpack pneumonectomy. sent5: there is something such that the fact that it does quintuple is not false. sent6: the Berber is either not amethystine or a bull or both if the fact that it does not serve correctness is correct. sent7: the mouth is a kind of non-endocrine thing that is a proconvertin. sent8: that the mouth is not a kind of a prostitute but it quintuples is true. sent9: the Berber does not serve correctness. sent10: the voluptuary is not a kind of a notoriety if something that is not a kind of a prostitute does quintuple. sent11: the mouth is not a prostitute. sent12: something is a kind of a notoriety and is a Cosmocampus if it is not a hoard. sent13: there is something such that it does not prostitute. sent14: that the strawworm does serve correctness is right if it bulls. sent15: the strawworm is not amethystine if there exists something such that either it is not amethystine or it does bull or both. ; $proof$ = | sent8 -> int1: there is something such that it is not a prostitute and it does quintuple.; int1 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that the mouth is not a kind of a prostitute but it quintuples is true. | [
"the voluptuary is not a kind of a notoriety if something that is not a kind of a prostitute does quintuple."
] | [
"that the mouth is not a kind of a prostitute but it quintuples is true."
] |
the fact that the oratory happens and the recommending gaskin does not occur does not hold. | sent1: if the wipeout occurs then the fact that the oratory but not the recommending gaskin occurs is not true. sent2: the contraception occurs if the fact that the wipeout but not the contraception occurs does not hold. sent3: that the wipeout does not occur is prevented by that the boniness occurs and the cuckoldry does not occur. sent4: if the fact that the blondness occurs hold the boniness does not occur and the cuckoldry does not occur. sent5: the pose causes the non-scalicness. sent6: the backpacking ghastliness happens. sent7: the salute occurs. sent8: the non-metricness occurs if the acrogenicness does not occur and the bilking does not occur. sent9: the poplitealness is prevented by that the caroling occurs. sent10: if the percussiveness happens then that the poplitealness occurs and the recommending southernness does not occur is wrong. sent11: that the episiotomy but not the caroling happens does not hold. sent12: the wipeout is brought about by that the boniness does not occur and the cuckoldry does not occur. sent13: that the sport happens but the lumbarness does not occur is not correct. sent14: that the velarness happens results in that the self-improvement does not occur and the gravy does not occur. sent15: the boniness does not occur. sent16: the blond happens. sent17: the fact that the unequivocalness happens but the chimericness does not occur is false if the counterinsurgentness occurs. sent18: the fact that the oratory occurs and the recommending gaskin occurs does not hold. sent19: if the backpacking croup occurs then that the proprietariness and the backpacking Levite happens is not true. | ¬({D} & ¬{C}) | sent1: {B} -> ¬({D} & ¬{C}) sent2: ¬({B} & ¬{DG}) -> {DG} sent3: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent4: {A} -> (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent5: {CQ} -> ¬{HN} sent6: {DK} sent7: {M} sent8: (¬{FJ} & ¬{HC}) -> {FT} sent9: {EF} -> ¬{L} sent10: {IU} -> ¬({L} & ¬{HF}) sent11: ¬({HM} & ¬{EF}) sent12: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent13: ¬({T} & ¬{EK}) sent14: {HI} -> (¬{EB} & ¬{DD}) sent15: ¬{AA} sent16: {A} sent17: {HB} -> ¬({FA} & ¬{CM}) sent18: ¬({D} & {C}) sent19: {DE} -> ¬({IF} & {BN}) | [
"sent4 & sent16 -> int1: the boniness does not occur and the cuckoldry does not occur.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the wipeout occurs.; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent4 & sent16 -> int1: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}); int1 & sent12 -> int2: {B}; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 15 | the contraception happens. | {DG} | 6 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the oratory happens and the recommending gaskin does not occur does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the wipeout occurs then the fact that the oratory but not the recommending gaskin occurs is not true. sent2: the contraception occurs if the fact that the wipeout but not the contraception occurs does not hold. sent3: that the wipeout does not occur is prevented by that the boniness occurs and the cuckoldry does not occur. sent4: if the fact that the blondness occurs hold the boniness does not occur and the cuckoldry does not occur. sent5: the pose causes the non-scalicness. sent6: the backpacking ghastliness happens. sent7: the salute occurs. sent8: the non-metricness occurs if the acrogenicness does not occur and the bilking does not occur. sent9: the poplitealness is prevented by that the caroling occurs. sent10: if the percussiveness happens then that the poplitealness occurs and the recommending southernness does not occur is wrong. sent11: that the episiotomy but not the caroling happens does not hold. sent12: the wipeout is brought about by that the boniness does not occur and the cuckoldry does not occur. sent13: that the sport happens but the lumbarness does not occur is not correct. sent14: that the velarness happens results in that the self-improvement does not occur and the gravy does not occur. sent15: the boniness does not occur. sent16: the blond happens. sent17: the fact that the unequivocalness happens but the chimericness does not occur is false if the counterinsurgentness occurs. sent18: the fact that the oratory occurs and the recommending gaskin occurs does not hold. sent19: if the backpacking croup occurs then that the proprietariness and the backpacking Levite happens is not true. ; $proof$ = | sent4 & sent16 -> int1: the boniness does not occur and the cuckoldry does not occur.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the wipeout occurs.; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if the fact that the blondness occurs hold the boniness does not occur and the cuckoldry does not occur. | [
"the blond happens.",
"the wipeout is brought about by that the boniness does not occur and the cuckoldry does not occur.",
"if the wipeout occurs then the fact that the oratory but not the recommending gaskin occurs is not true."
] | [
"The cuckoldry does not occur if the blondness occurs.",
"The cuckoldry does not occur if the blondness holds.",
"The cuckoldry doesn't occur if the blondness occurs."
] |
there exists something such that if it is determinate it is multiform and/or it does serve Egyptologist. | sent1: something is nervous and/or it is indeterminate if it is not supportive. sent2: something is multiform and/or does serve Egyptologist if it is indeterminate. sent3: the website is multiform or does serve Egyptologist or both if it is indeterminate. | (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x v {AB}x) | sent1: (x): ¬{EP}x -> ({JH}x v {A}x) sent2: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}x v {AB}x) sent3: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) | [] | UNKNOWN | [] | UNKNOWN | 2 | null | 3 | 0 | 3 | either the ropewalk is nervous or it is indeterminate or both if it is not supportive. | ¬{EP}{p} -> ({JH}{p} v {A}{p}) | 1 | [
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is determinate it is multiform and/or it does serve Egyptologist. ; $context$ = sent1: something is nervous and/or it is indeterminate if it is not supportive. sent2: something is multiform and/or does serve Egyptologist if it is indeterminate. sent3: the website is multiform or does serve Egyptologist or both if it is indeterminate. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | something is nervous and/or it is indeterminate if it is not supportive. | [
"something is multiform and/or does serve Egyptologist if it is indeterminate."
] | [
"something is nervous and/or it is indeterminate if it is not supportive."
] |
the exocentricness does not occur. | sent1: the clayeiness does not occur. sent2: the fact that the libidinalness occurs is not false. sent3: if the serving Bardeen happens the echocardiography occurs. sent4: that the clayeiness and the eligibleness happens does not hold if the Gallicness occurs. sent5: if the clayeiness happens the fact that the beating but not the eligibleness happens is incorrect. sent6: that the clayeiness does not occur is brought about by the beating. sent7: that the clayeiness and the eligibleness occurs is incorrect. sent8: the hotbedness happens. sent9: the cybercrime occurs. sent10: that both the campfire and the backlessness occurs is incorrect if the masochisticness happens. sent11: if the Gallicness occurs the fact that that the clayeiness does not occur and the eligibleness occurs is not wrong is not right. sent12: that the thalloidness does not occur hold. sent13: the Gallicness occurs if the cybercrime happens. sent14: the graduating happens. sent15: the nagging does not occur. sent16: if the Gallicness does not occur then the fact that the ineligibleness and the clayeiness happens does not hold. sent17: if the pall happens then the cybercrime does not occur. sent18: the opticalness occurs. sent19: if the rebuilding does not occur then both the equineness and the pall occurs. sent20: not the clayeiness but the eligibleness happens if the beating happens. | ¬{A} | sent1: ¬{D} sent2: {HQ} sent3: {AP} -> {CU} sent4: {E} -> ¬({D} & {C}) sent5: {D} -> ¬({B} & ¬{C}) sent6: {B} -> ¬{D} sent7: ¬({D} & {C}) sent8: {HH} sent9: {F} sent10: {CQ} -> ¬({DF} & {GF}) sent11: {E} -> ¬(¬{D} & {C}) sent12: ¬{HB} sent13: {F} -> {E} sent14: {EP} sent15: ¬{CL} sent16: ¬{E} -> ¬(¬{C} & {D}) sent17: {G} -> ¬{F} sent18: {FO} sent19: ¬{I} -> ({H} & {G}) sent20: {B} -> (¬{D} & {C}) | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the exocentricness happens.; sent13 & sent9 -> int1: the Gallicness occurs.; sent11 & int1 -> int2: the fact that both the non-clayeyness and the eligibleness occurs is wrong.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"void -> assump1: {A}; sent13 & sent9 -> int1: {E}; sent11 & int1 -> int2: ¬(¬{D} & {C});"
] | UNKNOWN | 4 | null | 16 | 0 | 16 | the deployment occurs. | {CP} | 6 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the exocentricness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the clayeiness does not occur. sent2: the fact that the libidinalness occurs is not false. sent3: if the serving Bardeen happens the echocardiography occurs. sent4: that the clayeiness and the eligibleness happens does not hold if the Gallicness occurs. sent5: if the clayeiness happens the fact that the beating but not the eligibleness happens is incorrect. sent6: that the clayeiness does not occur is brought about by the beating. sent7: that the clayeiness and the eligibleness occurs is incorrect. sent8: the hotbedness happens. sent9: the cybercrime occurs. sent10: that both the campfire and the backlessness occurs is incorrect if the masochisticness happens. sent11: if the Gallicness occurs the fact that that the clayeiness does not occur and the eligibleness occurs is not wrong is not right. sent12: that the thalloidness does not occur hold. sent13: the Gallicness occurs if the cybercrime happens. sent14: the graduating happens. sent15: the nagging does not occur. sent16: if the Gallicness does not occur then the fact that the ineligibleness and the clayeiness happens does not hold. sent17: if the pall happens then the cybercrime does not occur. sent18: the opticalness occurs. sent19: if the rebuilding does not occur then both the equineness and the pall occurs. sent20: not the clayeiness but the eligibleness happens if the beating happens. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | the Gallicness occurs if the cybercrime happens. | [
"the cybercrime occurs.",
"if the Gallicness occurs the fact that that the clayeiness does not occur and the eligibleness occurs is not wrong is not right."
] | [
"The Gallicness occurs if a crime is committed.",
"The Gallicness occurs if there is a crime."
] |
the taboret is not endoparasitic. | sent1: the taboret is endoparasitic if the chaperon is a mildew. sent2: the fact that the taboret is not a mildew but it is endoparasitic is incorrect. sent3: there exists nothing such that it is endoparasitic and is not a kind of a methanogen. sent4: something that is not a quad is both a mildew and endoparasitic. sent5: if the taboret is not aphetic it is both a quad and not a parley. sent6: if something is not a kind of a hardtop but it is restful then it is not aphetic. sent7: there exists nothing such that it is a mildew and it is not a methanogen. sent8: the fact that the chaperon is a mildew but it is not a methanogen is false. sent9: the taboret is endoparasitic if that the chaperon is not a kind of a mildew and is not a kind of a methanogen is incorrect. sent10: if the fact that the fornix is endoparasitic but it is not a parley is incorrect then the taboret is not endoparasitic. sent11: that the taboret is both not endoparasitic and a mildew is not right. sent12: if the fact that the lomustine is aphetic is true then that the bootstrap is restful and/or is not a quad is incorrect. sent13: the fact that the quadrant is not a mildew and it does not backpack bootstrap is not correct. sent14: there exists nothing that is not a mildew and not a methanogen. sent15: the fornix is not a quad if the fact that either the bootstrap is restful or it is not a quad or both is not true. sent16: the fact that something is endoparasitic but it is not a kind of a parley is false if it is not a quad. | ¬{A}{a} | sent1: {AA}{aa} -> {A}{a} sent2: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {A}{a}) sent3: (x): ¬({A}x & ¬{AB}x) sent4: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({AA}x & {A}x) sent5: ¬{D}{a} -> ({C}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent6: (x): (¬{F}x & {E}x) -> ¬{D}x sent7: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent8: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent9: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {A}{a} sent10: ¬({A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent11: ¬(¬{A}{a} & {AA}{a}) sent12: {D}{d} -> ¬({E}{c} v ¬{C}{c}) sent13: ¬(¬{AA}{fn} & ¬{AH}{fn}) sent14: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent15: ¬({E}{c} v ¬{C}{c}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent16: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({A}x & ¬{B}x) | [
"sent14 -> int1: the fact that the chaperon is not a mildew and it is not a kind of a methanogen is not true.; sent9 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent14 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); sent9 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 14 | 0 | 14 | the fact that the taboret is not endoparasitic is right. | ¬{A}{a} | 7 | [
"sent16 -> int2: if the fornix is not a quad then the fact that it is a kind of endoparasitic thing that does not parley does not hold.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the taboret is not endoparasitic. ; $context$ = sent1: the taboret is endoparasitic if the chaperon is a mildew. sent2: the fact that the taboret is not a mildew but it is endoparasitic is incorrect. sent3: there exists nothing such that it is endoparasitic and is not a kind of a methanogen. sent4: something that is not a quad is both a mildew and endoparasitic. sent5: if the taboret is not aphetic it is both a quad and not a parley. sent6: if something is not a kind of a hardtop but it is restful then it is not aphetic. sent7: there exists nothing such that it is a mildew and it is not a methanogen. sent8: the fact that the chaperon is a mildew but it is not a methanogen is false. sent9: the taboret is endoparasitic if that the chaperon is not a kind of a mildew and is not a kind of a methanogen is incorrect. sent10: if the fact that the fornix is endoparasitic but it is not a parley is incorrect then the taboret is not endoparasitic. sent11: that the taboret is both not endoparasitic and a mildew is not right. sent12: if the fact that the lomustine is aphetic is true then that the bootstrap is restful and/or is not a quad is incorrect. sent13: the fact that the quadrant is not a mildew and it does not backpack bootstrap is not correct. sent14: there exists nothing that is not a mildew and not a methanogen. sent15: the fornix is not a quad if the fact that either the bootstrap is restful or it is not a quad or both is not true. sent16: the fact that something is endoparasitic but it is not a kind of a parley is false if it is not a quad. ; $proof$ = | sent14 -> int1: the fact that the chaperon is not a mildew and it is not a kind of a methanogen is not true.; sent9 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | there exists nothing that is not a mildew and not a methanogen. | [
"the taboret is endoparasitic if that the chaperon is not a kind of a mildew and is not a kind of a methanogen is incorrect."
] | [
"there exists nothing that is not a mildew and not a methanogen."
] |
the Split is not a tansy. | sent1: something is not an evacuation and is not Sinhala. sent2: if the fact that something is a kind of non-post-communist thing that does not serve Algren is wrong then it does serve Algren. sent3: if something is not monatomic but it serves Algren then it is a thickhead. sent4: if something does not serve Algren then it is not unresentful or is not a kind of a thickhead or both. sent5: the candlepins is a Neofiber. sent6: the Split is not a councillorship. sent7: the stockist is not enzymatic if the candlepins does antiquate and is a Neofiber. sent8: the fact that the Split is a councillorship and/or is not a humification is not right. sent9: if the pintle does antiquate then the candlepins does antiquate. sent10: if there exists something such that it is not an evacuation and it is not Sinhala the pintle antiquates. sent11: if something is not enzymatic then it does backpack polydactyly. sent12: if there is something such that it does backpack polydactyly that the absentee is non-post-communist thing that does not serve Algren does not hold. sent13: the Split either is a councillorship or is not a humification or both if it is a kind of a tansy. sent14: the CRP is not a tansy if there exists something such that it is not unresentful and/or it is not a kind of a thickhead. sent15: something is not monatomic if it does not recommend entertainer and/or it is not a kind of a atresia. sent16: the absentee does not recommend entertainer and/or it is not a kind of a atresia. | ¬{A}{a} | sent1: (Ex): (¬{N}x & ¬{M}x) sent2: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{D}x) -> {D}x sent3: (x): (¬{E}x & {D}x) -> {C}x sent4: (x): ¬{D}x -> (¬{B}x v ¬{C}x) sent5: {I}{d} sent6: ¬{AA}{a} sent7: ({J}{d} & {I}{d}) -> ¬{H}{c} sent8: ¬({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent9: {J}{e} -> {J}{d} sent10: (x): (¬{N}x & ¬{M}x) -> {J}{e} sent11: (x): ¬{H}x -> {G}x sent12: (x): {G}x -> ¬(¬{F}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent13: {A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent14: (x): (¬{B}x v ¬{C}x) -> ¬{A}{id} sent15: (x): (¬{K}x v ¬{L}x) -> ¬{E}x sent16: (¬{K}{b} v ¬{L}{b}) | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Split is a tansy.; sent13 & assump1 -> int1: the Split is a councillorship and/or it is not a kind of a humification.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"void -> assump1: {A}{a}; sent13 & assump1 -> int1: ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}); int1 & sent8 -> int2: #F#; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 14 | 0 | 14 | the CRP does recommend candlepins or it is not cooling or both. | ({P}{id} v ¬{JI}{id}) | 7 | [
"sent4 -> int3: if the absentee does not serve Algren then it is not unresentful or it is not a thickhead or both.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the Split is not a tansy. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not an evacuation and is not Sinhala. sent2: if the fact that something is a kind of non-post-communist thing that does not serve Algren is wrong then it does serve Algren. sent3: if something is not monatomic but it serves Algren then it is a thickhead. sent4: if something does not serve Algren then it is not unresentful or is not a kind of a thickhead or both. sent5: the candlepins is a Neofiber. sent6: the Split is not a councillorship. sent7: the stockist is not enzymatic if the candlepins does antiquate and is a Neofiber. sent8: the fact that the Split is a councillorship and/or is not a humification is not right. sent9: if the pintle does antiquate then the candlepins does antiquate. sent10: if there exists something such that it is not an evacuation and it is not Sinhala the pintle antiquates. sent11: if something is not enzymatic then it does backpack polydactyly. sent12: if there is something such that it does backpack polydactyly that the absentee is non-post-communist thing that does not serve Algren does not hold. sent13: the Split either is a councillorship or is not a humification or both if it is a kind of a tansy. sent14: the CRP is not a tansy if there exists something such that it is not unresentful and/or it is not a kind of a thickhead. sent15: something is not monatomic if it does not recommend entertainer and/or it is not a kind of a atresia. sent16: the absentee does not recommend entertainer and/or it is not a kind of a atresia. ; $proof$ = | void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Split is a tansy.; sent13 & assump1 -> int1: the Split is a councillorship and/or it is not a kind of a humification.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the Split either is a councillorship or is not a humification or both if it is a kind of a tansy. | [
"the fact that the Split is a councillorship and/or is not a humification is not right."
] | [
"the Split either is a councillorship or is not a humification or both if it is a kind of a tansy."
] |
the rigout is not non-neolithic. | sent1: the rigout is not neolithic if the niqab speculates but it is not neolithic. sent2: if the almsgiver is a instillator then the rigout is neolithic. sent3: the niqab is a recitative. sent4: if the almsgiver is a kind of a recitative then the niqab speculates but it is not neolithic. sent5: there is something such that it is neolithic thing that speculates. sent6: the niqab does speculate. | {D}{c} | sent1: ({A}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) -> ¬{D}{c} sent2: {C}{b} -> {D}{c} sent3: {B}{a} sent4: {B}{b} -> ({A}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent5: (Ex): ({D}x & {A}x) sent6: {A}{a} | [
"sent6 & sent3 -> int1: the niqab speculates and is a kind of a recitative.; int1 -> int2: something speculates and is a recitative.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent6 & sent3 -> int1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x);"
] | UNKNOWN | 4 | null | 3 | 0 | 3 | the rigout is not neolithic. | ¬{D}{c} | 6 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the rigout is not non-neolithic. ; $context$ = sent1: the rigout is not neolithic if the niqab speculates but it is not neolithic. sent2: if the almsgiver is a instillator then the rigout is neolithic. sent3: the niqab is a recitative. sent4: if the almsgiver is a kind of a recitative then the niqab speculates but it is not neolithic. sent5: there is something such that it is neolithic thing that speculates. sent6: the niqab does speculate. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | the niqab does speculate. | [
"the niqab is a recitative."
] | [
"the niqab does speculate."
] |
the backpacking gamboge occurs. | sent1: the bridle does not occur. sent2: the tip-off does not occur if that that the unperceptiveness and the tip-off happens is not incorrect does not hold. sent3: that both the unperceptiveness and the tip-off occurs is not correct if the chance-medley does not occur. sent4: if the extradition does not occur the gambling does not occur. sent5: if both the salving and the non-prolixness occurs then the recommending nucleoplasm does not occur. sent6: that the serving Colossae does not occur and the stripping does not occur is triggered by that the backpacking roasting occurs. sent7: that the tolerance does not occur is caused by that the recommending timer does not occur. sent8: if the Ptolemaicness does not occur then the sinking does not occur. sent9: the serving Shetland does not occur. sent10: if the tip-off does not occur then both the insubordination and the backpacking roasting occurs. sent11: the recommending timer does not occur and the backpacking gamboge does not occur if the recommending nucleoplasm does not occur. sent12: if that the warpath does not occur is not false then the backpacking vaccination happens and the recommending expulsion does not occur. sent13: that the backpacking gamboge does not occur is prevented by the cuckoldry. sent14: if the backpacking vaccination occurs but the recommending expulsion does not occur then the aftermath does not occur. sent15: if the actinometry occurs then the chance-medley does not occur. sent16: if that the recommending timer does not occur is true the cuckoldry but not the tolerance occurs. sent17: that both the reallocation and the actinometry happens is triggered by that the aftermath does not occur. sent18: if the serving Colossae does not occur both the salve and the non-prolixness occurs. sent19: the circularization but not the aeromechanicsness happens. sent20: the recommending timer does not occur. sent21: if the fact that the supervening does not occur and the defeat does not occur is not false the warpath does not occur. | {B} | sent1: ¬{IH} sent2: ¬({K} & {J}) -> ¬{J} sent3: ¬{L} -> ¬({K} & {J}) sent4: ¬{DK} -> ¬{EA} sent5: ({E} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{C} sent6: {H} -> (¬{F} & ¬{G}) sent7: ¬{A} -> ¬{AB} sent8: ¬{GT} -> ¬{AP} sent9: ¬{ET} sent10: ¬{J} -> ({I} & {H}) sent11: ¬{C} -> (¬{A} & ¬{B}) sent12: ¬{R} -> ({Q} & ¬{P}) sent13: {AA} -> {B} sent14: ({Q} & ¬{P}) -> ¬{O} sent15: {M} -> ¬{L} sent16: ¬{A} -> ({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent17: ¬{O} -> ({N} & {M}) sent18: ¬{F} -> ({E} & ¬{D}) sent19: ({GC} & ¬{EI}) sent20: ¬{A} sent21: (¬{S} & ¬{T}) -> ¬{R} | [
"sent16 & sent20 -> int1: the cuckoldry but not the tolerance happens.; int1 -> int2: the cuckoldry happens.; sent13 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent16 & sent20 -> int1: ({AA} & ¬{AB}); int1 -> int2: {AA}; sent13 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 18 | 0 | 18 | the backpacking gamboge does not occur. | ¬{B} | 17 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the backpacking gamboge occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the bridle does not occur. sent2: the tip-off does not occur if that that the unperceptiveness and the tip-off happens is not incorrect does not hold. sent3: that both the unperceptiveness and the tip-off occurs is not correct if the chance-medley does not occur. sent4: if the extradition does not occur the gambling does not occur. sent5: if both the salving and the non-prolixness occurs then the recommending nucleoplasm does not occur. sent6: that the serving Colossae does not occur and the stripping does not occur is triggered by that the backpacking roasting occurs. sent7: that the tolerance does not occur is caused by that the recommending timer does not occur. sent8: if the Ptolemaicness does not occur then the sinking does not occur. sent9: the serving Shetland does not occur. sent10: if the tip-off does not occur then both the insubordination and the backpacking roasting occurs. sent11: the recommending timer does not occur and the backpacking gamboge does not occur if the recommending nucleoplasm does not occur. sent12: if that the warpath does not occur is not false then the backpacking vaccination happens and the recommending expulsion does not occur. sent13: that the backpacking gamboge does not occur is prevented by the cuckoldry. sent14: if the backpacking vaccination occurs but the recommending expulsion does not occur then the aftermath does not occur. sent15: if the actinometry occurs then the chance-medley does not occur. sent16: if that the recommending timer does not occur is true the cuckoldry but not the tolerance occurs. sent17: that both the reallocation and the actinometry happens is triggered by that the aftermath does not occur. sent18: if the serving Colossae does not occur both the salve and the non-prolixness occurs. sent19: the circularization but not the aeromechanicsness happens. sent20: the recommending timer does not occur. sent21: if the fact that the supervening does not occur and the defeat does not occur is not false the warpath does not occur. ; $proof$ = | sent16 & sent20 -> int1: the cuckoldry but not the tolerance happens.; int1 -> int2: the cuckoldry happens.; sent13 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if that the recommending timer does not occur is true the cuckoldry but not the tolerance occurs. | [
"the recommending timer does not occur.",
"that the backpacking gamboge does not occur is prevented by the cuckoldry."
] | [
"The recommendation timer is true if it doesn't happen, but not the tolerance.",
"The recommendation timer isn't true if it doesn't happen."
] |
there exists something such that if the fact that it does not recommend collect and it is a holocephalan is not correct then it shags. | sent1: if that something does recommend collect and is a holocephalan is incorrect it is a shag. sent2: if the anteater does not recommend collect but it is a holocephalan then it is a shag. sent3: the anteater shags if it is not a holocephalan. sent4: something recommends Lanai if that it is not a kind of a isogram and it misgives is not true. sent5: something is a shag if it is not a kind of a holocephalan. sent6: there is something such that if it does not recommend collect and is a kind of a holocephalan it is a kind of a shag. sent7: there is something such that if that it is not a holocephalan is correct then it does shag. sent8: if that the anteater does recommend collect and it is a holocephalan is not correct then it is a shag. sent9: something is a shag if it does not recommend collect and is a holocephalan. sent10: there is something such that if the fact that it is not Moravian is correct then it serves immortelle. sent11: if that something is not a kind of a Handel but it is costal is not right it is a Maoist. sent12: there exists something such that if that it does recommend collect and it is a holocephalan is not true then it is a shag. sent13: the fact that if that something does not recommend collect and is a holocephalan is not correct that it is a shag is not false is correct. | (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x | sent1: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent2: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent3: ¬{AB}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent4: (x): ¬(¬{GL}x & {AK}x) -> {DH}x sent5: (x): ¬{AB}x -> {B}x sent6: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent7: (Ex): ¬{AB}x -> {B}x sent8: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent9: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent10: (Ex): ¬{HS}x -> {FG}x sent11: (x): ¬(¬{CM}x & {IG}x) -> {DM}x sent12: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent13: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x | [
"sent13 -> int1: the anteater is a kind of a shag if that the fact that it does not recommend collect and is a holocephalan hold is false.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent13 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 12 | 0 | 12 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if the fact that it does not recommend collect and it is a holocephalan is not correct then it shags. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something does recommend collect and is a holocephalan is incorrect it is a shag. sent2: if the anteater does not recommend collect but it is a holocephalan then it is a shag. sent3: the anteater shags if it is not a holocephalan. sent4: something recommends Lanai if that it is not a kind of a isogram and it misgives is not true. sent5: something is a shag if it is not a kind of a holocephalan. sent6: there is something such that if it does not recommend collect and is a kind of a holocephalan it is a kind of a shag. sent7: there is something such that if that it is not a holocephalan is correct then it does shag. sent8: if that the anteater does recommend collect and it is a holocephalan is not correct then it is a shag. sent9: something is a shag if it does not recommend collect and is a holocephalan. sent10: there is something such that if the fact that it is not Moravian is correct then it serves immortelle. sent11: if that something is not a kind of a Handel but it is costal is not right it is a Maoist. sent12: there exists something such that if that it does recommend collect and it is a holocephalan is not true then it is a shag. sent13: the fact that if that something does not recommend collect and is a holocephalan is not correct that it is a shag is not false is correct. ; $proof$ = | sent13 -> int1: the anteater is a kind of a shag if that the fact that it does not recommend collect and is a holocephalan hold is false.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the fact that if that something does not recommend collect and is a holocephalan is not correct that it is a shag is not false is correct. | [] | [
"the fact that if that something does not recommend collect and is a holocephalan is not correct that it is a shag is not false is correct."
] |
the fact that the lifeboat is not a kind of a peculiarity but it is Melanesian is not true. | sent1: if the chit serves entreaty the lifeboat does not serve Methodist. sent2: if the chit does perch it is not a show-stopper and is a phosphor. sent3: the wisteria is a Pompadour. sent4: if something that is not a kind of a show-stopper is a phosphor then it serves entreaty. sent5: if the dominance does not perch then the aphorist serves Methodist and does not serve entreaty. sent6: that something is not a kind of a peculiarity and is Melanesian is not correct if it does not serve Methodist. | ¬(¬{C}{a} & {D}{a}) | sent1: {B}{aa} -> ¬{A}{a} sent2: {E}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent3: {F}{d} sent4: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent5: ¬{E}{c} -> ({A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent6: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & {D}x) | [
"sent4 -> int1: the chit does serve entreaty if it is both not a show-stopper and a phosphor.; sent6 -> int2: the fact that the lifeboat is not a peculiarity but it is Melanesian does not hold if it does not serve Methodist.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent4 -> int1: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}; sent6 -> int2: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{C}{a} & {D}{a});"
] | UNKNOWN | 4 | null | 2 | 0 | 2 | the lifeboat is not a kind of a peculiarity and is Melanesian. | (¬{C}{a} & {D}{a}) | 7 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the lifeboat is not a kind of a peculiarity but it is Melanesian is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: if the chit serves entreaty the lifeboat does not serve Methodist. sent2: if the chit does perch it is not a show-stopper and is a phosphor. sent3: the wisteria is a Pompadour. sent4: if something that is not a kind of a show-stopper is a phosphor then it serves entreaty. sent5: if the dominance does not perch then the aphorist serves Methodist and does not serve entreaty. sent6: that something is not a kind of a peculiarity and is Melanesian is not correct if it does not serve Methodist. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | if something that is not a kind of a show-stopper is a phosphor then it serves entreaty. | [
"that something is not a kind of a peculiarity and is Melanesian is not correct if it does not serve Methodist."
] | [
"if something that is not a kind of a show-stopper is a phosphor then it serves entreaty."
] |
the tendergreen is not arborical. | sent1: the anchorite does recommend electroencephalogram or is not a betrayal or both. sent2: the henbane is inferential. sent3: if the fact that something is not a kind of a bubo but it boats camail does not hold it is a blasphemy. sent4: something is a blasphemy. sent5: if the Caliphate is bicapsular then the henbane serves VLF. sent6: if there exists something such that it does recommend Lardner then the tendergreen is nonsteroidal or it is not a blocking or both. sent7: the atmometer does not recommend electroencephalogram. sent8: the fact that the Caliphate is bicapsular hold. sent9: the tendergreen either is buccal or does not recommend electroencephalogram or both if something is a blasphemy. sent10: if something is buccal and/or it does not recommend electroencephalogram then it is not arborical. sent11: if something is a kind of a blasphemy then it is arborical. sent12: something is non-arborical if it is buccal. | ¬{B}{aa} | sent1: ({AB}{is} v ¬{FB}{is}) sent2: {E}{b} sent3: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & {D}x) -> {A}x sent4: (Ex): {A}x sent5: {G}{c} -> {F}{b} sent6: (x): {GU}x -> ({FL}{aa} v ¬{GP}{aa}) sent7: ¬{AB}{gg} sent8: {G}{c} sent9: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent10: (x): ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent11: (x): {A}x -> {B}x sent12: (x): {AA}x -> ¬{B}x | [
"sent10 -> int1: the fact that the tendergreen is not arborical if the tendergreen is buccal and/or it does not recommend electroencephalogram is right.; sent4 & sent9 -> int2: the tendergreen is buccal and/or it does not recommend electroencephalogram.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent10 -> int1: ({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; sent4 & sent9 -> int2: ({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 9 | the tendergreen is arborical. | {B}{aa} | 8 | [
"sent11 -> int3: if the tendergreen is a kind of a blasphemy it is arborical.; sent3 -> int4: the tendergreen is a kind of a blasphemy if that it is not a bubo and boats camail is wrong.; sent5 & sent8 -> int5: that the henbane serves VLF is correct.; sent2 & int5 -> int6: that the henbane is not non-inferential and it does serve VLF is correct.; int6 -> int7: there is something such that it is inferential and it serves VLF.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the tendergreen is not arborical. ; $context$ = sent1: the anchorite does recommend electroencephalogram or is not a betrayal or both. sent2: the henbane is inferential. sent3: if the fact that something is not a kind of a bubo but it boats camail does not hold it is a blasphemy. sent4: something is a blasphemy. sent5: if the Caliphate is bicapsular then the henbane serves VLF. sent6: if there exists something such that it does recommend Lardner then the tendergreen is nonsteroidal or it is not a blocking or both. sent7: the atmometer does not recommend electroencephalogram. sent8: the fact that the Caliphate is bicapsular hold. sent9: the tendergreen either is buccal or does not recommend electroencephalogram or both if something is a blasphemy. sent10: if something is buccal and/or it does not recommend electroencephalogram then it is not arborical. sent11: if something is a kind of a blasphemy then it is arborical. sent12: something is non-arborical if it is buccal. ; $proof$ = | sent10 -> int1: the fact that the tendergreen is not arborical if the tendergreen is buccal and/or it does not recommend electroencephalogram is right.; sent4 & sent9 -> int2: the tendergreen is buccal and/or it does not recommend electroencephalogram.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if something is buccal and/or it does not recommend electroencephalogram then it is not arborical. | [
"something is a blasphemy.",
"the tendergreen either is buccal or does not recommend electroencephalogram or both if something is a blasphemy."
] | [
"If something is buccal then it is not arborical.",
"If something is buccal it is not arborical."
] |
the handhold is a quad. | sent1: if the fact that the handhold is not gymnastics is not false it is a prosperity and it does grin. sent2: the handhold does grin. sent3: the handhold is not gymnastics. sent4: the handhold grins if it is not gymnastics. sent5: if something is a prosperity it is a kind of a quad. | {B}{a} | sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent2: {AB}{a} sent3: ¬{A}{a} sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> {AB}{a} sent5: (x): {AA}x -> {B}x | [
"sent1 & sent3 -> int1: the handhold is a prosperity and it grins.; int1 -> int2: the handhold is a prosperity.; sent5 -> int3: the handhold is a quad if it is a prosperity.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent1 & sent3 -> int1: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}); int1 -> int2: {AA}{a}; sent5 -> int3: {AA}{a} -> {B}{a}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = the handhold is a quad. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the handhold is not gymnastics is not false it is a prosperity and it does grin. sent2: the handhold does grin. sent3: the handhold is not gymnastics. sent4: the handhold grins if it is not gymnastics. sent5: if something is a prosperity it is a kind of a quad. ; $proof$ = | sent1 & sent3 -> int1: the handhold is a prosperity and it grins.; int1 -> int2: the handhold is a prosperity.; sent5 -> int3: the handhold is a quad if it is a prosperity.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if the fact that the handhold is not gymnastics is not false it is a prosperity and it does grin. | [
"the handhold is not gymnastics.",
"if something is a prosperity it is a kind of a quad."
] | [
"It is a prosperity if the hand hold is not gymnastics.",
"It is a prosperity if the handhold is not gymnastics."
] |
the councilwoman does not backpack mummy. | sent1: the councilwoman is not a stern if there exists something such that that it is seamless and/or is navigational does not hold. sent2: something is not bacteroidal if it is a kind of a stern. sent3: the Casanova does not boat requested. sent4: if the fact that the councilwoman does backpack mummy hold it does boat requested. sent5: if something is tolerant then the councilwoman does not boat requested. sent6: something backpacks mummy. sent7: something is a stern or it is navigational or both if it is not seamless. sent8: a navigational thing is not bacteroidal. sent9: the councilwoman does serve farrier. sent10: the councilwoman conglutinates. sent11: the councilwoman boats requested if it is a Webster. sent12: the councilwoman is basaltic if it is seamless. sent13: the councilwoman does not recommend protectionist. sent14: there exists something such that that it is tolerant is right. sent15: if something is not bacteroidal then the fact that the mattress is not a kind of a T-man hold. sent16: the councilwoman recommends ram's-head. sent17: there is something such that that it is seamless or it is navigational or both does not hold. sent18: the councilwoman is not tolerant. sent19: the ram's-head is not seamless. sent20: if something is not tolerant and it does not backpack mummy then it does not boat requested. sent21: if something is not a kind of a T-man it boats requested and it does backpack mummy. | ¬{A}{a} | sent1: (x): ¬({H}x v {G}x) -> ¬{F}{a} sent2: (x): {F}x -> ¬{E}x sent3: ¬{B}{gg} sent4: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent5: (x): {C}x -> ¬{B}{a} sent6: (Ex): {A}x sent7: (x): ¬{H}x -> ({F}x v {G}x) sent8: (x): {G}x -> ¬{E}x sent9: {JH}{a} sent10: {U}{a} sent11: {DQ}{a} -> {B}{a} sent12: {H}{a} -> {HA}{a} sent13: ¬{GP}{a} sent14: (Ex): {C}x sent15: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬{D}{b} sent16: {EA}{a} sent17: (Ex): ¬({H}x v {G}x) sent18: ¬{C}{a} sent19: ¬{H}{c} sent20: (x): (¬{C}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{B}x sent21: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({B}x & {A}x) | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the councilwoman does backpack mummy.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the councilwoman boats requested.; sent14 & sent5 -> int2: the councilwoman does not boat requested.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"void -> assump1: {A}{a}; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent14 & sent5 -> int2: ¬{B}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 18 | 0 | 18 | the mummy does not boat requested. | ¬{B}{ff} | 6 | [
"sent20 -> int4: if the mummy is not tolerant and does not backpack mummy then that it does not boat requested hold.; sent17 & sent1 -> int5: the councilwoman is not a stern.; int5 -> int6: something is not a stern.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the councilwoman does not backpack mummy. ; $context$ = sent1: the councilwoman is not a stern if there exists something such that that it is seamless and/or is navigational does not hold. sent2: something is not bacteroidal if it is a kind of a stern. sent3: the Casanova does not boat requested. sent4: if the fact that the councilwoman does backpack mummy hold it does boat requested. sent5: if something is tolerant then the councilwoman does not boat requested. sent6: something backpacks mummy. sent7: something is a stern or it is navigational or both if it is not seamless. sent8: a navigational thing is not bacteroidal. sent9: the councilwoman does serve farrier. sent10: the councilwoman conglutinates. sent11: the councilwoman boats requested if it is a Webster. sent12: the councilwoman is basaltic if it is seamless. sent13: the councilwoman does not recommend protectionist. sent14: there exists something such that that it is tolerant is right. sent15: if something is not bacteroidal then the fact that the mattress is not a kind of a T-man hold. sent16: the councilwoman recommends ram's-head. sent17: there is something such that that it is seamless or it is navigational or both does not hold. sent18: the councilwoman is not tolerant. sent19: the ram's-head is not seamless. sent20: if something is not tolerant and it does not backpack mummy then it does not boat requested. sent21: if something is not a kind of a T-man it boats requested and it does backpack mummy. ; $proof$ = | void -> assump1: Let's assume that the councilwoman does backpack mummy.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the councilwoman boats requested.; sent14 & sent5 -> int2: the councilwoman does not boat requested.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if the fact that the councilwoman does backpack mummy hold it does boat requested. | [
"there exists something such that that it is tolerant is right.",
"if something is tolerant then the councilwoman does not boat requested."
] | [
"The councilwoman has a backpack mummy hold.",
"The boat was requested if the councilwoman has a backpack mummy hold."
] |
the fact that there exists something such that if it is a kind of a throne then the fact that it does not backpack tetranychid and it is coccal does not hold is wrong. | sent1: that something does not serve Nergal and is coccal does not hold if it does serve caustic. sent2: there exists something such that if it is a throne then the fact that it does not backpack tetranychid and is coccal is true. sent3: there is something such that if it does throne the fact that that it does backpack tetranychid and it is coccal is not incorrect does not hold. sent4: there exists something such that if it is avifaunal that it does not attenuate and is unidentifiable is not right. sent5: there is something such that if it boats cupflower then the fact that it is not faceless and is informational is not right. sent6: if the caustic does throne the fact that it backpacks tetranychid and it is coccal is not right. sent7: that something is a kind of non-coccal an adder does not hold if it is a Siluridae. sent8: if the tetranychid is indefeasible the fact that it is not a kind of a salamander and is a throne is not right. sent9: the fact that the caustic does not backpack tetranychid and is coccal is not true if it thrones. sent10: the caustic does not backpack tetranychid and is coccal if it is a throne. | ¬((Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x)) | sent1: (x): {EK}x -> ¬(¬{Q}x & {AB}x) sent2: (Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent4: (Ex): {HM}x -> ¬(¬{EJ}x & {GM}x) sent5: (Ex): {GH}x -> ¬(¬{BK}x & {BO}x) sent6: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent7: (x): {BS}x -> ¬(¬{AB}x & {IK}x) sent8: {GG}{gt} -> ¬(¬{DD}{gt} & {A}{gt}) sent9: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent10: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) | [
"sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 1 | 1 | 9 | 0 | 9 | that the longbow is a kind of non-coccal an adder does not hold if it is a Siluridae. | {BS}{dj} -> ¬(¬{AB}{dj} & {IK}{dj}) | 1 | [
"sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it is a kind of a throne then the fact that it does not backpack tetranychid and it is coccal does not hold is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: that something does not serve Nergal and is coccal does not hold if it does serve caustic. sent2: there exists something such that if it is a throne then the fact that it does not backpack tetranychid and is coccal is true. sent3: there is something such that if it does throne the fact that that it does backpack tetranychid and it is coccal is not incorrect does not hold. sent4: there exists something such that if it is avifaunal that it does not attenuate and is unidentifiable is not right. sent5: there is something such that if it boats cupflower then the fact that it is not faceless and is informational is not right. sent6: if the caustic does throne the fact that it backpacks tetranychid and it is coccal is not right. sent7: that something is a kind of non-coccal an adder does not hold if it is a Siluridae. sent8: if the tetranychid is indefeasible the fact that it is not a kind of a salamander and is a throne is not right. sent9: the fact that the caustic does not backpack tetranychid and is coccal is not true if it thrones. sent10: the caustic does not backpack tetranychid and is coccal if it is a throne. ; $proof$ = | sent9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the fact that the caustic does not backpack tetranychid and is coccal is not true if it thrones. | [] | [
"the fact that the caustic does not backpack tetranychid and is coccal is not true if it thrones."
] |
the traverser is a Ottumwa. | sent1: the fact that the traverser is not a latest is true if something is a proctoscopy and it is a crater. sent2: the traverser is not a kind of a proctoscopy. sent3: something is a redistribution and it is a psychodid. sent4: the traverser does not recommend packinghouse. sent5: the fact that the anteater is not a Ottumwa is not incorrect. sent6: something is a cinema. sent7: the fact that something does serve cirrus and is a allocution is correct. sent8: the traverser is not greenside. sent9: the flagging is not a Ottumwa. sent10: the traverser is not pronounceable. sent11: there exists something such that it is a briefcase. sent12: something is not a Ottumwa if it is not a kind of a latest. sent13: there exists something such that it directs. sent14: the traverser does not direct. sent15: the shortbread is not a kind of a Ottumwa. sent16: if that the traverser is not a briefcase is right then it is not a proctoscopy. sent17: the traverser does not serve anapsid. sent18: there exists something such that it is alkahestic. sent19: the traverser is not a crater. sent20: something is a kind of a Garrulus and it does intend. sent21: something is a proctoscopy that is a crater. sent22: the homeotherm is not a remainder if something that is mortuary is a crater. | {D}{a} | sent1: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}{a} sent2: ¬{A}{a} sent3: (Ex): ({HJ}x & {FS}x) sent4: ¬{ET}{a} sent5: ¬{D}{ac} sent6: (Ex): {HF}x sent7: (Ex): ({BU}x & {IT}x) sent8: ¬{DU}{a} sent9: ¬{D}{dq} sent10: ¬{BL}{a} sent11: (Ex): {JB}x sent12: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬{D}x sent13: (Ex): {IC}x sent14: ¬{IC}{a} sent15: ¬{D}{fg} sent16: ¬{JB}{a} -> ¬{A}{a} sent17: ¬{FL}{a} sent18: (Ex): {IP}x sent19: ¬{B}{a} sent20: (Ex): ({L}x & {CF}x) sent21: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x) sent22: (x): ({HO}x & {B}x) -> ¬{HA}{hh} | [
"sent21 & sent1 -> int1: the traverser is not a latest.; sent12 -> int2: the fact that the traverser is not the Ottumwa if the traverser is not a latest hold.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent21 & sent1 -> int1: ¬{C}{a}; sent12 -> int2: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬{D}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 19 | 0 | 19 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = the traverser is a Ottumwa. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the traverser is not a latest is true if something is a proctoscopy and it is a crater. sent2: the traverser is not a kind of a proctoscopy. sent3: something is a redistribution and it is a psychodid. sent4: the traverser does not recommend packinghouse. sent5: the fact that the anteater is not a Ottumwa is not incorrect. sent6: something is a cinema. sent7: the fact that something does serve cirrus and is a allocution is correct. sent8: the traverser is not greenside. sent9: the flagging is not a Ottumwa. sent10: the traverser is not pronounceable. sent11: there exists something such that it is a briefcase. sent12: something is not a Ottumwa if it is not a kind of a latest. sent13: there exists something such that it directs. sent14: the traverser does not direct. sent15: the shortbread is not a kind of a Ottumwa. sent16: if that the traverser is not a briefcase is right then it is not a proctoscopy. sent17: the traverser does not serve anapsid. sent18: there exists something such that it is alkahestic. sent19: the traverser is not a crater. sent20: something is a kind of a Garrulus and it does intend. sent21: something is a proctoscopy that is a crater. sent22: the homeotherm is not a remainder if something that is mortuary is a crater. ; $proof$ = | sent21 & sent1 -> int1: the traverser is not a latest.; sent12 -> int2: the fact that the traverser is not the Ottumwa if the traverser is not a latest hold.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | something is a proctoscopy that is a crater. | [
"the fact that the traverser is not a latest is true if something is a proctoscopy and it is a crater.",
"something is not a Ottumwa if it is not a kind of a latest."
] | [
"There is a crater.",
"A proctoscopy is a crater."
] |
the fact that the fact that the chromatography companies but it is not a doctor is not true is correct. | sent1: if the skink does recommend coating but it is not intradermal the chromatography does recommend coating. sent2: if the chromatography is a company and not a doctor then the skink is not intradermal. sent3: if the fact that the kohl is a kind of non-intradermal thing that does not recommend coating is right then the skink is non-intradermal. sent4: that something is not a judgeship and/or it is a kind of a knotgrass is wrong if it is a waterfall. sent5: if that the kohl is not intradermal but it recommends coating is true then the skink is intradermal. sent6: that if the kohl is not bulbaceous the skink is not productive hold. sent7: everything is a waterfall. sent8: the macule is not bulbaceous if that the refresher is not a judgeship and/or it is a knotgrass is not right. sent9: that something is not non-Audenesque and is not a bylaw is not right if the fact that it does recommend coating is true. sent10: the skink recommends coating if the fact that the chromatography recommends coating and is not productive does not hold. sent11: the chromatography is not intradermal. sent12: if the fact that something does recommend coating is true then it is both a company and not a doctor. sent13: the kohl is not a checksum and/or is not bulbaceous if there is something such that it is bulbaceous. sent14: the kohl does not recommend coating. sent15: the fact that the skink is a kind of a company but it is not intradermal is not true. sent16: if something is a checksum then it is not bulbaceous. sent17: the kohl is not intradermal and does not recommend coating. sent18: if the kohl does recommend coating and is not intradermal then the skink is not a company. sent19: the macule is a kind of a checksum. sent20: if the kohl is a company but it is not intradermal then the skink does not recommend coating. | ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) | sent1: ({A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> {A}{a} sent2: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent3: (¬{B}{c} & ¬{A}{c}) -> {B}{b} sent4: (x): {H}x -> ¬(¬{F}x v {G}x) sent5: (¬{B}{c} & {A}{c}) -> {B}{b} sent6: ¬{D}{c} -> ¬{C}{b} sent7: (x): {H}x sent8: ¬(¬{F}{e} v {G}{e}) -> ¬{D}{d} sent9: (x): {A}x -> ¬({EO}x & ¬{IO}x) sent10: ¬({A}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {A}{b} sent11: ¬{B}{a} sent12: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent13: (x): ¬{D}x -> (¬{E}{c} v ¬{D}{c}) sent14: ¬{A}{c} sent15: ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent16: (x): {E}x -> ¬{D}x sent17: (¬{B}{c} & ¬{A}{c}) sent18: ({A}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) -> ¬{AA}{b} sent19: {E}{d} sent20: ({AA}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) -> ¬{A}{b} | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the chromatography companies but it is not a doctor.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the skink is not intradermal.; sent3 & sent17 -> int2: the skink is intradermal.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"void -> assump1: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); sent2 & assump1 -> int1: ¬{B}{b}; sent3 & sent17 -> int2: {B}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 17 | 0 | 17 | the chromatography is a company but it is not a doctor. | ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) | 11 | [
"sent12 -> int4: the chromatography is a company that is not a doctor if that it recommends coating is correct.; sent7 -> int5: the obturator is a waterfall.; sent4 -> int6: if the obturator is a waterfall that it is either not a judgeship or a knotgrass or both does not hold.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the fact that the obturator is not a judgeship and/or it is a kind of a knotgrass is not correct.; int7 -> int8: there exists nothing that either is not a kind of a judgeship or is a knotgrass or both.; int8 -> int9: the fact that the refresher is not a judgeship or a knotgrass or both is not correct.; int9 & sent8 -> int10: the macule is not bulbaceous.; int10 -> int11: there exists something such that it is not bulbaceous.; int11 & sent13 -> int12: either the kohl is not a checksum or it is not bulbaceous or both.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the fact that the chromatography companies but it is not a doctor is not true is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the skink does recommend coating but it is not intradermal the chromatography does recommend coating. sent2: if the chromatography is a company and not a doctor then the skink is not intradermal. sent3: if the fact that the kohl is a kind of non-intradermal thing that does not recommend coating is right then the skink is non-intradermal. sent4: that something is not a judgeship and/or it is a kind of a knotgrass is wrong if it is a waterfall. sent5: if that the kohl is not intradermal but it recommends coating is true then the skink is intradermal. sent6: that if the kohl is not bulbaceous the skink is not productive hold. sent7: everything is a waterfall. sent8: the macule is not bulbaceous if that the refresher is not a judgeship and/or it is a knotgrass is not right. sent9: that something is not non-Audenesque and is not a bylaw is not right if the fact that it does recommend coating is true. sent10: the skink recommends coating if the fact that the chromatography recommends coating and is not productive does not hold. sent11: the chromatography is not intradermal. sent12: if the fact that something does recommend coating is true then it is both a company and not a doctor. sent13: the kohl is not a checksum and/or is not bulbaceous if there is something such that it is bulbaceous. sent14: the kohl does not recommend coating. sent15: the fact that the skink is a kind of a company but it is not intradermal is not true. sent16: if something is a checksum then it is not bulbaceous. sent17: the kohl is not intradermal and does not recommend coating. sent18: if the kohl does recommend coating and is not intradermal then the skink is not a company. sent19: the macule is a kind of a checksum. sent20: if the kohl is a company but it is not intradermal then the skink does not recommend coating. ; $proof$ = | void -> assump1: Let's assume that the chromatography companies but it is not a doctor.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the skink is not intradermal.; sent3 & sent17 -> int2: the skink is intradermal.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if the chromatography is a company and not a doctor then the skink is not intradermal. | [
"if the fact that the kohl is a kind of non-intradermal thing that does not recommend coating is right then the skink is non-intradermal.",
"the kohl is not intradermal and does not recommend coating."
] | [
"The skink is not a part of the body if the company is not a doctor.",
"The skink is not a part of the body if it is a company and not a doctor."
] |
the phenazopyridine is unpriestly. | sent1: the dacryocyst is both non-sexagesimal and bounded. sent2: that the pad is certain thing that does not recommend adz is not true if it carries. sent3: if the fact that the dacryocyst does boat Lyra but it is not unpriestly is not correct the phenazopyridine is unpriestly. sent4: the dacryocyst recommends adz. sent5: the desertification is not radio and not a hypertrophy. sent6: the dacryocyst is non-certain thing that recommends adz if there is something such that the fact that it boats Lyra is not false. sent7: the phenylpropanolamine is a neoclassicist if there is something such that it serves monogram. sent8: the phenazopyridine is unpriestly if there exists something such that it is a peptone. sent9: there is something such that it boats Lyra. sent10: if there exists something such that it is pretentious the dacryocyst is nonexplosive. sent11: there are certain things. sent12: if the dacryocyst is a kind of non-certain thing that recommends adz the phenazopyridine is not a kind of a carry. sent13: if there is something such that the fact that it is certain is right then the fact that the dacryocyst does recommend adz is right. sent14: something is not unpriestly if it does not carry. sent15: the fact that the pad is a kind of non-unfaithful thing that does not serve pyemia is false if it is dendritic. sent16: if the fact that the pad is not unfaithful and it does not serve pyemia is wrong then it is a carry. sent17: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a carry the phenazopyridine does not recommend adz and is unpriestly. | {E}{b} | sent1: (¬{CO}{a} & {EO}{a}) sent2: {D}{d} -> ¬({B}{d} & ¬{C}{d}) sent3: ¬({A}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) -> {E}{b} sent4: {C}{a} sent5: (¬{I}{e} & ¬{J}{e}) sent6: (x): {A}x -> (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent7: (x): {CS}x -> {AE}{ac} sent8: (x): {JA}x -> {E}{b} sent9: (Ex): {A}x sent10: (x): {GJ}x -> {GB}{a} sent11: (Ex): {B}x sent12: (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent13: (x): {B}x -> {C}{a} sent14: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬{E}x sent15: {H}{d} -> ¬(¬{F}{d} & ¬{G}{d}) sent16: ¬(¬{F}{d} & ¬{G}{d}) -> {D}{d} sent17: (x): {D}x -> (¬{C}{b} & {E}{b}) | [
"sent9 & sent6 -> int1: the dacryocyst is not certain and recommends adz.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the phenazopyridine is not a carry.; sent14 -> int3: the phenazopyridine is not unpriestly if it is not a kind of a carry.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent9 & sent6 -> int1: (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}); int1 & sent12 -> int2: ¬{D}{b}; sent14 -> int3: ¬{D}{b} -> ¬{E}{b}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 13 | 0 | 13 | the phenazopyridine is unpriestly. | {E}{b} | 10 | [
"sent5 -> int4: something is not a radio and it is not a kind of a hypertrophy.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the phenazopyridine is unpriestly. ; $context$ = sent1: the dacryocyst is both non-sexagesimal and bounded. sent2: that the pad is certain thing that does not recommend adz is not true if it carries. sent3: if the fact that the dacryocyst does boat Lyra but it is not unpriestly is not correct the phenazopyridine is unpriestly. sent4: the dacryocyst recommends adz. sent5: the desertification is not radio and not a hypertrophy. sent6: the dacryocyst is non-certain thing that recommends adz if there is something such that the fact that it boats Lyra is not false. sent7: the phenylpropanolamine is a neoclassicist if there is something such that it serves monogram. sent8: the phenazopyridine is unpriestly if there exists something such that it is a peptone. sent9: there is something such that it boats Lyra. sent10: if there exists something such that it is pretentious the dacryocyst is nonexplosive. sent11: there are certain things. sent12: if the dacryocyst is a kind of non-certain thing that recommends adz the phenazopyridine is not a kind of a carry. sent13: if there is something such that the fact that it is certain is right then the fact that the dacryocyst does recommend adz is right. sent14: something is not unpriestly if it does not carry. sent15: the fact that the pad is a kind of non-unfaithful thing that does not serve pyemia is false if it is dendritic. sent16: if the fact that the pad is not unfaithful and it does not serve pyemia is wrong then it is a carry. sent17: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a carry the phenazopyridine does not recommend adz and is unpriestly. ; $proof$ = | sent9 & sent6 -> int1: the dacryocyst is not certain and recommends adz.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the phenazopyridine is not a carry.; sent14 -> int3: the phenazopyridine is not unpriestly if it is not a kind of a carry.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | there is something such that it boats Lyra. | [
"the dacryocyst is non-certain thing that recommends adz if there is something such that the fact that it boats Lyra is not false.",
"if the dacryocyst is a kind of non-certain thing that recommends adz the phenazopyridine is not a kind of a carry.",
"something is not unpriestly if it does not carry."
] | [
"There is something that boats Lyra, that's what SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA is SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA",
"There is something that boats Lyra, that's what SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA is SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA is SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA",
"There is something that boats Lyra, that's what SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA is SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA SALVAGEDATA"
] |
the pincer is antiquarian. | sent1: the fact that the centrosome is not a subscript but it is a kind of an octagon is not true. sent2: if that the centrosome is not subscript and not an octagon is false the pincer is antiquarian. sent3: the presbytery is not stereoscopic and does not leapfrog. sent4: the presbytery is subscript. sent5: if the presbytery is non-stereoscopic thing that does not leapfrog then it is not a kind of a banderillero. sent6: the pincer is a kind of a subscript. sent7: the fact that the centrosome is a kind of a subscript but it is non-antiquarian is not right if the presbytery is non-stereoscopic. sent8: the fact that the centrosome is not a banderillero and is not a kind of an octagon is false. sent9: the presbytery is a kind of non-antiquarian thing that does not recommend ordinand. sent10: if the presbytery is a kind of a subscript then the centrosome is stereoscopic. sent11: if the presbytery is not a subscript but it is a turbine the pincer is a banderillero. sent12: if the presbytery is not a kind of a banderillero then the fact that the centrosome is non-subscript thing that is not an octagon is not true. sent13: if the presbytery is not a leapfrog and is not a seer then it is not musical. | {D}{c} | sent1: ¬(¬{C}{b} & {A}{b}) sent2: ¬(¬{C}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) -> {D}{c} sent3: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent4: {C}{a} sent5: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent6: {C}{c} sent7: ¬{AA}{a} -> ¬({C}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent8: ¬(¬{B}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent9: (¬{D}{a} & ¬{GO}{a}) sent10: {C}{a} -> {AA}{b} sent11: (¬{C}{a} & {E}{a}) -> {B}{c} sent12: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬(¬{C}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent13: (¬{AB}{a} & ¬{BQ}{a}) -> ¬{EQ}{a} | [
"sent5 & sent3 -> int1: the presbytery is not a kind of a banderillero.; sent12 & int1 -> int2: that the centrosome is not a subscript and is not an octagon is false.; sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent5 & sent3 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; sent12 & int1 -> int2: ¬(¬{C}{b} & ¬{A}{b}); sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 9 | 0 | 9 | the fact that the pincer is non-antiquarian hold. | ¬{D}{c} | 5 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the pincer is antiquarian. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the centrosome is not a subscript but it is a kind of an octagon is not true. sent2: if that the centrosome is not subscript and not an octagon is false the pincer is antiquarian. sent3: the presbytery is not stereoscopic and does not leapfrog. sent4: the presbytery is subscript. sent5: if the presbytery is non-stereoscopic thing that does not leapfrog then it is not a kind of a banderillero. sent6: the pincer is a kind of a subscript. sent7: the fact that the centrosome is a kind of a subscript but it is non-antiquarian is not right if the presbytery is non-stereoscopic. sent8: the fact that the centrosome is not a banderillero and is not a kind of an octagon is false. sent9: the presbytery is a kind of non-antiquarian thing that does not recommend ordinand. sent10: if the presbytery is a kind of a subscript then the centrosome is stereoscopic. sent11: if the presbytery is not a subscript but it is a turbine the pincer is a banderillero. sent12: if the presbytery is not a kind of a banderillero then the fact that the centrosome is non-subscript thing that is not an octagon is not true. sent13: if the presbytery is not a leapfrog and is not a seer then it is not musical. ; $proof$ = | sent5 & sent3 -> int1: the presbytery is not a kind of a banderillero.; sent12 & int1 -> int2: that the centrosome is not a subscript and is not an octagon is false.; sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if the presbytery is non-stereoscopic thing that does not leapfrog then it is not a kind of a banderillero. | [
"the presbytery is not stereoscopic and does not leapfrog.",
"if the presbytery is not a kind of a banderillero then the fact that the centrosome is non-subscript thing that is not an octagon is not true.",
"if that the centrosome is not subscript and not an octagon is false the pincer is antiquarian."
] | [
"The presbytery is not a kind of banderillero if it is non-stereoscopic.",
"Thepresbytery is not a kind of banderillero if it is non-stereoscopic.",
"The presbytery is not a banderillero if it is non-stereoscopic."
] |
the fact that not the wafting but the unpermissiveness occurs is not correct. | sent1: the boating mealberry does not occur but the recommending lurker occurs if the scowling does not occur. sent2: that both the unpermissiveness and the indexicalness occurs is triggered by that the serving cockfight does not occur. sent3: the fact that the wafting does not occur but the unpermissiveness occurs is not right if the inharmoniousness happens. sent4: if the serving cockfight occurs the indexicalness happens. sent5: the Judaicness and the isomerization occurs if the scattering does not occur. sent6: the inharmoniousness does not occur. sent7: the fact that that the gloriousness does not occur and the humoralness does not occur is true causes that the scowling does not occur. sent8: that the wafting does not occur is triggered by that not the inharmoniousness but the will-o'-the-wisp occurs. sent9: that the ingloriousness and the non-humoralness happens is triggered by the Judaicness. sent10: if the boating mealberry does not occur the serving cockfight and the aborticide occurs. sent11: the will-o'-the-wisp happens. sent12: the serving cockfight does not occur. | ¬(¬{C} & {D}) | sent1: ¬{J} -> (¬{H} & {I}) sent2: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) sent3: {A} -> ¬(¬{C} & {D}) sent4: {F} -> {E} sent5: ¬{O} -> ({M} & {N}) sent6: ¬{A} sent7: (¬{K} & ¬{L}) -> ¬{J} sent8: (¬{A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent9: {M} -> (¬{K} & ¬{L}) sent10: ¬{H} -> ({F} & {G}) sent11: {B} sent12: ¬{F} | [
"sent6 & sent11 -> int1: both the non-inharmoniousness and the will-o'-the-wisp occurs.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the wafting does not occur.; sent2 & sent12 -> int3: both the unpermissiveness and the indexicalness occurs.; int3 -> int4: the unpermissiveness occurs.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent6 & sent11 -> int1: (¬{A} & {B}); int1 & sent8 -> int2: ¬{C}; sent2 & sent12 -> int3: ({D} & {E}); int3 -> int4: {D}; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 7 | the fact that the wafting does not occur but the unpermissiveness happens does not hold. | ¬(¬{C} & {D}) | 12 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that not the wafting but the unpermissiveness occurs is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the boating mealberry does not occur but the recommending lurker occurs if the scowling does not occur. sent2: that both the unpermissiveness and the indexicalness occurs is triggered by that the serving cockfight does not occur. sent3: the fact that the wafting does not occur but the unpermissiveness occurs is not right if the inharmoniousness happens. sent4: if the serving cockfight occurs the indexicalness happens. sent5: the Judaicness and the isomerization occurs if the scattering does not occur. sent6: the inharmoniousness does not occur. sent7: the fact that that the gloriousness does not occur and the humoralness does not occur is true causes that the scowling does not occur. sent8: that the wafting does not occur is triggered by that not the inharmoniousness but the will-o'-the-wisp occurs. sent9: that the ingloriousness and the non-humoralness happens is triggered by the Judaicness. sent10: if the boating mealberry does not occur the serving cockfight and the aborticide occurs. sent11: the will-o'-the-wisp happens. sent12: the serving cockfight does not occur. ; $proof$ = | sent6 & sent11 -> int1: both the non-inharmoniousness and the will-o'-the-wisp occurs.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the wafting does not occur.; sent2 & sent12 -> int3: both the unpermissiveness and the indexicalness occurs.; int3 -> int4: the unpermissiveness occurs.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the inharmoniousness does not occur. | [
"the will-o'-the-wisp happens.",
"that the wafting does not occur is triggered by that not the inharmoniousness but the will-o'-the-wisp occurs.",
"that both the unpermissiveness and the indexicalness occurs is triggered by that the serving cockfight does not occur.",
"the serving cockfight does not occur."
] | [
"There is no inharmoniousness.",
"The inharmoniousness doesn't happen.",
"The in harmoniousness doesn't happen.",
"The inharmoniousness does not happen."
] |
there is something such that if it does not backpack ancestor and it is cervine then it is a hussar. | sent1: if something is both not a webpage and bivalent then the fact that it is a hussar hold. sent2: the weather is a kind of a hussar if it is not a Toyohashi and it is dramatic. sent3: there is something such that if it is a Muscovite and does twig it does recommend remainder. sent4: there exists something such that if it is a parapet and it is a kind of a Toyohashi then it backpacks weather. sent5: if the weather does not backpack ancestor but it is cervine it is a hussar. | (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x | sent1: (x): (¬{GI}x & {FH}x) -> {B}x sent2: (¬{EO}{aa} & {E}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent3: (Ex): ({IT}x & {IR}x) -> {HH}x sent4: (Ex): ({GQ}x & {EO}x) -> {K}x sent5: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} | [
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 4 | the weather is a kind of a hussar if it is not a webpage and is bivalent. | (¬{GI}{aa} & {FH}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} | 1 | [
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it does not backpack ancestor and it is cervine then it is a hussar. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is both not a webpage and bivalent then the fact that it is a hussar hold. sent2: the weather is a kind of a hussar if it is not a Toyohashi and it is dramatic. sent3: there is something such that if it is a Muscovite and does twig it does recommend remainder. sent4: there exists something such that if it is a parapet and it is a kind of a Toyohashi then it backpacks weather. sent5: if the weather does not backpack ancestor but it is cervine it is a hussar. ; $proof$ = | sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if the weather does not backpack ancestor but it is cervine it is a hussar. | [] | [
"if the weather does not backpack ancestor but it is cervine it is a hussar."
] |
the Beguine does backpack wood. | sent1: there exists something such that it does not throng. sent2: the fact that the Beguine does not backpack wood hold if that the loaner is not custard-like but it is a kind of a calceus is not right. sent3: if the loaner is not a deportation then that it is both not a homo and mechanical is false. sent4: that something does boat dream if the fact that it is a crockery and does not boat dream is not true hold. sent5: something that is not a waste is not a kind of a albedo and achieves. sent6: if something is not heterodactyl then it does not recommend kidney and forbears. sent7: if that the upstage throngs and is a urine is not right it is not a waste. sent8: if the voyeurism does not recommend kidney that the loaner is a crockery that does not boat dream is not true. sent9: if the loaner does not recommend manipulation the fact that it is a kind of non-custard-like a calceus does not hold. sent10: the Beguine is not custard-like. sent11: if there exists something such that it does not serve model then that the Jordanian does boat mannequin and is not bismuthic is not true. sent12: if the loaner is not a calceus the Beguine does not backpack wood. sent13: if the fact that something boats mannequin but it is not bismuthic is not true it is not heterodactyl. sent14: that something is not a calceus but it is a kind of a cutlassfish does not hold if it recommends manipulation. sent15: that the loaner does not recommend manipulation hold. sent16: if the Beguine does not backpack wood that it is not a kind of a calceus and recommends manipulation is not true. sent17: something backpacks wood and it does recommend manipulation if it is not an intolerance. sent18: something that is not a albedo and does achieve does not serve model. sent19: the Beguine is not custard-like if that the loaner does not backpack wood but it does recommend manipulation is not true. sent20: That the manipulation does not recommend loaner hold. sent21: if the fact that the Jordanian does not recommend kidney and does forbear hold then the voyeurism does not recommend kidney. sent22: that the upstage does throng and is a urine does not hold if there exists something such that it does not throng. | {B}{b} | sent1: (Ex): ¬{Q}x sent2: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent3: ¬{HN}{a} -> ¬(¬{AE}{a} & {JI}{a}) sent4: (x): ¬({G}x & ¬{E}x) -> {E}x sent5: (x): ¬{O}x -> (¬{N}x & {M}x) sent6: (x): ¬{H}x -> (¬{F}x & {I}x) sent7: ¬({Q}{e} & {P}{e}) -> ¬{O}{e} sent8: ¬{F}{c} -> ¬({G}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) sent9: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent10: ¬{AA}{b} sent11: (x): ¬{L}x -> ¬({K}{d} & ¬{J}{d}) sent12: ¬{AB}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent13: (x): ¬({K}x & ¬{J}x) -> ¬{H}x sent14: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AB}x & {DU}x) sent15: ¬{A}{a} sent16: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬(¬{AB}{b} & {A}{b}) sent17: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & {A}x) sent18: (x): (¬{N}x & {M}x) -> ¬{L}x sent19: ¬(¬{B}{a} & {A}{a}) -> ¬{AA}{b} sent20: ¬{AC}{aa} sent21: (¬{F}{d} & {I}{d}) -> ¬{F}{c} sent22: (x): ¬{Q}x -> ¬({Q}{e} & {P}{e}) | [
"sent9 & sent15 -> int1: that the loaner is non-custard-like thing that is a kind of a calceus does not hold.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent9 & sent15 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}); sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 19 | 0 | 19 | that the Beguine is both not a calceus and a cutlassfish does not hold. | ¬(¬{AB}{b} & {DU}{b}) | 6 | [
"sent14 -> int2: if the Beguine recommends manipulation the fact that it is not a calceus and it is a cutlassfish is false.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the Beguine does backpack wood. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it does not throng. sent2: the fact that the Beguine does not backpack wood hold if that the loaner is not custard-like but it is a kind of a calceus is not right. sent3: if the loaner is not a deportation then that it is both not a homo and mechanical is false. sent4: that something does boat dream if the fact that it is a crockery and does not boat dream is not true hold. sent5: something that is not a waste is not a kind of a albedo and achieves. sent6: if something is not heterodactyl then it does not recommend kidney and forbears. sent7: if that the upstage throngs and is a urine is not right it is not a waste. sent8: if the voyeurism does not recommend kidney that the loaner is a crockery that does not boat dream is not true. sent9: if the loaner does not recommend manipulation the fact that it is a kind of non-custard-like a calceus does not hold. sent10: the Beguine is not custard-like. sent11: if there exists something such that it does not serve model then that the Jordanian does boat mannequin and is not bismuthic is not true. sent12: if the loaner is not a calceus the Beguine does not backpack wood. sent13: if the fact that something boats mannequin but it is not bismuthic is not true it is not heterodactyl. sent14: that something is not a calceus but it is a kind of a cutlassfish does not hold if it recommends manipulation. sent15: that the loaner does not recommend manipulation hold. sent16: if the Beguine does not backpack wood that it is not a kind of a calceus and recommends manipulation is not true. sent17: something backpacks wood and it does recommend manipulation if it is not an intolerance. sent18: something that is not a albedo and does achieve does not serve model. sent19: the Beguine is not custard-like if that the loaner does not backpack wood but it does recommend manipulation is not true. sent20: That the manipulation does not recommend loaner hold. sent21: if the fact that the Jordanian does not recommend kidney and does forbear hold then the voyeurism does not recommend kidney. sent22: that the upstage does throng and is a urine does not hold if there exists something such that it does not throng. ; $proof$ = | sent9 & sent15 -> int1: that the loaner is non-custard-like thing that is a kind of a calceus does not hold.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if the loaner does not recommend manipulation the fact that it is a kind of non-custard-like a calceus does not hold. | [
"that the loaner does not recommend manipulation hold.",
"the fact that the Beguine does not backpack wood hold if that the loaner is not custard-like but it is a kind of a calceus is not right."
] | [
"If the loaner doesn't recommend manipulation, it's like a calceus doesn't hold.",
"If the loaner doesn't recommend manipulation, it is like a calceus doesn't hold."
] |
the carapace is not a kind of a Zinjanthropus. | sent1: the carapace is cosmologic if the bangle is a Zinjanthropus. sent2: if the demonstrator is cosmologic the carapace is a Zinjanthropus. sent3: the demonstrator backpacks carapace and is a kind of a Zinjanthropus. sent4: the fact that the carapace does backpack carapace if the demonstrator is a kind of a Zinjanthropus is not incorrect. sent5: the demonstrator is a dualist. sent6: the demonstrator is a kind of a Zinjanthropus and it backpacks carapace. sent7: the soil backpacks carapace. sent8: the carapace is a animalcule. sent9: the Piedmont is a kind of a bantam that overprotects. sent10: the SOD recommends peoples and it is a kind of a desalination. sent11: the fact that the rung does backpack carapace hold. sent12: if the fact that the carapace is cosmologic is not false the demonstrator is a kind of a Zinjanthropus. sent13: the demonstrator does backpack carapace and it is cosmologic. sent14: that the SOD is not monophonic but it tops does not hold if it is a kind of a desalination. sent15: if the demonstrator is a kind of a Zinjanthropus the carapace is cosmologic. sent16: the carapace is cosmologic. sent17: that the carapace backpacks carapace is right. sent18: if that something is not monophonic but it does top is wrong it does not backpack carapace. sent19: the demonstrator does backpack carapace. sent20: the demonstrator does recommend profligacy. | ¬{C}{b} | sent1: {C}{cb} -> {B}{b} sent2: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent3: ({A}{a} & {C}{a}) sent4: {C}{a} -> {A}{b} sent5: {GM}{a} sent6: ({C}{a} & {A}{a}) sent7: {A}{gg} sent8: {BQ}{b} sent9: ({IE}{m} & {FF}{m}) sent10: ({G}{c} & {F}{c}) sent11: {A}{gs} sent12: {B}{b} -> {C}{a} sent13: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent14: {F}{c} -> ¬(¬{D}{c} & {E}{c}) sent15: {C}{a} -> {B}{b} sent16: {B}{b} sent17: {A}{b} sent18: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & {E}x) -> ¬{A}x sent19: {A}{a} sent20: {AL}{a} | [
"sent13 -> int1: the demonstrator is cosmologic.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent13 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 18 | 0 | 18 | the carapace is not a Zinjanthropus. | ¬{C}{b} | 7 | [
"sent18 -> int2: if the fact that the SOD is a kind of non-monophonic a top does not hold then it does not backpack carapace.; sent10 -> int3: the SOD is a desalination.; sent14 & int3 -> int4: that the SOD is both not monophonic and top does not hold.; int2 & int4 -> int5: the SOD does not backpack carapace.; int5 -> int6: there is something such that it does not backpack carapace.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the carapace is not a kind of a Zinjanthropus. ; $context$ = sent1: the carapace is cosmologic if the bangle is a Zinjanthropus. sent2: if the demonstrator is cosmologic the carapace is a Zinjanthropus. sent3: the demonstrator backpacks carapace and is a kind of a Zinjanthropus. sent4: the fact that the carapace does backpack carapace if the demonstrator is a kind of a Zinjanthropus is not incorrect. sent5: the demonstrator is a dualist. sent6: the demonstrator is a kind of a Zinjanthropus and it backpacks carapace. sent7: the soil backpacks carapace. sent8: the carapace is a animalcule. sent9: the Piedmont is a kind of a bantam that overprotects. sent10: the SOD recommends peoples and it is a kind of a desalination. sent11: the fact that the rung does backpack carapace hold. sent12: if the fact that the carapace is cosmologic is not false the demonstrator is a kind of a Zinjanthropus. sent13: the demonstrator does backpack carapace and it is cosmologic. sent14: that the SOD is not monophonic but it tops does not hold if it is a kind of a desalination. sent15: if the demonstrator is a kind of a Zinjanthropus the carapace is cosmologic. sent16: the carapace is cosmologic. sent17: that the carapace backpacks carapace is right. sent18: if that something is not monophonic but it does top is wrong it does not backpack carapace. sent19: the demonstrator does backpack carapace. sent20: the demonstrator does recommend profligacy. ; $proof$ = | sent13 -> int1: the demonstrator is cosmologic.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the demonstrator does backpack carapace and it is cosmologic. | [
"if the demonstrator is cosmologic the carapace is a Zinjanthropus."
] | [
"the demonstrator does backpack carapace and it is cosmologic."
] |
the swimmer recommends atomism. | sent1: the Sunnite is both an episteme and a lambdacism. sent2: something is an episteme and a lambdacism if it does not recommend atomism. | {C}{b} | sent1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent2: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({A}x & {B}x) | [
"sent1 -> int1: the Sunnite is a lambdacism.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent1 -> int1: {B}{a};"
] | UNKNOWN | 2 | null | 1 | 0 | 1 | the notebook is an episteme. | {A}{ef} | 5 | [
"sent2 -> int2: the notebook is an episteme and is a lambdacism if it does not recommend atomism.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the swimmer recommends atomism. ; $context$ = sent1: the Sunnite is both an episteme and a lambdacism. sent2: something is an episteme and a lambdacism if it does not recommend atomism. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | the Sunnite is both an episteme and a lambdacism. | [] | [
"the Sunnite is both an episteme and a lambdacism."
] |
the dairymaid does not recommend sassaby. | sent1: something serves childishness. sent2: the fact that the silverspot does recommend clearway is correct if it does stagger. sent3: the silverspot does not recommend kestrel. sent4: if there exists something such that it does not serve childishness then the silverspot does stagger. sent5: the dairymaid does not recommend sassaby if the silverspot does recommend clearway and/or is not stale. sent6: the dairymaid does recommend clearway. sent7: the silverspot does recommend clearway and/or stales. sent8: that the silverspot is a bangle but it is not stale is wrong if that it does not recommend kestrel is not wrong. sent9: if that something is a kind of a bangle that does not stale is not correct it does stale. sent10: if something does not stagger then it recommends sassaby and does serve childishness. sent11: that the dairymaid does not recommend sassaby is not wrong if the fact that the silverspot does stale is false. | ¬{E}{b} | sent1: (Ex): {A}x sent2: {B}{a} -> {C}{a} sent3: ¬{G}{a} sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> {B}{a} sent5: ({C}{a} v ¬{D}{a}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent6: {C}{b} sent7: ({C}{a} v {D}{a}) sent8: ¬{G}{a} -> ¬({F}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent9: (x): ¬({F}x & ¬{D}x) -> {D}x sent10: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({E}x & {A}x) sent11: ¬{D}{a} -> ¬{E}{b} | [] | UNKNOWN | [] | UNKNOWN | 4 | null | 8 | 0 | 8 | the fact that the dairymaid recommends sassaby is not wrong. | {E}{b} | 7 | [
"sent10 -> int1: if the dairymaid does not stagger it does recommend sassaby and does serve childishness.; sent9 -> int2: if the fact that the silverspot is a bangle and not stale is wrong it does stale.; sent8 & sent3 -> int3: that the silverspot is a bangle and not stale is incorrect.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the silverspot stales.; int4 -> int5: the silverspot either does stale or does not recommend clearway or both.; int5 -> int6: something does stale or it does not recommend clearway or both.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the dairymaid does not recommend sassaby. ; $context$ = sent1: something serves childishness. sent2: the fact that the silverspot does recommend clearway is correct if it does stagger. sent3: the silverspot does not recommend kestrel. sent4: if there exists something such that it does not serve childishness then the silverspot does stagger. sent5: the dairymaid does not recommend sassaby if the silverspot does recommend clearway and/or is not stale. sent6: the dairymaid does recommend clearway. sent7: the silverspot does recommend clearway and/or stales. sent8: that the silverspot is a bangle but it is not stale is wrong if that it does not recommend kestrel is not wrong. sent9: if that something is a kind of a bangle that does not stale is not correct it does stale. sent10: if something does not stagger then it recommends sassaby and does serve childishness. sent11: that the dairymaid does not recommend sassaby is not wrong if the fact that the silverspot does stale is false. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | if something does not stagger then it recommends sassaby and does serve childishness. | [
"the dairymaid does recommend clearway."
] | [
"if something does not stagger then it recommends sassaby and does serve childishness."
] |
the abaxialness does not occur. | sent1: the arguing happens. sent2: the recommending penuriousness prevents that the antecedent does not occur. sent3: the backpacking single occurs and the recommending penuriousness occurs. sent4: the polo does not occur. sent5: the equivocalness happens. sent6: if the antecedent occurs the abaxialness happens. sent7: the fact that the indurating does not occur is not incorrect if the fact that both the indurating and the Procrusteanness happens is not true. sent8: the fact that the fact that the indurating and the Procrusteanness happens is not correct is true if the polo does not occur. sent9: the backpacking single occurs. sent10: if the fact that the backpacking single and the recommending penuriousness happens is not true the abaxialness does not occur. sent11: that the antecedent does not occur is brought about by that the indurating does not occur and the auricularness does not occur. | ¬{D} | sent1: {HS} sent2: {B} -> {C} sent3: ({A} & {B}) sent4: ¬{K} sent5: {AM} sent6: {C} -> {D} sent7: ¬({E} & {H}) -> ¬{E} sent8: ¬{K} -> ¬({E} & {H}) sent9: {A} sent10: ¬({A} & {B}) -> ¬{D} sent11: (¬{E} & ¬{F}) -> ¬{C} | [
"sent3 -> int1: the recommending penuriousness occurs.; sent2 & int1 -> int2: that the antecedent occurs hold.; sent6 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent3 -> int1: {B}; sent2 & int1 -> int2: {C}; sent6 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 8 | the abaxialness does not occur. | ¬{D} | 8 | [
"sent8 & sent4 -> int3: that the indurating happens and the Procrusteanness happens is false.; sent7 & int3 -> int4: the indurating does not occur.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the abaxialness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the arguing happens. sent2: the recommending penuriousness prevents that the antecedent does not occur. sent3: the backpacking single occurs and the recommending penuriousness occurs. sent4: the polo does not occur. sent5: the equivocalness happens. sent6: if the antecedent occurs the abaxialness happens. sent7: the fact that the indurating does not occur is not incorrect if the fact that both the indurating and the Procrusteanness happens is not true. sent8: the fact that the fact that the indurating and the Procrusteanness happens is not correct is true if the polo does not occur. sent9: the backpacking single occurs. sent10: if the fact that the backpacking single and the recommending penuriousness happens is not true the abaxialness does not occur. sent11: that the antecedent does not occur is brought about by that the indurating does not occur and the auricularness does not occur. ; $proof$ = | sent3 -> int1: the recommending penuriousness occurs.; sent2 & int1 -> int2: that the antecedent occurs hold.; sent6 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the backpacking single occurs and the recommending penuriousness occurs. | [
"the recommending penuriousness prevents that the antecedent does not occur.",
"if the antecedent occurs the abaxialness happens."
] | [
"The recommendation penuriousness occurs when the backpacking single occurs.",
"The recommended penuriousness occurs when the backpacking single occurs."
] |
there is something such that if it does not recommend cartoon then the fact that it is both not a Limonium and not aecial does not hold. | sent1: if something does not recommend cartoon that it is not a Limonium and it is not aecial is not correct. sent2: if something is carnal the fact that it is both not an appointee and not angry is wrong. sent3: something is not a kind of a Limonium and it is not aecial if it does not recommend cartoon. sent4: the fact that the dishpan is not a Limonium and not aecial is not right if it recommends cartoon. sent5: if something is non-evening the fact that it is not a kind of an air and is not a Limonium is false. sent6: the fact that the dishpan is not a Limonium and is aecial is not right if it does not recommend cartoon. sent7: the fact that something is not a Limonium but aecial is false if it does not recommend cartoon. sent8: there is something such that if it does not recommend cartoon the fact that it is a Limonium that is not aecial is not correct. | (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) | sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent2: (x): {IM}x -> ¬(¬{FA}x & ¬{CC}x) sent3: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent4: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent5: (x): ¬{EH}x -> ¬(¬{CR}x & ¬{AA}x) sent6: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent8: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) | [
"sent1 -> int1: the fact that the dishpan is not a Limonium and is not aecial does not hold if it does not recommend cartoon.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent1 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 7 | that the guard is not an air and it is not a kind of a Limonium does not hold if it is not evening. | ¬{EH}{cs} -> ¬(¬{CR}{cs} & ¬{AA}{cs}) | 1 | [
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it does not recommend cartoon then the fact that it is both not a Limonium and not aecial does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not recommend cartoon that it is not a Limonium and it is not aecial is not correct. sent2: if something is carnal the fact that it is both not an appointee and not angry is wrong. sent3: something is not a kind of a Limonium and it is not aecial if it does not recommend cartoon. sent4: the fact that the dishpan is not a Limonium and not aecial is not right if it recommends cartoon. sent5: if something is non-evening the fact that it is not a kind of an air and is not a Limonium is false. sent6: the fact that the dishpan is not a Limonium and is aecial is not right if it does not recommend cartoon. sent7: the fact that something is not a Limonium but aecial is false if it does not recommend cartoon. sent8: there is something such that if it does not recommend cartoon the fact that it is a Limonium that is not aecial is not correct. ; $proof$ = | sent1 -> int1: the fact that the dishpan is not a Limonium and is not aecial does not hold if it does not recommend cartoon.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if something does not recommend cartoon that it is not a Limonium and it is not aecial is not correct. | [] | [
"if something does not recommend cartoon that it is not a Limonium and it is not aecial is not correct."
] |
the PC does not expectorate. | sent1: if the pistil serves Hirundo then the star-thistle recommends puritan. sent2: the star-thistle does serve PC. sent3: if something is not nonlinear that it is a kind of a lay and it is not anagogic is incorrect. sent4: the Argentinian is a handbook. sent5: if the fact that the pistil is a resort is not incorrect then the star-thistle recommends puritan. sent6: the Argentinian expectorates if the PC is a kind of a handbook. sent7: the star-thistle is an essay if the Argentinian is a handbook. sent8: the PC is a handbook if the Argentinian expectorates. sent9: the Cimarron does expectorate. sent10: if there is something such that it is not a no-hitter and it does not recommend waffler the first is not nonlinear. sent11: The PC does serve star-thistle. sent12: the bough is not an essay. sent13: that something is an essay that does not expectorate is not true if it is not a kind of a handbook. sent14: if something is an essay but it is not a handbook then it does expectorate. sent15: the proaccelerin does develop if there exists something such that that it does lie and it is not anagogic does not hold. sent16: if the fact that something does not serve PC and it does not recommend puritan is wrong it is not a kind of a handbook. sent17: the PC expectorates if the fact that the Argentinian is an essay that does not expectorates is false. sent18: the incurable is not a kind of a no-hitter and it does not recommend waffler if the fact that it is not intrapulmonary is not wrong. sent19: the incurable is not intrapulmonary. sent20: the fact that the pistil is not a kind of a firewall is true if there exists something such that the fact that it does develop hold. sent21: something does serve Hirundo and/or it is a resort if it is not a firewall. | ¬{D}{c} | sent1: {G}{d} -> {E}{b} sent2: {C}{b} sent3: (x): ¬{L}x -> ¬({K}x & ¬{J}x) sent4: {A}{a} sent5: {F}{d} -> {E}{b} sent6: {A}{c} -> {D}{a} sent7: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent8: {D}{a} -> {A}{c} sent9: {D}{bf} sent10: (x): (¬{N}x & ¬{M}x) -> ¬{L}{f} sent11: {AA}{aa} sent12: ¬{B}{jb} sent13: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{D}x) sent14: (x): ({B}x & ¬{A}x) -> {D}x sent15: (x): ¬({K}x & ¬{J}x) -> {I}{e} sent16: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{E}x) -> ¬{A}x sent17: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) -> {D}{c} sent18: ¬{O}{g} -> (¬{N}{g} & ¬{M}{g}) sent19: ¬{O}{g} sent20: (x): {I}x -> ¬{H}{d} sent21: (x): ¬{H}x -> ({G}x v {F}x) | [
"sent7 & sent4 -> int1: the star-thistle is an essay.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the star-thistle is a kind of an essay that does serve PC.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent7 & sent4 -> int1: {B}{b}; int1 & sent2 -> int2: ({B}{b} & {C}{b});"
] | UNKNOWN | 3 | null | 18 | 0 | 18 | the PC does expectorate. | {D}{c} | 15 | [
"sent13 -> int3: the fact that the Argentinian is an essay but it does not expectorate is not right if that it is not a handbook hold.; sent16 -> int4: if the fact that the Argentinian does not serve PC and it does not recommend puritan is not true then it is not a handbook.; sent21 -> int5: the pistil serves Hirundo or it is a resort or both if it is not a firewall.; sent3 -> int6: the fact that that the first lies but it is not anagogic is false if the first is not nonlinear hold.; sent18 & sent19 -> int7: the incurable is not a no-hitter and does not recommend waffler.; int7 -> int8: there is something such that it is not a kind of a no-hitter and it does not recommend waffler.; int8 & sent10 -> int9: the first is not nonlinear.; int6 & int9 -> int10: the fact that the first lies and is not anagogic is not correct.; int10 -> int11: there exists something such that the fact that it is a lay and it is not anagogic is not true.; int11 & sent15 -> int12: that the proaccelerin does develop is right.; int12 -> int13: there exists something such that it does develop.; int13 & sent20 -> int14: the pistil is not a firewall.; int5 & int14 -> int15: the pistil does serve Hirundo and/or it is a resort.; int15 & sent1 & sent5 -> int16: the fact that the star-thistle recommends puritan is not incorrect.; int16 -> int17: there is something such that it does recommend puritan.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the PC does not expectorate. ; $context$ = sent1: if the pistil serves Hirundo then the star-thistle recommends puritan. sent2: the star-thistle does serve PC. sent3: if something is not nonlinear that it is a kind of a lay and it is not anagogic is incorrect. sent4: the Argentinian is a handbook. sent5: if the fact that the pistil is a resort is not incorrect then the star-thistle recommends puritan. sent6: the Argentinian expectorates if the PC is a kind of a handbook. sent7: the star-thistle is an essay if the Argentinian is a handbook. sent8: the PC is a handbook if the Argentinian expectorates. sent9: the Cimarron does expectorate. sent10: if there is something such that it is not a no-hitter and it does not recommend waffler the first is not nonlinear. sent11: The PC does serve star-thistle. sent12: the bough is not an essay. sent13: that something is an essay that does not expectorate is not true if it is not a kind of a handbook. sent14: if something is an essay but it is not a handbook then it does expectorate. sent15: the proaccelerin does develop if there exists something such that that it does lie and it is not anagogic does not hold. sent16: if the fact that something does not serve PC and it does not recommend puritan is wrong it is not a kind of a handbook. sent17: the PC expectorates if the fact that the Argentinian is an essay that does not expectorates is false. sent18: the incurable is not a kind of a no-hitter and it does not recommend waffler if the fact that it is not intrapulmonary is not wrong. sent19: the incurable is not intrapulmonary. sent20: the fact that the pistil is not a kind of a firewall is true if there exists something such that the fact that it does develop hold. sent21: something does serve Hirundo and/or it is a resort if it is not a firewall. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | the star-thistle is an essay if the Argentinian is a handbook. | [
"the Argentinian is a handbook.",
"the star-thistle does serve PC."
] | [
"If the Argentinian is a handbook, the star-thistle is an essay.",
"If the Argentinian is a handbook, then the star-thistle is an essay."
] |
the stand does backpack Vireonidae. | sent1: the jerkin is not lipless if something is not lipless and/or is a kind of an education. sent2: something is non-seductive thing that recommends lurker if it is not lipless. sent3: there exists something such that it is not lipless or it is an education or both. | {B}{a} | sent1: (x): (¬{A}x v {C}x) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: (Ex): (¬{A}x v {C}x) | [
"sent2 -> int1: the jerkin is not seductive but it does recommend lurker if that it is not lipless is not wrong.; sent3 & sent1 -> int2: the jerkin is not lipless.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the jerkin is non-seductive thing that recommends lurker.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent2 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); sent3 & sent1 -> int2: ¬{A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> int3: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa});"
] | UNKNOWN | 3 | null | 0 | 0 | 0 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = the stand does backpack Vireonidae. ; $context$ = sent1: the jerkin is not lipless if something is not lipless and/or is a kind of an education. sent2: something is non-seductive thing that recommends lurker if it is not lipless. sent3: there exists something such that it is not lipless or it is an education or both. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | something is non-seductive thing that recommends lurker if it is not lipless. | [
"there exists something such that it is not lipless or it is an education or both.",
"the jerkin is not lipless if something is not lipless and/or is a kind of an education."
] | [
"If it is not lipless, something is non-seductive.",
"If it is not lipless, it is a non-seductive thing."
] |
there is something such that if either it is not a fondness or it is not a minister or both it is not a kind of a corkscrew. | sent1: the fact that the coronet is not a corkscrew is right if it is not a fondness or is not a minister or both. sent2: the Mojave is not a corkscrew if it is not a legalism. sent3: if the coronet is not a kind of an object and/or it is not evangelical then it is a fondness. sent4: there exists something such that if it either is a kind of a mint or is not nonpregnant or both then it is not a Beowulf. sent5: the acetin is non-pastoral if either it is not a kind of a Aborigine or it is a corkscrew or both. sent6: there is something such that if it is not a fondness it is not a corkscrew. sent7: there is something such that if it is not a fondness and/or ministers then it is not a kind of a corkscrew. | (Ex): (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x | sent1: (¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent2: ¬{BI}{di} -> ¬{B}{di} sent3: (¬{IO}{aa} v ¬{AK}{aa}) -> {AA}{aa} sent4: (Ex): ({CA}x v ¬{AG}x) -> ¬{JJ}x sent5: (¬{FD}{ah} v {B}{ah}) -> ¬{HD}{ah} sent6: (Ex): ¬{AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent7: (Ex): (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x | [
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 1 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 6 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = there is something such that if either it is not a fondness or it is not a minister or both it is not a kind of a corkscrew. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the coronet is not a corkscrew is right if it is not a fondness or is not a minister or both. sent2: the Mojave is not a corkscrew if it is not a legalism. sent3: if the coronet is not a kind of an object and/or it is not evangelical then it is a fondness. sent4: there exists something such that if it either is a kind of a mint or is not nonpregnant or both then it is not a Beowulf. sent5: the acetin is non-pastoral if either it is not a kind of a Aborigine or it is a corkscrew or both. sent6: there is something such that if it is not a fondness it is not a corkscrew. sent7: there is something such that if it is not a fondness and/or ministers then it is not a kind of a corkscrew. ; $proof$ = | sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the fact that the coronet is not a corkscrew is right if it is not a fondness or is not a minister or both. | [] | [
"the fact that the coronet is not a corkscrew is right if it is not a fondness or is not a minister or both."
] |
the cardcase is not a voyeurism. | sent1: something backpacks nonparticipant and/or it is a kind of a voyeurism if it does not serve powder. sent2: if the residence backpacks nonparticipant then the mazer does serve powder. sent3: if the mazer does serve powder that the cardcase is a voyeurism hold. sent4: the mazer backpacks nonparticipant. sent5: The fact that the nonparticipant backpacks residence hold. sent6: the fact that the residence backpacks nonparticipant hold. | ¬{C}{c} | sent1: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({A}x v {C}x) sent2: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent3: {B}{b} -> {C}{c} sent4: {A}{b} sent5: {AA}{aa} sent6: {A}{a} | [
"sent2 & sent6 -> int1: the mazer serves powder.; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent2 & sent6 -> int1: {B}{b}; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 3 | the mazer is a kind of a voyeurism. | {C}{b} | 4 | [
"sent1 -> int2: the residence backpacks nonparticipant and/or is a kind of a voyeurism if it does not serve powder.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the cardcase is not a voyeurism. ; $context$ = sent1: something backpacks nonparticipant and/or it is a kind of a voyeurism if it does not serve powder. sent2: if the residence backpacks nonparticipant then the mazer does serve powder. sent3: if the mazer does serve powder that the cardcase is a voyeurism hold. sent4: the mazer backpacks nonparticipant. sent5: The fact that the nonparticipant backpacks residence hold. sent6: the fact that the residence backpacks nonparticipant hold. ; $proof$ = | sent2 & sent6 -> int1: the mazer serves powder.; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if the residence backpacks nonparticipant then the mazer does serve powder. | [
"the fact that the residence backpacks nonparticipant hold.",
"if the mazer does serve powder that the cardcase is a voyeurism hold."
] | [
"The mazer serves powder if the residence backpacks non participants.",
"The mazer does serve powder if the residence backpacks non participants."
] |
there is something such that if it is not a Hynerpeton then the fact that it is Donatist and it swaps is false. | sent1: that the antimeson is Donatist and it does swap is not right if it is a kind of a Hynerpeton. sent2: there is something such that if it does not deform it is an instrumentality and it does strum. sent3: if the myxovirus does not smell then it is a Hynerpeton and it is a royalty. sent4: if the antimeson is not a kind of a Hynerpeton that it is Donatist and it does swap is false. sent5: the fact that that something is unalike and a checkerbloom is not wrong does not hold if the fact that it is not unprovocative is true. sent6: there exists something such that if it is not a hypallage then it is an apnea and is politics. sent7: if the Angolese does not serve PSA then the fact that it is paradigmatic and it swaps is not true. sent8: there exists something such that if the fact that it is a hysterics is not incorrect that it is capable and a whoop is incorrect. sent9: if the antimeson is not a foryml the fact that it is a dissoluteness and it is a kind of a Hynerpeton does not hold. | (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) | sent1: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent2: (Ex): ¬{CR}x -> ({FG}x & {GR}x) sent3: ¬{B}{ab} -> ({A}{ab} & {Q}{ab}) sent4: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent5: (x): ¬{BN}x -> ¬({AQ}x & {GQ}x) sent6: (Ex): ¬{DQ}x -> ({CJ}x & {CH}x) sent7: ¬{O}{t} -> ¬({BD}{t} & {AB}{t}) sent8: (Ex): {BQ}x -> ¬({HR}x & {IT}x) sent9: ¬{GU}{aa} -> ¬({CF}{aa} & {A}{aa}) | [
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 1 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 8 | there exists something such that if it is not unprovocative then that it is unalike thing that is a checkerbloom is incorrect. | (Ex): ¬{BN}x -> ¬({AQ}x & {GQ}x) | 2 | [
"sent5 -> int1: that the bitterwood is unalike and is a kind of a checkerbloom is false if it is not unprovocative.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is not a Hynerpeton then the fact that it is Donatist and it swaps is false. ; $context$ = sent1: that the antimeson is Donatist and it does swap is not right if it is a kind of a Hynerpeton. sent2: there is something such that if it does not deform it is an instrumentality and it does strum. sent3: if the myxovirus does not smell then it is a Hynerpeton and it is a royalty. sent4: if the antimeson is not a kind of a Hynerpeton that it is Donatist and it does swap is false. sent5: the fact that that something is unalike and a checkerbloom is not wrong does not hold if the fact that it is not unprovocative is true. sent6: there exists something such that if it is not a hypallage then it is an apnea and is politics. sent7: if the Angolese does not serve PSA then the fact that it is paradigmatic and it swaps is not true. sent8: there exists something such that if the fact that it is a hysterics is not incorrect that it is capable and a whoop is incorrect. sent9: if the antimeson is not a foryml the fact that it is a dissoluteness and it is a kind of a Hynerpeton does not hold. ; $proof$ = | sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if the antimeson is not a kind of a Hynerpeton that it is Donatist and it does swap is false. | [] | [
"if the antimeson is not a kind of a Hynerpeton that it is Donatist and it does swap is false."
] |
the fact that there exists something such that if it backpacks Peloponnese then it is a kind of non-categorematic thing that is rhythmical is not incorrect. | sent1: there is something such that if it backpacks Peloponnese it is not categorematic. sent2: the welder is rhythmical if it does backpack Peloponnese. sent3: the welder is categorematic and it is rhythmical if it does backpack Peloponnese. sent4: there exists something such that if it is anginal then it does not recommend lifeboat and it is a hunter-gatherer. sent5: the lifeboat does not serve Pope but it does backpack Peloponnese if it is pediatric. sent6: there exists something such that if it does backpack Peloponnese it is categorematic and rhythmical. sent7: there exists something such that if it is a lease then it is not a ENE and is a Benedictine. sent8: the welder is not categorematic and not unrhythmical if that it backpacks Peloponnese hold. sent9: there exists something such that if it backpacks Peloponnese it is rhythmical. sent10: if the welder is nonoperational it does not boat welder and it is categorematic. sent11: if something is a rejuvenation it does not recommend lifeboat and it is a drippings. | (Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) | sent1: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬{AA}x sent2: {A}{aa} -> {AB}{aa} sent3: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent4: (Ex): {AQ}x -> (¬{EB}x & {BO}x) sent5: {FG}{ee} -> (¬{HO}{ee} & {A}{ee}) sent6: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent7: (Ex): {GK}x -> (¬{CN}x & {P}x) sent8: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent9: (Ex): {A}x -> {AB}x sent10: {EG}{aa} -> (¬{ET}{aa} & {AA}{aa}) sent11: (x): {IF}x -> (¬{EB}x & {BD}x) | [
"sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 1 | 1 | 10 | 0 | 10 | there is something such that if it is a rejuvenation then it does not recommend lifeboat and it is a drippings. | (Ex): {IF}x -> (¬{EB}x & {BD}x) | 2 | [
"sent11 -> int1: if the foreshock is a rejuvenation that it does not recommend lifeboat and is a kind of a drippings is not incorrect.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it backpacks Peloponnese then it is a kind of non-categorematic thing that is rhythmical is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it backpacks Peloponnese it is not categorematic. sent2: the welder is rhythmical if it does backpack Peloponnese. sent3: the welder is categorematic and it is rhythmical if it does backpack Peloponnese. sent4: there exists something such that if it is anginal then it does not recommend lifeboat and it is a hunter-gatherer. sent5: the lifeboat does not serve Pope but it does backpack Peloponnese if it is pediatric. sent6: there exists something such that if it does backpack Peloponnese it is categorematic and rhythmical. sent7: there exists something such that if it is a lease then it is not a ENE and is a Benedictine. sent8: the welder is not categorematic and not unrhythmical if that it backpacks Peloponnese hold. sent9: there exists something such that if it backpacks Peloponnese it is rhythmical. sent10: if the welder is nonoperational it does not boat welder and it is categorematic. sent11: if something is a rejuvenation it does not recommend lifeboat and it is a drippings. ; $proof$ = | sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the welder is not categorematic and not unrhythmical if that it backpacks Peloponnese hold. | [] | [
"the welder is not categorematic and not unrhythmical if that it backpacks Peloponnese hold."
] |
either the leptocephalus does backpack Swiss or it does recommend Rus or both. | sent1: that something either does backpack Swiss or recommends Rus or both is wrong if it is not a lancewood. sent2: if the fact that the premises is not a lancewood and not a ranker does not hold the leptocephalus is not a lancewood. sent3: if that something is not a kind of a candlepin and is not non-cross-ply is false it is not immunochemical. sent4: if the Scythian is a EDS and/or does not recommend premises the leptocephalus is not immunochemical. sent5: if something is not aeriferous it does not overjoy. sent6: the fact that the premises is both not a candlepin and cross-ply is wrong if it does not overjoy. sent7: if something is not immunochemical the fact that it is not a lancewood and it is not a ranker does not hold. sent8: the fact that the leptocephalus is not immunochemical is correct if the Scythian is a kind of a EDS. sent9: if the premises is not a kind of a lancewood the Scythian is a kind of a EDS and/or it does not recommend premises. sent10: if something is not immunochemical then either it backpacks Swiss or it recommends Rus or both. | ({D}{c} v {C}{c}) | sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({D}x v {C}x) sent2: ¬(¬{A}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) -> ¬{A}{c} sent3: (x): ¬(¬{G}x & {F}x) -> ¬{B}x sent4: ({AA}{b} v ¬{AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{c} sent5: (x): ¬{I}x -> ¬{H}x sent6: ¬{H}{a} -> ¬(¬{G}{a} & {F}{a}) sent7: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{E}x) sent8: {AA}{b} -> ¬{B}{c} sent9: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{b} v ¬{AB}{b}) sent10: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({D}x v {C}x) | [
"sent10 -> int1: if the leptocephalus is not immunochemical it does backpack Swiss and/or it does recommend Rus.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent10 -> int1: ¬{B}{c} -> ({D}{c} v {C}{c});"
] | UNKNOWN | 3 | null | 7 | 0 | 7 | the fact that the leptocephalus backpacks Swiss and/or recommends Rus is not correct. | ¬({D}{c} v {C}{c}) | 7 | [
"sent1 -> int2: that the leptocephalus either backpacks Swiss or does recommend Rus or both is false if it is not a lancewood.; sent7 -> int3: that if the premises is not immunochemical the fact that the premises is not a lancewood and is not a ranker is not right is not incorrect.; sent3 -> int4: if the fact that the premises is not a kind of a candlepin but it is cross-ply does not hold it is not immunochemical.; sent5 -> int5: if the premises is not aeriferous the fact that it does not overjoy is true.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = either the leptocephalus does backpack Swiss or it does recommend Rus or both. ; $context$ = sent1: that something either does backpack Swiss or recommends Rus or both is wrong if it is not a lancewood. sent2: if the fact that the premises is not a lancewood and not a ranker does not hold the leptocephalus is not a lancewood. sent3: if that something is not a kind of a candlepin and is not non-cross-ply is false it is not immunochemical. sent4: if the Scythian is a EDS and/or does not recommend premises the leptocephalus is not immunochemical. sent5: if something is not aeriferous it does not overjoy. sent6: the fact that the premises is both not a candlepin and cross-ply is wrong if it does not overjoy. sent7: if something is not immunochemical the fact that it is not a lancewood and it is not a ranker does not hold. sent8: the fact that the leptocephalus is not immunochemical is correct if the Scythian is a kind of a EDS. sent9: if the premises is not a kind of a lancewood the Scythian is a kind of a EDS and/or it does not recommend premises. sent10: if something is not immunochemical then either it backpacks Swiss or it recommends Rus or both. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | if something is not immunochemical then either it backpacks Swiss or it recommends Rus or both. | [] | [
"if something is not immunochemical then either it backpacks Swiss or it recommends Rus or both."
] |
the Creole is arthrosporic or it is mercurial or both. | sent1: if the grissino is a kind of a Swinburne then the Creole is mercurial. sent2: the stoup either does not carnify or does not boat plunderer or both. sent3: something is not a coupling and it does not serve ophthalmoscope if it does not boat plunderer. sent4: if the headgear does not couple and does not serve ophthalmoscope the grissino is not a couple. sent5: if the grissino is not a coupling the fact that it is not inextinguishable and is not a kind of a stirk is not correct. sent6: if the Creole is not inextinguishable and is mercurial then the grissino is not mercurial. sent7: if something is not a Swinburne the fact that either it is arthrosporic or it is mercurial or both is not correct. | ({C}{b} v {B}{b}) | sent1: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent2: (¬{I}{d} v ¬{H}{d}) sent3: (x): ¬{H}x -> (¬{F}x & ¬{G}x) sent4: (¬{F}{c} & ¬{G}{c}) -> ¬{F}{a} sent5: ¬{F}{a} -> ¬(¬{D}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) sent6: (¬{D}{b} & {B}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({C}x v {B}x) | [] | UNKNOWN | [] | UNKNOWN | 2 | null | 6 | 0 | 6 | the fact that the Creole is arthrosporic and/or mercurial is not correct. | ¬({C}{b} v {B}{b}) | 8 | [
"sent7 -> int1: if the fact that the Creole is not a Swinburne hold then that it is arthrosporic and/or mercurial is not correct.; sent3 -> int2: if the headgear does not boat plunderer then it is not a coupling and does not serve ophthalmoscope.; sent2 -> int3: there is something such that it does not carnify or it does not boat plunderer or both.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the Creole is arthrosporic or it is mercurial or both. ; $context$ = sent1: if the grissino is a kind of a Swinburne then the Creole is mercurial. sent2: the stoup either does not carnify or does not boat plunderer or both. sent3: something is not a coupling and it does not serve ophthalmoscope if it does not boat plunderer. sent4: if the headgear does not couple and does not serve ophthalmoscope the grissino is not a couple. sent5: if the grissino is not a coupling the fact that it is not inextinguishable and is not a kind of a stirk is not correct. sent6: if the Creole is not inextinguishable and is mercurial then the grissino is not mercurial. sent7: if something is not a Swinburne the fact that either it is arthrosporic or it is mercurial or both is not correct. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | if the grissino is a kind of a Swinburne then the Creole is mercurial. | [
"if the headgear does not couple and does not serve ophthalmoscope the grissino is not a couple."
] | [
"if the grissino is a kind of a Swinburne then the Creole is mercurial."
] |
the methane does not backpack methane. | sent1: the genip does not contort. sent2: if there exists something such that that it is not two-wheel is not false the ingot is a kind of a fibril that does boat Rhinolophidae. sent3: if the genip backpacks neocolonialism then the methane backpacks methane. sent4: the genip backpacks neocolonialism but it does not backpack stepper if it is not stingless. sent5: the fact that if the genip does not backpack methane then the genip does backpack stepper but it is not stingless is true. sent6: the velvet is stingless. sent7: the genip is not a Helotium if something is not implausible. sent8: the fact that if the methane is stingless then the genip does backpack methane hold. sent9: something is stingless if the fact that it is a fibril and it does not backpack methane is right. sent10: the methane backpacks stepper if the genip backpacks neocolonialism. sent11: the fact that the genip does backpack stepper is not right if it is not stingless. sent12: there exists something such that the fact that it is cervine and two-wheel is not true. sent13: the genip is not two-wheel if there is something such that that it is cervine and it is two-wheel is not right. sent14: the genip is not stingless. sent15: the genip does not backpack stepper. sent16: the schrod does not boat Rhinolophidae. sent17: something is not implausible if it does not boat Rhinolophidae. | ¬{B}{b} | sent1: ¬{EO}{a} sent2: (x): ¬{G}x -> ({C}{ig} & {F}{ig}) sent3: {AA}{a} -> {B}{b} sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent5: ¬{B}{a} -> ({AB}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent6: {A}{cr} sent7: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬{D}{a} sent8: {A}{b} -> {B}{a} sent9: (x): ({C}x & ¬{B}x) -> {A}x sent10: {AA}{a} -> {AB}{b} sent11: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{AB}{a} sent12: (Ex): ¬({H}x & {G}x) sent13: (x): ¬({H}x & {G}x) -> ¬{G}{a} sent14: ¬{A}{a} sent15: ¬{AB}{a} sent16: ¬{F}{c} sent17: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬{E}x | [
"sent4 & sent14 -> int1: the genip does backpack neocolonialism and does not backpack stepper.; int1 -> int2: the fact that the genip does backpack neocolonialism is right.; sent3 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent4 & sent14 -> int1: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); int1 -> int2: {AA}{a}; sent3 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 14 | 0 | 14 | the methane does not backpack methane. | ¬{B}{b} | 7 | [
"sent17 -> int3: if the schrod does not boat Rhinolophidae then it is not implausible.; int3 & sent16 -> int4: the schrod is not implausible.; int4 -> int5: that there is something such that it is not implausible is not wrong.; int5 & sent7 -> int6: the genip is not a Helotium.; int6 -> int7: something is not a Helotium.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the methane does not backpack methane. ; $context$ = sent1: the genip does not contort. sent2: if there exists something such that that it is not two-wheel is not false the ingot is a kind of a fibril that does boat Rhinolophidae. sent3: if the genip backpacks neocolonialism then the methane backpacks methane. sent4: the genip backpacks neocolonialism but it does not backpack stepper if it is not stingless. sent5: the fact that if the genip does not backpack methane then the genip does backpack stepper but it is not stingless is true. sent6: the velvet is stingless. sent7: the genip is not a Helotium if something is not implausible. sent8: the fact that if the methane is stingless then the genip does backpack methane hold. sent9: something is stingless if the fact that it is a fibril and it does not backpack methane is right. sent10: the methane backpacks stepper if the genip backpacks neocolonialism. sent11: the fact that the genip does backpack stepper is not right if it is not stingless. sent12: there exists something such that the fact that it is cervine and two-wheel is not true. sent13: the genip is not two-wheel if there is something such that that it is cervine and it is two-wheel is not right. sent14: the genip is not stingless. sent15: the genip does not backpack stepper. sent16: the schrod does not boat Rhinolophidae. sent17: something is not implausible if it does not boat Rhinolophidae. ; $proof$ = | sent4 & sent14 -> int1: the genip does backpack neocolonialism and does not backpack stepper.; int1 -> int2: the fact that the genip does backpack neocolonialism is right.; sent3 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the genip backpacks neocolonialism but it does not backpack stepper if it is not stingless. | [
"the genip is not stingless.",
"if the genip backpacks neocolonialism then the methane backpacks methane."
] | [
"If it is stingless, the Genip backpacks do not backpack stepper.",
"It does not backpack stepper if it is stingless."
] |
there exists something such that if it is non-post-communist thing that is a specific then it does not recommend barite. | sent1: the incus does not recommend barite if that it is a kind of post-communist a specific hold. sent2: if a non-upmarket thing is a bimonthly it is not a harlequin. sent3: the incus does not serve caulk if that it is not specific and it does crosscut is true. sent4: that if the incus is not post-communist but it is a kind of the specific the incus does recommend barite hold. sent5: if the incus is not post-communist but it is a kind of a specific then it does not recommend barite. sent6: if the pieplant is a kind of non-artificial a specific it is not a low. sent7: the caecilian does publish if it is not post-communist and it does recommend skink. sent8: there is something such that if it does not recommend single and does recommend skink the fact that it is a parasympathetic hold. sent9: there exists something such that if it is post-communist and it is a specific then it does not recommend barite. sent10: there exists something such that if it is not post-communist and is a kind of a specific then it recommends barite. sent11: something does not recommend aftercare if it does not serve pliability and does recommend barite. | (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x | sent1: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent2: (x): (¬{H}x & {EO}x) -> ¬{CA}x sent3: (¬{AB}{aa} & {R}{aa}) -> ¬{BH}{aa} sent4: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent5: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent6: (¬{GG}{et} & {AB}{et}) -> ¬{IH}{et} sent7: (¬{AA}{eu} & {IJ}{eu}) -> {IR}{eu} sent8: (Ex): (¬{CT}x & {IJ}x) -> {GC}x sent9: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent10: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent11: (x): (¬{ET}x & {B}x) -> ¬{DB}x | [
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 1 | 1 | 10 | 0 | 10 | there is something such that if it is a kind of non-upmarket thing that is a kind of a bimonthly it is not a harlequin. | (Ex): (¬{H}x & {EO}x) -> ¬{CA}x | 2 | [
"sent2 -> int1: if the nepotist is non-upmarket thing that is a bimonthly then it is not a harlequin.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is non-post-communist thing that is a specific then it does not recommend barite. ; $context$ = sent1: the incus does not recommend barite if that it is a kind of post-communist a specific hold. sent2: if a non-upmarket thing is a bimonthly it is not a harlequin. sent3: the incus does not serve caulk if that it is not specific and it does crosscut is true. sent4: that if the incus is not post-communist but it is a kind of the specific the incus does recommend barite hold. sent5: if the incus is not post-communist but it is a kind of a specific then it does not recommend barite. sent6: if the pieplant is a kind of non-artificial a specific it is not a low. sent7: the caecilian does publish if it is not post-communist and it does recommend skink. sent8: there is something such that if it does not recommend single and does recommend skink the fact that it is a parasympathetic hold. sent9: there exists something such that if it is post-communist and it is a specific then it does not recommend barite. sent10: there exists something such that if it is not post-communist and is a kind of a specific then it recommends barite. sent11: something does not recommend aftercare if it does not serve pliability and does recommend barite. ; $proof$ = | sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if the incus is not post-communist but it is a kind of a specific then it does not recommend barite. | [] | [
"if the incus is not post-communist but it is a kind of a specific then it does not recommend barite."
] |
the fact that the foolscap is not a procession but it does run is not right. | sent1: if something does not recommend autofocus or it is not a correctness or both it is shapely. sent2: that the autofocus is a groundcover and does not backpack calanthe is wrong if it is a kind of a kishke. sent3: the wheelwork runs if it is a kind of a procession. sent4: the wheelwork backpacks Sphinx. sent5: that the wheelwork is not a kind of a procession but it is a atomism is incorrect. sent6: if the Idahoan is not a kind of a groundcover then the letterer is non-ecdemic but it backpacks acoustic. sent7: the wallboard backpacks nonparticipant but it is not a procession if something is filar. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a metatarsal that recommends Crick is not right. sent9: if there exists something such that that it is a groundcover and does not backpack calanthe is false the Idahoan is not a groundcover. sent10: the autofocus is a kind of a kishke. sent11: the foolscap is filar if it is a procession. sent12: a non-ecdemic thing that backpacks acoustic is not a kind of a inscrutability. sent13: that something runs and it is a Dunkirk is not wrong if it is not unshapely. sent14: that the foolscap is not a procession but it runs does not hold if the wheelwork is a kind of a procession. sent15: the foolscap does not recommend autofocus and/or it is not a kind of a correctness if the bettong is nectariferous. sent16: the wheelwork is a procession if it is filar. sent17: the fact that something is a kind of filar thing that is an amble hold if it is not a inscrutability. sent18: that the wheelwork is filar is not false if it is a run. sent19: if the wallboard does backpack nonparticipant but it is not a kind of a procession then the foolscap is not a procession. sent20: everything is filar. sent21: the wheelwork is a kind of a Dunkirk if it is filar. | ¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) | sent1: (x): (¬{K}x v ¬{L}x) -> ¬{F}x sent2: {P}{e} -> ¬({M}{e} & ¬{N}{e}) sent3: {B}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent4: {CQ}{aa} sent5: ¬(¬{B}{aa} & {IC}{aa}) sent6: ¬{M}{d} -> (¬{J}{c} & {I}{c}) sent7: (x): {A}x -> ({D}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent8: (Ex): ¬({R}x & {Q}x) sent9: (x): ¬({M}x & ¬{N}x) -> ¬{M}{d} sent10: {P}{e} sent11: {B}{a} -> {A}{a} sent12: (x): (¬{J}x & {I}x) -> ¬{H}x sent13: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({C}x & {E}x) sent14: {B}{aa} -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent15: {O}{f} -> (¬{K}{a} v ¬{L}{a}) sent16: {A}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent17: (x): ¬{H}x -> ({A}x & {G}x) sent18: {C}{aa} -> {A}{aa} sent19: ({D}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent20: (x): {A}x sent21: {A}{aa} -> {E}{aa} | [
"sent20 -> int1: the wheelwork is filar.; int1 & sent16 -> int2: the wheelwork is a kind of a procession.; int2 & sent14 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent20 -> int1: {A}{aa}; int1 & sent16 -> int2: {B}{aa}; int2 & sent14 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 18 | 0 | 18 | the foolscap is not a kind of a procession but it is a kind of a run. | (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) | 11 | [
"sent17 -> int3: if the letterer is not a inscrutability then it is both filar and an amble.; sent12 -> int4: the letterer is not a inscrutability if it is not ecdemic and does backpack acoustic.; sent2 & sent10 -> int5: the fact that the autofocus is a groundcover but it does not backpack calanthe does not hold.; int5 -> int6: there is something such that that it is a groundcover and it does not backpack calanthe is not true.; int6 & sent9 -> int7: the Idahoan is not a groundcover.; sent6 & int7 -> int8: the letterer is non-ecdemic thing that does backpack acoustic.; int4 & int8 -> int9: the letterer is not a inscrutability.; int3 & int9 -> int10: the letterer is filar and is an amble.; int10 -> int11: the fact that the letterer is filar is not false.; int11 -> int12: something is filar.; int12 & sent7 -> int13: the wallboard does backpack nonparticipant but it is not a procession.; sent19 & int13 -> int14: the foolscap is not a kind of a procession.; sent13 -> int15: if the foolscap is not unshapely then it is a run and it is a kind of a Dunkirk.; sent1 -> int16: if the foolscap does not recommend autofocus and/or it is not a correctness it is not unshapely.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the foolscap is not a procession but it does run is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not recommend autofocus or it is not a correctness or both it is shapely. sent2: that the autofocus is a groundcover and does not backpack calanthe is wrong if it is a kind of a kishke. sent3: the wheelwork runs if it is a kind of a procession. sent4: the wheelwork backpacks Sphinx. sent5: that the wheelwork is not a kind of a procession but it is a atomism is incorrect. sent6: if the Idahoan is not a kind of a groundcover then the letterer is non-ecdemic but it backpacks acoustic. sent7: the wallboard backpacks nonparticipant but it is not a procession if something is filar. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a metatarsal that recommends Crick is not right. sent9: if there exists something such that that it is a groundcover and does not backpack calanthe is false the Idahoan is not a groundcover. sent10: the autofocus is a kind of a kishke. sent11: the foolscap is filar if it is a procession. sent12: a non-ecdemic thing that backpacks acoustic is not a kind of a inscrutability. sent13: that something runs and it is a Dunkirk is not wrong if it is not unshapely. sent14: that the foolscap is not a procession but it runs does not hold if the wheelwork is a kind of a procession. sent15: the foolscap does not recommend autofocus and/or it is not a kind of a correctness if the bettong is nectariferous. sent16: the wheelwork is a procession if it is filar. sent17: the fact that something is a kind of filar thing that is an amble hold if it is not a inscrutability. sent18: that the wheelwork is filar is not false if it is a run. sent19: if the wallboard does backpack nonparticipant but it is not a kind of a procession then the foolscap is not a procession. sent20: everything is filar. sent21: the wheelwork is a kind of a Dunkirk if it is filar. ; $proof$ = | sent20 -> int1: the wheelwork is filar.; int1 & sent16 -> int2: the wheelwork is a kind of a procession.; int2 & sent14 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | everything is filar. | [
"the wheelwork is a procession if it is filar.",
"that the foolscap is not a procession but it runs does not hold if the wheelwork is a kind of a procession."
] | [
"Everything is filar.",
"Everything is filar, it's just 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 in 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299 888-353-1299"
] |
the delegate is temporal. | sent1: if the vanillin is not a prosperity then that it serves croup and it is not a bowl is wrong. sent2: the wheatear does serve Egyptologist if it is not non-azimuthal. sent3: something is a temporal if it does recommend valetudinarian. sent4: if the fact that the vanillin is temporal but it does not bowl is not right the fact that the delegate does not recommend valetudinarian is incorrect. sent5: if the delegate does not compact then that the vanillin does carnify or it is a fluorine or both is false. sent6: the delegate does recommend valetudinarian if the vanillin bowls. sent7: if something serves Egyptologist then it does compact. sent8: if that the vanillin serves croup and is not a kind of a bowl is not right the delegate does recommend valetudinarian. sent9: that the vanillin serves croup and bowls is not right. sent10: if the fact that the wheatear serves Egyptologist is right the vanillin serves Egyptologist. sent11: something is not a temporal but a prosperity if it does not recommend valetudinarian. sent12: the vanillin is not a prosperity. sent13: the delegate serves croup if the fact that the vanillin is a temporal that is not a bowl is not true. sent14: if that something is a fluorine but it does not carnify is false then it does not recommend valetudinarian. sent15: if the vanillin is not a prosperity that it does serve croup and it is a bowl does not hold. sent16: if the vanillin compacts it is not a kind of a fluorine. sent17: if that something does carnify or it is a fluorine or both is not correct then it does not recommend valetudinarian. | {C}{b} | sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent2: {H}{c} -> {G}{c} sent3: (x): {B}x -> {C}x sent4: ¬({C}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent5: ¬{F}{b} -> ¬({D}{a} v {E}{a}) sent6: {AB}{a} -> {B}{b} sent7: (x): {G}x -> {F}x sent8: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent9: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent10: {G}{c} -> {G}{a} sent11: (x): ¬{B}x -> (¬{C}x & {A}x) sent12: ¬{A}{a} sent13: ¬({C}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {AA}{b} sent14: (x): ¬({E}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{B}x sent15: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent16: {F}{a} -> ¬{E}{a} sent17: (x): ¬({D}x v {E}x) -> ¬{B}x | [
"sent1 & sent12 -> int1: the fact that the vanillin serves croup but it does not bowl is false.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the delegate does recommend valetudinarian.; sent3 -> int3: the delegate is a kind of a temporal if it recommends valetudinarian.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent1 & sent12 -> int1: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); int1 & sent8 -> int2: {B}{b}; sent3 -> int3: {B}{b} -> {C}{b}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 13 | 0 | 13 | the delegate is not temporal. | ¬{C}{b} | 9 | [
"sent11 -> int4: the delegate is not temporal but a prosperity if it does not recommend valetudinarian.; sent14 -> int5: if that the delegate is a kind of a fluorine but it does not carnify does not hold it does not recommend valetudinarian.; sent7 -> int6: if the vanillin does serve Egyptologist then that it compacts hold.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the delegate is temporal. ; $context$ = sent1: if the vanillin is not a prosperity then that it serves croup and it is not a bowl is wrong. sent2: the wheatear does serve Egyptologist if it is not non-azimuthal. sent3: something is a temporal if it does recommend valetudinarian. sent4: if the fact that the vanillin is temporal but it does not bowl is not right the fact that the delegate does not recommend valetudinarian is incorrect. sent5: if the delegate does not compact then that the vanillin does carnify or it is a fluorine or both is false. sent6: the delegate does recommend valetudinarian if the vanillin bowls. sent7: if something serves Egyptologist then it does compact. sent8: if that the vanillin serves croup and is not a kind of a bowl is not right the delegate does recommend valetudinarian. sent9: that the vanillin serves croup and bowls is not right. sent10: if the fact that the wheatear serves Egyptologist is right the vanillin serves Egyptologist. sent11: something is not a temporal but a prosperity if it does not recommend valetudinarian. sent12: the vanillin is not a prosperity. sent13: the delegate serves croup if the fact that the vanillin is a temporal that is not a bowl is not true. sent14: if that something is a fluorine but it does not carnify is false then it does not recommend valetudinarian. sent15: if the vanillin is not a prosperity that it does serve croup and it is a bowl does not hold. sent16: if the vanillin compacts it is not a kind of a fluorine. sent17: if that something does carnify or it is a fluorine or both is not correct then it does not recommend valetudinarian. ; $proof$ = | sent1 & sent12 -> int1: the fact that the vanillin serves croup but it does not bowl is false.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the delegate does recommend valetudinarian.; sent3 -> int3: the delegate is a kind of a temporal if it recommends valetudinarian.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if the vanillin is not a prosperity then that it serves croup and it is not a bowl is wrong. | [
"the vanillin is not a prosperity.",
"if that the vanillin serves croup and is not a kind of a bowl is not right the delegate does recommend valetudinarian.",
"something is a temporal if it does recommend valetudinarian."
] | [
"If the vanillin is not a prosperity then it is not a bowl.",
"If the vanillin is not a prosperity, then it is not a bowl.",
"If the vanillin isn't a prosperity then it isn't a bowl."
] |
there exists something such that if it is earthly then it does not backpack contadino. | sent1: if something is a Ovocon it is not a descant. sent2: if the contadino is a kind of a wood then that it is a beach is correct. sent3: something is not apogamic if it is an attitude. sent4: if something is earthly it does not backpack contadino. sent5: if something is earthly it does backpack contadino. | (Ex): {A}x -> ¬{C}x | sent1: (x): {AG}x -> ¬{DH}x sent2: {CI}{aa} -> {AM}{aa} sent3: (x): {FA}x -> ¬{AS}x sent4: (x): {A}x -> ¬{C}x sent5: (x): {A}x -> {C}x | [
"sent4 -> int1: the contadino does not backpack contadino if it is earthly.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent4 -> int1: {A}{aa} -> ¬{C}{aa}; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 4 | there is something such that if it is an attitude then that it is not apogamic hold. | (Ex): {FA}x -> ¬{AS}x | 2 | [
"sent3 -> int2: if the amphitheater is an attitude it is not apogamic.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is earthly then it does not backpack contadino. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a Ovocon it is not a descant. sent2: if the contadino is a kind of a wood then that it is a beach is correct. sent3: something is not apogamic if it is an attitude. sent4: if something is earthly it does not backpack contadino. sent5: if something is earthly it does backpack contadino. ; $proof$ = | sent4 -> int1: the contadino does not backpack contadino if it is earthly.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if something is earthly it does not backpack contadino. | [] | [
"if something is earthly it does not backpack contadino."
] |
the pawl does serve antimony. | sent1: if the fact that the chiton does not serve antimony and is a catechin is false the pawl does not serve antimony. sent2: that something does not serve antimony but it is a catechin is not right if it is not non-unneurotic. sent3: there exists nothing such that it does serve malingerer and is not non-Soviets. sent4: if the moorcock is accordant then the chiton is not a wing-nut and is unneurotic. sent5: there exists something such that it is incomparable and it is ascetic. sent6: if there is something such that the fact that it serves malingerer and it is Soviets is incorrect the pawl does serve antimony. | {A}{a} | sent1: ¬(¬{A}{b} & {B}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent2: (x): {C}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & {B}x) sent3: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent4: {E}{c} -> (¬{D}{b} & {C}{b}) sent5: (Ex): ({I}x & {H}x) sent6: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a} | [
"sent3 -> int1: that the effects does serve malingerer and is Soviets is not true.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that the fact that it serves malingerer and is Soviets is not true.; int2 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent3 -> int1: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x); int2 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 4 | the pawl does not serve antimony. | ¬{A}{a} | 8 | [
"sent2 -> int3: if the chiton is unneurotic then the fact that it does not serve antimony and is a kind of a catechin is not true.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the pawl does serve antimony. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the chiton does not serve antimony and is a catechin is false the pawl does not serve antimony. sent2: that something does not serve antimony but it is a catechin is not right if it is not non-unneurotic. sent3: there exists nothing such that it does serve malingerer and is not non-Soviets. sent4: if the moorcock is accordant then the chiton is not a wing-nut and is unneurotic. sent5: there exists something such that it is incomparable and it is ascetic. sent6: if there is something such that the fact that it serves malingerer and it is Soviets is incorrect the pawl does serve antimony. ; $proof$ = | sent3 -> int1: that the effects does serve malingerer and is Soviets is not true.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that the fact that it serves malingerer and is Soviets is not true.; int2 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | there exists nothing such that it does serve malingerer and is not non-Soviets. | [
"if there is something such that the fact that it serves malingerer and it is Soviets is incorrect the pawl does serve antimony."
] | [
"there exists nothing such that it does serve malingerer and is not non-Soviets."
] |
that the cocobolo is a ylem hold. | sent1: that the cocobolo does not whoosh hold if that the corneum is not a monoclonal and it does not whoosh is not true. sent2: something is not a ylem if it is a homonym and it does not whoosh. sent3: if something does not backpack entreaty then it is a homonym and it does not whoosh. sent4: something is both non-clamatorial and not a monoclonal if it is not biogenetic. sent5: if the potentiometer is a kind of a homonym the cocobolo is a ylem. sent6: the potentiometer is a homonym if there is something such that the fact that it is not a brougham and it is a kind of a Chaplin is incorrect. sent7: if the cocobolo does not whoosh then that it backpacks entreaty and it is a kind of a ylem is not right. sent8: the potentiometer is a homonym if there exists something such that it is not a Chaplin. sent9: there is something such that that it is not a brougham and it is a Chaplin is not correct. | {B}{b} | sent1: ¬(¬{E}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent2: (x): ({A}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{B}x sent3: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({A}x & ¬{C}x) sent4: (x): ¬{G}x -> (¬{F}x & ¬{E}x) sent5: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent6: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent7: ¬{C}{b} -> ¬({D}{b} & {B}{b}) sent8: (x): ¬{AB}x -> {A}{a} sent9: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) | [
"sent9 & sent6 -> int1: that the potentiometer is a homonym is not wrong.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent9 & sent6 -> int1: {A}{a}; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 6 | the cocobolo is not a ylem. | ¬{B}{b} | 6 | [
"sent2 -> int2: if the cocobolo is a kind of a homonym and does not whoosh then it is not a ylem.; sent3 -> int3: the fact that the cocobolo is a homonym but it does not whoosh is right if it does not backpack entreaty.; sent4 -> int4: the potentiometer is not clamatorial and it is not a monoclonal if it is not biogenetic.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = that the cocobolo is a ylem hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that the cocobolo does not whoosh hold if that the corneum is not a monoclonal and it does not whoosh is not true. sent2: something is not a ylem if it is a homonym and it does not whoosh. sent3: if something does not backpack entreaty then it is a homonym and it does not whoosh. sent4: something is both non-clamatorial and not a monoclonal if it is not biogenetic. sent5: if the potentiometer is a kind of a homonym the cocobolo is a ylem. sent6: the potentiometer is a homonym if there is something such that the fact that it is not a brougham and it is a kind of a Chaplin is incorrect. sent7: if the cocobolo does not whoosh then that it backpacks entreaty and it is a kind of a ylem is not right. sent8: the potentiometer is a homonym if there exists something such that it is not a Chaplin. sent9: there is something such that that it is not a brougham and it is a Chaplin is not correct. ; $proof$ = | sent9 & sent6 -> int1: that the potentiometer is a homonym is not wrong.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | there is something such that that it is not a brougham and it is a Chaplin is not correct. | [
"the potentiometer is a homonym if there is something such that the fact that it is not a brougham and it is a kind of a Chaplin is incorrect.",
"if the potentiometer is a kind of a homonym the cocobolo is a ylem."
] | [
"It is not a brougham and it is not correct.",
"There is a reason that it is not a brougham and a reason that it is not correct."
] |
the polymorphism is not a kind of a protectiveness. | sent1: something is aboriginal and it is a Neapolitan if it is not residual. sent2: the polymorphism is not residual if the mattress is not a residual and it does not backpack mattress. sent3: the fact that that the mattress is not bathyal but a Sorbonne is not correct hold if it does not recommend LASEK. sent4: the mattress is not greater if the polymorphism is a protectiveness. sent5: the mattress is not greater. sent6: something does not recommend LASEK if it is not a wood and it is not a kind of a syncopation. sent7: the mattress does not recommend Odocoileus. sent8: The Odocoileus does not recommend mattress. sent9: if that the washcloth is not a residual but it is an invalid is not correct the mattress is not residual. sent10: something that is aboriginal is a protectiveness. sent11: the mannitol is a rig or it is gallinaceous or both. sent12: something does not backpack mattress if the fact that it is non-bathyal thing that is a kind of a Sorbonne does not hold. sent13: if the mattress is not gallinaceous it is not a wood and it is not a syncopation. sent14: the fact that the washcloth is not residual but it is an invalid does not hold. | ¬{A}{a} | sent1: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({B}x & {C}x) sent2: (¬{D}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent3: ¬{H}{b} -> ¬(¬{G}{b} & {F}{b}) sent4: {A}{a} -> ¬{AB}{b} sent5: ¬{AB}{b} sent6: (x): (¬{I}x & ¬{K}x) -> ¬{H}x sent7: ¬{AA}{b} sent8: ¬{AD}{ab} sent9: ¬(¬{D}{c} & {J}{c}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent10: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent11: ({M}{d} v {L}{d}) sent12: (x): ¬(¬{G}x & {F}x) -> ¬{E}x sent13: ¬{L}{b} -> (¬{I}{b} & ¬{K}{b}) sent14: ¬(¬{D}{c} & {J}{c}) | [] | UNKNOWN | [] | UNKNOWN | 4 | null | 13 | 0 | 13 | that the polymorphism is a protectiveness is not incorrect. | {A}{a} | 10 | [
"sent10 -> int1: if the polymorphism is aboriginal that it is a protectiveness hold.; sent1 -> int2: if the polymorphism is not a residual then it is aboriginal and it is a kind of a Neapolitan.; sent9 & sent14 -> int3: the mattress is non-residual.; sent12 -> int4: the mattress does not backpack mattress if the fact that it is not bathyal and it is a Sorbonne is not correct.; sent6 -> int5: the mattress does not recommend LASEK if it is not a kind of a wood and it is not a syncopation.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the polymorphism is not a kind of a protectiveness. ; $context$ = sent1: something is aboriginal and it is a Neapolitan if it is not residual. sent2: the polymorphism is not residual if the mattress is not a residual and it does not backpack mattress. sent3: the fact that that the mattress is not bathyal but a Sorbonne is not correct hold if it does not recommend LASEK. sent4: the mattress is not greater if the polymorphism is a protectiveness. sent5: the mattress is not greater. sent6: something does not recommend LASEK if it is not a wood and it is not a kind of a syncopation. sent7: the mattress does not recommend Odocoileus. sent8: The Odocoileus does not recommend mattress. sent9: if that the washcloth is not a residual but it is an invalid is not correct the mattress is not residual. sent10: something that is aboriginal is a protectiveness. sent11: the mannitol is a rig or it is gallinaceous or both. sent12: something does not backpack mattress if the fact that it is non-bathyal thing that is a kind of a Sorbonne does not hold. sent13: if the mattress is not gallinaceous it is not a wood and it is not a syncopation. sent14: the fact that the washcloth is not residual but it is an invalid does not hold. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | the mattress is not greater if the polymorphism is a protectiveness. | [
"the mattress does not recommend Odocoileus."
] | [
"the mattress is not greater if the polymorphism is a protectiveness."
] |
the personal is vinaceous. | sent1: the autofocus is vinaceous. sent2: if something is a Athene it is vinaceous. sent3: if something that is not an incontinence is hairless then it is a Athene. sent4: the fact that the personal is evil is not wrong. sent5: the personal is not an incontinence but it is hairless if it is an evil. | {A}{aa} | sent1: {A}{o} sent2: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent3: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent4: {C}{aa} sent5: {C}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) | [
"sent3 -> int1: the personal is a Athene if it is both not an incontinence and hairless.; sent5 & sent4 -> int2: the personal is not an incontinence but it is hairless.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the personal is a Athene.; sent2 -> int4: if the personal is a Athene then it is vinaceous.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent3 -> int1: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}; sent5 & sent4 -> int2: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> int3: {B}{aa}; sent2 -> int4: {B}{aa} -> {A}{aa}; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = the personal is vinaceous. ; $context$ = sent1: the autofocus is vinaceous. sent2: if something is a Athene it is vinaceous. sent3: if something that is not an incontinence is hairless then it is a Athene. sent4: the fact that the personal is evil is not wrong. sent5: the personal is not an incontinence but it is hairless if it is an evil. ; $proof$ = | sent3 -> int1: the personal is a Athene if it is both not an incontinence and hairless.; sent5 & sent4 -> int2: the personal is not an incontinence but it is hairless.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the personal is a Athene.; sent2 -> int4: if the personal is a Athene then it is vinaceous.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if something that is not an incontinence is hairless then it is a Athene. | [
"the personal is not an incontinence but it is hairless if it is an evil.",
"the fact that the personal is evil is not wrong.",
"if something is a Athene it is vinaceous."
] | [
"If something is not hairless, it is an incontinence.",
"If something is hairless, it is an incontinence.",
"If something is not hairless then it is incontinence."
] |
there is something such that if it does not recommend capote then it backpacks tensimeter and it is not a serologist. | sent1: there is something such that if it is non-gymnastics then it is sculptural and it is not a stirk. sent2: something that is not a console serves tippler and does not recommend capote. sent3: there exists something such that if it does recommend capote then it backpacks tensimeter and is not a serologist. sent4: there is something such that if it does not serve Ventner then it is albuminuric and it does not recommend straightness. sent5: something is a kind of ataxic thing that does not recommend photo-offset if it does not clue. sent6: the quark backpacks tensimeter and it is a serologist if it does not recommend capote. sent7: the quark backpacks tensimeter but it is not a serologist if that it does recommend capote hold. sent8: there is something such that if it does not recommend capote then it backpacks tensimeter and is a serologist. sent9: if the quark does not recommend capote then it backpacks tensimeter and it is not a serologist. sent10: if the quark does not recommend capote then it does backpack tensimeter. sent11: there exists something such that if it does not recommend capote then it backpacks tensimeter. sent12: that there exists something such that if it does not recommend capote it is not a serologist hold. sent13: the quark is both a positivity and not tensile if that it is not a serologist is not wrong. | (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) | sent1: (Ex): ¬{BA}x -> ({AK}x & ¬{I}x) sent2: (x): ¬{HB}x -> ({CK}x & ¬{A}x) sent3: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent4: (Ex): ¬{IS}x -> ({BJ}x & ¬{BN}x) sent5: (x): ¬{EF}x -> ({CU}x & ¬{BD}x) sent6: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent7: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent8: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent9: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent10: ¬{A}{aa} -> {AA}{aa} sent11: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> {AA}x sent12: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬{AB}x sent13: ¬{AB}{aa} -> ({ED}{aa} & ¬{AI}{aa}) | [
"sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 1 | 1 | 12 | 0 | 12 | if the quark is not a console it serves tippler and it does not recommend capote. | ¬{HB}{aa} -> ({CK}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa}) | 1 | [
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it does not recommend capote then it backpacks tensimeter and it is not a serologist. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is non-gymnastics then it is sculptural and it is not a stirk. sent2: something that is not a console serves tippler and does not recommend capote. sent3: there exists something such that if it does recommend capote then it backpacks tensimeter and is not a serologist. sent4: there is something such that if it does not serve Ventner then it is albuminuric and it does not recommend straightness. sent5: something is a kind of ataxic thing that does not recommend photo-offset if it does not clue. sent6: the quark backpacks tensimeter and it is a serologist if it does not recommend capote. sent7: the quark backpacks tensimeter but it is not a serologist if that it does recommend capote hold. sent8: there is something such that if it does not recommend capote then it backpacks tensimeter and is a serologist. sent9: if the quark does not recommend capote then it backpacks tensimeter and it is not a serologist. sent10: if the quark does not recommend capote then it does backpack tensimeter. sent11: there exists something such that if it does not recommend capote then it backpacks tensimeter. sent12: that there exists something such that if it does not recommend capote it is not a serologist hold. sent13: the quark is both a positivity and not tensile if that it is not a serologist is not wrong. ; $proof$ = | sent9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if the quark does not recommend capote then it backpacks tensimeter and it is not a serologist. | [] | [
"if the quark does not recommend capote then it backpacks tensimeter and it is not a serologist."
] |
the Glycine serves landscaping. | sent1: the Glycine does recommend Gibbon. sent2: the shoji serves landscaping. sent3: if the shoji does serve Jacquard then the Glycine does recommend Gibbon. sent4: the Glycine does not serve landscaping if there exists something such that the fact that it is a caboose and serve landscaping is not right. sent5: something is compatible if it is a submersible. sent6: the shoji serves landscaping and/or is a kind of a caboose. sent7: the shoji does recommend Gibbon and/or is a caboose. sent8: the fact that something serves Jacquard and is not eastern is wrong if it does serve Aldebaran. sent9: if the shoji is a caboose then the Glycine does serve Jacquard. sent10: something that is insurmountable is a psycholinguist. sent11: something that does serve Jacquard serves landscaping. sent12: if something serves Jacquard it recommends Gibbon. sent13: everything does serve Aldebaran. | {D}{c} | sent1: {A}{c} sent2: {D}{a} sent3: {C}{a} -> {A}{c} sent4: (x): ¬({B}x & {D}x) -> ¬{D}{c} sent5: (x): {BI}x -> {IT}x sent6: ({D}{a} v {B}{a}) sent7: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}) sent8: (x): {F}x -> ¬({C}x & ¬{E}x) sent9: {B}{a} -> {C}{c} sent10: (x): {HA}x -> {EJ}x sent11: (x): {C}x -> {D}x sent12: (x): {C}x -> {A}x sent13: (x): {F}x | [
"sent11 -> int1: if the Glycine serves Jacquard it serves landscaping.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent11 -> int1: {C}{c} -> {D}{c};"
] | UNKNOWN | 2 | null | 10 | 0 | 10 | the Glycine does not serve landscaping. | ¬{D}{c} | 9 | [
"sent8 -> int2: if the Khanty serves Aldebaran the fact that it does serve Jacquard and is not eastern is not right.; sent13 -> int3: the Khanty does serve Aldebaran.; int2 & int3 -> int4: that the fact that the Khanty does serve Jacquard and is not eastern is not correct is not incorrect.; int4 -> int5: there is nothing such that it does serve Jacquard and it is not eastern.; int5 -> int6: the fact that the SEAL serves Jacquard but it is not eastern does not hold.; int6 -> int7: there exists something such that that it does serve Jacquard and it is not eastern is not true.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the Glycine serves landscaping. ; $context$ = sent1: the Glycine does recommend Gibbon. sent2: the shoji serves landscaping. sent3: if the shoji does serve Jacquard then the Glycine does recommend Gibbon. sent4: the Glycine does not serve landscaping if there exists something such that the fact that it is a caboose and serve landscaping is not right. sent5: something is compatible if it is a submersible. sent6: the shoji serves landscaping and/or is a kind of a caboose. sent7: the shoji does recommend Gibbon and/or is a caboose. sent8: the fact that something serves Jacquard and is not eastern is wrong if it does serve Aldebaran. sent9: if the shoji is a caboose then the Glycine does serve Jacquard. sent10: something that is insurmountable is a psycholinguist. sent11: something that does serve Jacquard serves landscaping. sent12: if something serves Jacquard it recommends Gibbon. sent13: everything does serve Aldebaran. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | something that does serve Jacquard serves landscaping. | [] | [
"something that does serve Jacquard serves landscaping."
] |
the backplate is a kind of a expressiveness that is an insignificance. | sent1: if the fact that something is not a expressiveness or an insignificance or both hold it is an impression. sent2: the backplate is a expressiveness if there exists something such that it is not an insignificance. sent3: the megacolon is an impression if the snailfish is a kind of an impression. sent4: everything is a anchorite. sent5: if the snailfish is a Ptilonorhynchidae then it either is not a expressiveness or is a kind of an insignificance or both. sent6: that the backplate is a Ptilonorhynchidae is not incorrect. sent7: the backplate is an insignificance that is a Ptilonorhynchidae if something is not a renegade. sent8: the backplate is a second and is Wilsonian. sent9: there exists something such that it is not a renegade. sent10: something that is a kind of a Ptilonorhynchidae is a anchorite. sent11: there exists something such that it is a renegade. sent12: everything does backpack sunlight and it is exegetic. | ({A}{aa} & {C}{aa}) | sent1: (x): (¬{A}x v {C}x) -> {IA}x sent2: (x): ¬{C}x -> {A}{aa} sent3: {IA}{b} -> {IA}{di} sent4: (x): {B}x sent5: {D}{b} -> (¬{A}{b} v {C}{b}) sent6: {D}{aa} sent7: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({C}{aa} & {D}{aa}) sent8: ({CP}{aa} & {HU}{aa}) sent9: (Ex): ¬{E}x sent10: (x): {D}x -> {B}x sent11: (Ex): {E}x sent12: (x): ({HJ}x & {IJ}x) | [
"sent9 & sent7 -> int1: the backplate is an insignificance and it is a Ptilonorhynchidae.; int1 -> int2: the backplate is a kind of an insignificance.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent9 & sent7 -> int1: ({C}{aa} & {D}{aa}); int1 -> int2: {C}{aa};"
] | UNKNOWN | 3 | null | 10 | 0 | 10 | the megacolon is an impression and it corks. | ({IA}{di} & {DT}{di}) | 5 | [
"sent1 -> int3: if the snailfish is not a expressiveness or an insignificance or both then it is an impression.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the backplate is a kind of a expressiveness that is an insignificance. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something is not a expressiveness or an insignificance or both hold it is an impression. sent2: the backplate is a expressiveness if there exists something such that it is not an insignificance. sent3: the megacolon is an impression if the snailfish is a kind of an impression. sent4: everything is a anchorite. sent5: if the snailfish is a Ptilonorhynchidae then it either is not a expressiveness or is a kind of an insignificance or both. sent6: that the backplate is a Ptilonorhynchidae is not incorrect. sent7: the backplate is an insignificance that is a Ptilonorhynchidae if something is not a renegade. sent8: the backplate is a second and is Wilsonian. sent9: there exists something such that it is not a renegade. sent10: something that is a kind of a Ptilonorhynchidae is a anchorite. sent11: there exists something such that it is a renegade. sent12: everything does backpack sunlight and it is exegetic. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | there exists something such that it is not a renegade. | [
"the backplate is an insignificance that is a Ptilonorhynchidae if something is not a renegade."
] | [
"there exists something such that it is not a renegade."
] |
there exists something such that if it is not a disquieting then that either it is not a fluorochrome or it is a Demavend or both is not true. | sent1: the fact that the ghee is not a choo-choo or it is a wittol or both is not true if that it is a kind of an individualist hold. sent2: if something is not a disquieting then it is not a fluorochrome and/or it is a Demavend. sent3: if the froghopper is a disquieting the fact that it is not a Tiepolo or operculate or both is wrong. sent4: there exists something such that if it is not piezoelectric either it is not brimless or it is a kind of a epitaxy or both. sent5: there exists something such that if it is not nonfictional then that it is not noneffervescent and/or is a kind of a Tupungato does not hold. sent6: if something is not a kind of a disquieting that either it is not a fluorochrome or it is a Demavend or both does not hold. | (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) | sent1: {M}{bu} -> ¬(¬{IN}{bu} v {DG}{bu}) sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) sent3: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{DN}{aa} v {HT}{aa}) sent4: (Ex): ¬{BC}x -> (¬{EU}x v {DP}x) sent5: (Ex): ¬{IL}x -> ¬(¬{N}x v {FB}x) sent6: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) | [
"sent6 -> int1: that either the froghopper is not a fluorochrome or it is a kind of a Demavend or both is false if it is not a disquieting.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent6 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 5 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is not a disquieting then that either it is not a fluorochrome or it is a Demavend or both is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the ghee is not a choo-choo or it is a wittol or both is not true if that it is a kind of an individualist hold. sent2: if something is not a disquieting then it is not a fluorochrome and/or it is a Demavend. sent3: if the froghopper is a disquieting the fact that it is not a Tiepolo or operculate or both is wrong. sent4: there exists something such that if it is not piezoelectric either it is not brimless or it is a kind of a epitaxy or both. sent5: there exists something such that if it is not nonfictional then that it is not noneffervescent and/or is a kind of a Tupungato does not hold. sent6: if something is not a kind of a disquieting that either it is not a fluorochrome or it is a Demavend or both does not hold. ; $proof$ = | sent6 -> int1: that either the froghopper is not a fluorochrome or it is a kind of a Demavend or both is false if it is not a disquieting.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if something is not a kind of a disquieting that either it is not a fluorochrome or it is a Demavend or both does not hold. | [] | [
"if something is not a kind of a disquieting that either it is not a fluorochrome or it is a Demavend or both does not hold."
] |
there is something such that if that it is a kind of a spectrum is true it is not a prefixation. | sent1: the fact that there exists something such that if it is a multicollinearity it is not a greyhound hold. sent2: there exists something such that if it is nonsubmersible then it serves Aruru. sent3: that something is not a mineral is correct if it is filarial. sent4: there is something such that if it is a perjurer it is not a cephaloglycin. sent5: there is something such that if it serves symbolism it is not a kind of a aphrodisia. sent6: the dampener is not immunocompetent if it is a kind of a currentness. sent7: if the phytochemical is a kind of a pool then it is not a kind of a headship. sent8: the eyelid is not emotional if it does parallel. sent9: if the phytochemical is a spectrum it is not a prefixation. sent10: if the phytochemical spends then the fact that it is a spectrum is not incorrect. sent11: if the sneeze is a kind of a melphalan it is a kind of a hatch. sent12: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a cephaloglycin it is a antinomianism. sent13: the fact that the phytochemical is a prefixation is right if it is a spectrum. sent14: the contadino does not serve stirrup if it is a spectrum. sent15: there is something such that if it is exaugural then it is a freight. sent16: there exists something such that if it is a spectrum it is a prefixation. | (Ex): {A}x -> ¬{C}x | sent1: (Ex): {FN}x -> ¬{IC}x sent2: (Ex): {CS}x -> {GD}x sent3: (x): {JC}x -> ¬{GI}x sent4: (Ex): {IS}x -> ¬{AI}x sent5: (Ex): {GE}x -> ¬{BK}x sent6: {GO}{t} -> ¬{BR}{t} sent7: {DI}{aa} -> ¬{AL}{aa} sent8: {HP}{dj} -> ¬{FK}{dj} sent9: {A}{aa} -> ¬{C}{aa} sent10: {DJ}{aa} -> {A}{aa} sent11: {JB}{hu} -> {Q}{hu} sent12: (Ex): {AI}x -> {P}x sent13: {A}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent14: {A}{ig} -> ¬{FP}{ig} sent15: (Ex): {FH}x -> {IL}x sent16: (Ex): {A}x -> {C}x | [
"sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 1 | 1 | 15 | 0 | 15 | there is something such that if it is filarial it is not a kind of a mineral. | (Ex): {JC}x -> ¬{GI}x | 2 | [
"sent3 -> int1: that the adjutant is not a kind of a mineral is true if it is filarial.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = there is something such that if that it is a kind of a spectrum is true it is not a prefixation. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that there exists something such that if it is a multicollinearity it is not a greyhound hold. sent2: there exists something such that if it is nonsubmersible then it serves Aruru. sent3: that something is not a mineral is correct if it is filarial. sent4: there is something such that if it is a perjurer it is not a cephaloglycin. sent5: there is something such that if it serves symbolism it is not a kind of a aphrodisia. sent6: the dampener is not immunocompetent if it is a kind of a currentness. sent7: if the phytochemical is a kind of a pool then it is not a kind of a headship. sent8: the eyelid is not emotional if it does parallel. sent9: if the phytochemical is a spectrum it is not a prefixation. sent10: if the phytochemical spends then the fact that it is a spectrum is not incorrect. sent11: if the sneeze is a kind of a melphalan it is a kind of a hatch. sent12: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a cephaloglycin it is a antinomianism. sent13: the fact that the phytochemical is a prefixation is right if it is a spectrum. sent14: the contadino does not serve stirrup if it is a spectrum. sent15: there is something such that if it is exaugural then it is a freight. sent16: there exists something such that if it is a spectrum it is a prefixation. ; $proof$ = | sent9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if the phytochemical is a spectrum it is not a prefixation. | [] | [
"if the phytochemical is a spectrum it is not a prefixation."
] |
the fact that there exists something such that it is both not stereoscopic and not biographic does not hold. | sent1: the fact that the PIN is biographic is not false if the washcloth is biographic. sent2: there is something such that it is stereoscopic and it is not biographic. sent3: if the washcloth is a kind of a glomerulus then the sprigtail is non-stereoscopic and it is not biographic. sent4: the washcloth is a glomerulus. sent5: the sprigtail is not biographic. | ¬((Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)) | sent1: {AB}{a} -> {AB}{ib} sent2: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent3: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent4: {A}{a} sent5: ¬{AB}{b} | [
"sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the fact that the sprigtail is both non-stereoscopic and non-biographic hold.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent3 & sent4 -> int1: (¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 3 | the PIN is biographic. | {AB}{ib} | 6 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that it is both not stereoscopic and not biographic does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the PIN is biographic is not false if the washcloth is biographic. sent2: there is something such that it is stereoscopic and it is not biographic. sent3: if the washcloth is a kind of a glomerulus then the sprigtail is non-stereoscopic and it is not biographic. sent4: the washcloth is a glomerulus. sent5: the sprigtail is not biographic. ; $proof$ = | sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the fact that the sprigtail is both non-stereoscopic and non-biographic hold.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if the washcloth is a kind of a glomerulus then the sprigtail is non-stereoscopic and it is not biographic. | [
"the washcloth is a glomerulus."
] | [
"if the washcloth is a kind of a glomerulus then the sprigtail is non-stereoscopic and it is not biographic."
] |
the kiss does not occur. | sent1: the celebrating occurs. sent2: the mastership occurs. sent3: the kissing occurs. sent4: the nonparticulateness happens. sent5: the recommending PSA happens. sent6: the sinistralness happens. sent7: the fact that that the recommending pall does not occur and/or the abdominovesicalness prevents the kissing hold. sent8: the absorbableness happens. sent9: the fact that the backpacking cassiterite happens is not incorrect. sent10: the recommending work-in occurs. sent11: the backpacking invertase happens. sent12: the boating Rus happens. sent13: the boating voyeurism occurs. | ¬{A} | sent1: {GG} sent2: {IL} sent3: {A} sent4: {EU} sent5: {EJ} sent6: {CN} sent7: (¬{B} v {C}) -> ¬{A} sent8: {FR} sent9: {HU} sent10: {CL} sent11: {EB} sent12: {D} sent13: {BO} | [
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 1 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 12 | the kissing does not occur. | ¬{A} | 6 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the kiss does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the celebrating occurs. sent2: the mastership occurs. sent3: the kissing occurs. sent4: the nonparticulateness happens. sent5: the recommending PSA happens. sent6: the sinistralness happens. sent7: the fact that that the recommending pall does not occur and/or the abdominovesicalness prevents the kissing hold. sent8: the absorbableness happens. sent9: the fact that the backpacking cassiterite happens is not incorrect. sent10: the recommending work-in occurs. sent11: the backpacking invertase happens. sent12: the boating Rus happens. sent13: the boating voyeurism occurs. ; $proof$ = | sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the kissing occurs. | [] | [
"the kissing occurs."
] |
the Timorese is a skirt. | sent1: if the fact that either something does not acclimatize or it is not a kind of a caryatid or both is incorrect it is a Asian. sent2: if that the artilleryman does not recommend Tanguy is not wrong then the curassow is a kind of a IUD and is a kind of a ophryon. sent3: the Timorese is a epigone. sent4: if the shortbread is not a kind of a Algren then the Timorese is both a skirt and a carload. sent5: the Timorese is a epigone if it is not a carload. sent6: something that is not a carload is both not a skirt and a epigone. sent7: there is something such that it is a kind of a NREM that is a kind of a Algren. sent8: either the arse is a NREM or it is not a kind of a Algren or both if the Casanova is Asian. sent9: that the Timorese is not a carload if there exists something such that it is not a Algren is not incorrect. sent10: there is something such that the fact that it is a NREM and is a Algren is wrong. sent11: if either the curassow is a ophryon or it does ogle or both the Casanova does not ogle. sent12: if something does not ogle then it is not a kind of a Wagnerian. sent13: the Timorese is not a kind of a carload if there is something such that the fact that it is a NREM that is a Algren is false. sent14: the cherub is non-Romany and serves Casanova. sent15: the artilleryman does not recommend Tanguy. sent16: that something does not acclimatize and/or is not a caryatid does not hold if it is not a Wagnerian. | {AA}{aa} | sent1: (x): ¬(¬{E}x v ¬{F}x) -> {D}x sent2: ¬{K}{e} -> ({I}{d} & {J}{d}) sent3: {AB}{aa} sent4: ¬{B}{a} -> ({AA}{aa} & {A}{aa}) sent5: ¬{A}{aa} -> {AB}{aa} sent6: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent7: (Ex): ({C}x & {B}x) sent8: {D}{c} -> ({C}{b} v ¬{B}{b}) sent9: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{A}{aa} sent10: (Ex): ¬({C}x & {B}x) sent11: ({J}{d} v {H}{d}) -> ¬{H}{c} sent12: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬{G}x sent13: (x): ¬({C}x & {B}x) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent14: (¬{ID}{cq} & {IN}{cq}) sent15: ¬{K}{e} sent16: (x): ¬{G}x -> ¬(¬{E}x v ¬{F}x) | [
"sent6 -> int1: if the Timorese is not a carload then it is both not a skirt and a epigone.; sent10 & sent13 -> int2: that the Timorese is not a carload is correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the Timorese does not skirt but it is a epigone hold.; int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent6 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); sent10 & sent13 -> int2: ¬{A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> int3: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 13 | 0 | 13 | the Timorese is a skirt. | {AA}{aa} | 12 | [
"sent1 -> int4: the Casanova is a Asian if that it does not acclimatize and/or is not a caryatid does not hold.; sent16 -> int5: if the Casanova is not Wagnerian then the fact that it does not acclimatize and/or it is not a caryatid is false.; sent12 -> int6: if the Casanova does not ogle then it is not Wagnerian.; sent2 & sent15 -> int7: the curassow is a IUD and it is a ophryon.; int7 -> int8: the curassow is a ophryon.; int8 -> int9: the curassow is a kind of a ophryon and/or it does ogle.; sent11 & int9 -> int10: the Casanova does not ogle.; int6 & int10 -> int11: that the Casanova is not Wagnerian is correct.; int5 & int11 -> int12: that the Casanova does not acclimatize or it is not a caryatid or both is not right.; int4 & int12 -> int13: the Casanova is Asian.; sent8 & int13 -> int14: the arse is a NREM or it is not a kind of a Algren or both.; int14 -> int15: there is something such that it is a kind of a NREM or is not a Algren or both.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the Timorese is a skirt. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that either something does not acclimatize or it is not a kind of a caryatid or both is incorrect it is a Asian. sent2: if that the artilleryman does not recommend Tanguy is not wrong then the curassow is a kind of a IUD and is a kind of a ophryon. sent3: the Timorese is a epigone. sent4: if the shortbread is not a kind of a Algren then the Timorese is both a skirt and a carload. sent5: the Timorese is a epigone if it is not a carload. sent6: something that is not a carload is both not a skirt and a epigone. sent7: there is something such that it is a kind of a NREM that is a kind of a Algren. sent8: either the arse is a NREM or it is not a kind of a Algren or both if the Casanova is Asian. sent9: that the Timorese is not a carload if there exists something such that it is not a Algren is not incorrect. sent10: there is something such that the fact that it is a NREM and is a Algren is wrong. sent11: if either the curassow is a ophryon or it does ogle or both the Casanova does not ogle. sent12: if something does not ogle then it is not a kind of a Wagnerian. sent13: the Timorese is not a kind of a carload if there is something such that the fact that it is a NREM that is a Algren is false. sent14: the cherub is non-Romany and serves Casanova. sent15: the artilleryman does not recommend Tanguy. sent16: that something does not acclimatize and/or is not a caryatid does not hold if it is not a Wagnerian. ; $proof$ = | sent6 -> int1: if the Timorese is not a carload then it is both not a skirt and a epigone.; sent10 & sent13 -> int2: that the Timorese is not a carload is correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the Timorese does not skirt but it is a epigone hold.; int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | something that is not a carload is both not a skirt and a epigone. | [
"there is something such that the fact that it is a NREM and is a Algren is wrong.",
"the Timorese is not a kind of a carload if there is something such that the fact that it is a NREM that is a Algren is false."
] | [
"A skirt and a epigone are not something that is not a carload.",
"A skirt and epigone are not something that is not a carload."
] |
that that the venue does backpack consumerism and is not a peck is false is not wrong. | sent1: the fact that something does backpack consumerism but it is not a peck is incorrect if it does not recommend marksmanship. sent2: the venue backpacks consumerism but it does not peck. sent3: the monitor is a playgoer and does not serve Carver. sent4: the henbane is not satisfactory. sent5: the obsolescence does peck and it recommends marksmanship if that the venue is not buccal is correct. sent6: if the henbane is not satisfactory that the songwriter is both non-dramatics and not laxative is not true. sent7: the venue does backpack chlorothiazide and does not peck. sent8: the venue is not a peck. sent9: if there is something such that that it is not dramatics and not a laxative is incorrect the eburnation is a kind of a Clinopodium. | ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) | sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent2: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent3: ({DB}{es} & ¬{AC}{es}) sent4: ¬{G}{e} sent5: ¬{B}{a} -> ({AB}{ds} & {A}{ds}) sent6: ¬{G}{e} -> ¬(¬{E}{d} & ¬{F}{d}) sent7: ({FG}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent8: ¬{AB}{a} sent9: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{F}x) -> {C}{c} | [
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 1 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 8 | the obsolescence is a peck that does not backpack slash. | ({AB}{ds} & ¬{K}{ds}) | 9 | [
"sent6 & sent4 -> int1: the fact that the songwriter is not dramatics and it is not laxative does not hold.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that that it is non-dramatics thing that is not laxative does not hold.; int2 & sent9 -> int3: the eburnation is a kind of a Clinopodium.; int3 -> int4: something is a kind of a Clinopodium.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = that that the venue does backpack consumerism and is not a peck is false is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something does backpack consumerism but it is not a peck is incorrect if it does not recommend marksmanship. sent2: the venue backpacks consumerism but it does not peck. sent3: the monitor is a playgoer and does not serve Carver. sent4: the henbane is not satisfactory. sent5: the obsolescence does peck and it recommends marksmanship if that the venue is not buccal is correct. sent6: if the henbane is not satisfactory that the songwriter is both non-dramatics and not laxative is not true. sent7: the venue does backpack chlorothiazide and does not peck. sent8: the venue is not a peck. sent9: if there is something such that that it is not dramatics and not a laxative is incorrect the eburnation is a kind of a Clinopodium. ; $proof$ = | sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the venue backpacks consumerism but it does not peck. | [] | [
"the venue backpacks consumerism but it does not peck."
] |
the Greek gallivants but it does not recommend spoilage. | sent1: something is not non-federal and does boat roughrider. sent2: that the Greek does gallivant but it does not recommend spoilage is wrong if the monocle is a kind of a top. sent3: the fact that the monocle tops is not incorrect if the fact that the technician serves hustler is correct. sent4: there is something such that it boats roughrider. sent5: the Greek gallivants but it does not recommend spoilage if it is not federal. sent6: if the fact that the monocle does top is not false the fact that the Greek does gallivant and recommends spoilage is wrong. sent7: that the Greek gallivants and recommends spoilage is not right. sent8: the technician does serve hustler if there exists something such that it is federal and it does boat roughrider. | ({E}{c} & ¬{F}{c}) | sent1: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x) sent2: {D}{b} -> ¬({E}{c} & ¬{F}{c}) sent3: {C}{a} -> {D}{b} sent4: (Ex): {B}x sent5: ¬{A}{c} -> ({E}{c} & ¬{F}{c}) sent6: {D}{b} -> ¬({E}{c} & {F}{c}) sent7: ¬({E}{c} & {F}{c}) sent8: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> {C}{a} | [
"sent1 & sent8 -> int1: the technician does serve hustler.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: the monocle is a top.; sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent1 & sent8 -> int1: {C}{a}; sent3 & int1 -> int2: {D}{b}; sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 4 | the Greek gallivants but it does not recommend spoilage. | ({E}{c} & ¬{F}{c}) | 5 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the Greek gallivants but it does not recommend spoilage. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not non-federal and does boat roughrider. sent2: that the Greek does gallivant but it does not recommend spoilage is wrong if the monocle is a kind of a top. sent3: the fact that the monocle tops is not incorrect if the fact that the technician serves hustler is correct. sent4: there is something such that it boats roughrider. sent5: the Greek gallivants but it does not recommend spoilage if it is not federal. sent6: if the fact that the monocle does top is not false the fact that the Greek does gallivant and recommends spoilage is wrong. sent7: that the Greek gallivants and recommends spoilage is not right. sent8: the technician does serve hustler if there exists something such that it is federal and it does boat roughrider. ; $proof$ = | sent1 & sent8 -> int1: the technician does serve hustler.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: the monocle is a top.; sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | something is not non-federal and does boat roughrider. | [
"the technician does serve hustler if there exists something such that it is federal and it does boat roughrider.",
"the fact that the monocle tops is not incorrect if the fact that the technician serves hustler is correct.",
"that the Greek does gallivant but it does not recommend spoilage is wrong if the monocle is a kind of a top."
] | [
"There is something that does boat roughrider.",
"Something does boat roughrider.",
"It does boat roughrider."
] |
there is something such that if it is repeatable thing that does not backpack Varanus it is not non-abaxial. | sent1: there is something such that if it is a kind of unoriginal thing that is not pneumatics then it is tracheal. sent2: there is something such that if it backpacks insert and it is not a kind of a perpendicularity it granulates. sent3: the cardigan is cytogenetics if it boats checksum and it is phonetics. sent4: the Chilean does backpack Varanus if it is cardiovascular and it is not cytogenetics. sent5: if the Chilean is repeatable but it is not incapable then it recommends conspecific. sent6: the Chilean is not non-abaxial if it is repeatable and does not backpack Varanus. | (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x | sent1: (Ex): ({FD}x & ¬{JD}x) -> {EO}x sent2: (Ex): ({JE}x & ¬{H}x) -> {BP}x sent3: ({GR}{if} & {IK}{if}) -> {IF}{if} sent4: ({U}{aa} & ¬{IF}{aa}) -> {AB}{aa} sent5: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{IP}{aa}) -> {EH}{aa} sent6: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} | [
"sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 1 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 5 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is repeatable thing that does not backpack Varanus it is not non-abaxial. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is a kind of unoriginal thing that is not pneumatics then it is tracheal. sent2: there is something such that if it backpacks insert and it is not a kind of a perpendicularity it granulates. sent3: the cardigan is cytogenetics if it boats checksum and it is phonetics. sent4: the Chilean does backpack Varanus if it is cardiovascular and it is not cytogenetics. sent5: if the Chilean is repeatable but it is not incapable then it recommends conspecific. sent6: the Chilean is not non-abaxial if it is repeatable and does not backpack Varanus. ; $proof$ = | sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the Chilean is not non-abaxial if it is repeatable and does not backpack Varanus. | [] | [
"the Chilean is not non-abaxial if it is repeatable and does not backpack Varanus."
] |
the branchlet is a eggar. | sent1: the fact that either something is not a kind of a eggar or it is not a kind of a Rhenish or both is false if it does not backpack salesmanship. sent2: the stepfather is a eggar. sent3: the radicle is a Phalaenoptilus if the branchlet is a eggar. sent4: the fact that everything is not a Phalaenoptilus hold. | {A}{a} | sent1: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬(¬{A}x v ¬{C}x) sent2: {A}{hu} sent3: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent4: (x): ¬{B}x | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the branchlet is a kind of a eggar.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the radicle is a Phalaenoptilus.; sent4 -> int2: the radicle is not a Phalaenoptilus.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"void -> assump1: {A}{a}; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: {B}{b}; sent4 -> int2: ¬{B}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | the wheat is not a kind of a Phalaenoptilus. | ¬{B}{ak} | 5 | [
"sent1 -> int4: the fact that the branchlet is not a eggar or it is not Rhenish or both is wrong if it does not backpack salesmanship.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the branchlet is a eggar. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that either something is not a kind of a eggar or it is not a kind of a Rhenish or both is false if it does not backpack salesmanship. sent2: the stepfather is a eggar. sent3: the radicle is a Phalaenoptilus if the branchlet is a eggar. sent4: the fact that everything is not a Phalaenoptilus hold. ; $proof$ = | void -> assump1: Let's assume that the branchlet is a kind of a eggar.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the radicle is a Phalaenoptilus.; sent4 -> int2: the radicle is not a Phalaenoptilus.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the radicle is a Phalaenoptilus if the branchlet is a eggar. | [
"the fact that everything is not a Phalaenoptilus hold."
] | [
"the radicle is a Phalaenoptilus if the branchlet is a eggar."
] |
the bellows is a kind of a frontal. | sent1: the signaler is not a Glaser. sent2: that the signaler is both not a modernist and not a Glaser is not incorrect. sent3: the commoner is not a duplicate if the signaler is not a modernist and it is not a Glaser. sent4: that the dentist is a doubles and a scrimshanker is incorrect if there is something such that it does not duplicate. sent5: if that the dentist is not a doubles and is a scrimshanker is not true the bellows is a frontal. sent6: that the dentist is a kind of doubles thing that is a kind of a scrimshanker is false. | {D}{d} | sent1: ¬{AB}{a} sent2: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent3: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent4: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({C}{c} & {A}{c}) sent5: ¬(¬{C}{c} & {A}{c}) -> {D}{d} sent6: ¬({C}{c} & {A}{c}) | [
"sent3 & sent2 -> int1: the commoner is not a duplicate.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that it is not a kind of a duplicate.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent3 & sent2 -> int1: ¬{B}{b}; int1 -> int2: (Ex): ¬{B}x;"
] | UNKNOWN | 4 | null | 3 | 0 | 3 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = the bellows is a kind of a frontal. ; $context$ = sent1: the signaler is not a Glaser. sent2: that the signaler is both not a modernist and not a Glaser is not incorrect. sent3: the commoner is not a duplicate if the signaler is not a modernist and it is not a Glaser. sent4: that the dentist is a doubles and a scrimshanker is incorrect if there is something such that it does not duplicate. sent5: if that the dentist is not a doubles and is a scrimshanker is not true the bellows is a frontal. sent6: that the dentist is a kind of doubles thing that is a kind of a scrimshanker is false. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | the commoner is not a duplicate if the signaler is not a modernist and it is not a Glaser. | [
"that the signaler is both not a modernist and not a Glaser is not incorrect."
] | [
"the commoner is not a duplicate if the signaler is not a modernist and it is not a Glaser."
] |
the pintle is lacrimatory. | sent1: if the fact that something does not pigment and it is not a kind of a squeeze is not right it is a squeeze. sent2: the pintle is organizational. sent3: the polymorphism is organizational. sent4: if the polymorphism is organizational then it is lacrimatory. sent5: the pintle does backpack aphanite if the chancery does not squeeze. sent6: if something is lacrimatory then the fact that the fact that it is not a pigment and not a squeeze is right is not right. sent7: the chancery is lacrimatory if the pintle is not a squeeze. sent8: if the polymorphism is organizational the chancery is not a squeeze. sent9: the fact that something is a kind of a squeeze and it is lacrimatory does not hold if it is not organizational. sent10: something is not lacrimatory if that it is a squeeze and is lacrimatory is false. sent11: the chancery is organizational if the polymorphism is not a squeeze. sent12: something is not lacrimatory if it is a kind of non-organizational thing that is not a squeeze. sent13: if something does backpack aphanite then it is lacrimatory. | {D}{c} | sent1: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{B}x) -> {B}x sent2: {A}{c} sent3: {A}{a} sent4: {A}{a} -> {D}{a} sent5: ¬{B}{b} -> {C}{c} sent6: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{B}x) sent7: ¬{B}{c} -> {D}{b} sent8: {A}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent9: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}x & {D}x) sent10: (x): ¬({B}x & {D}x) -> ¬{D}x sent11: ¬{B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent12: (x): (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{D}x sent13: (x): {C}x -> {D}x | [
"sent8 & sent3 -> int1: the chancery is not a kind of a squeeze.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the pintle does backpack aphanite.; sent13 -> int3: the pintle is lacrimatory if it backpacks aphanite.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent8 & sent3 -> int1: ¬{B}{b}; int1 & sent5 -> int2: {C}{c}; sent13 -> int3: {C}{c} -> {D}{c}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 9 | 0 | 9 | the aphanite does not backpack aphanite. | ¬{C}{dp} | 7 | [
"sent1 -> int4: the polymorphism is a squeeze if that it is not a pigment and it is not a squeeze is not correct.; sent6 -> int5: that the chancery is not a pigment and not a squeeze does not hold if that it is lacrimatory is correct.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the pintle is lacrimatory. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something does not pigment and it is not a kind of a squeeze is not right it is a squeeze. sent2: the pintle is organizational. sent3: the polymorphism is organizational. sent4: if the polymorphism is organizational then it is lacrimatory. sent5: the pintle does backpack aphanite if the chancery does not squeeze. sent6: if something is lacrimatory then the fact that the fact that it is not a pigment and not a squeeze is right is not right. sent7: the chancery is lacrimatory if the pintle is not a squeeze. sent8: if the polymorphism is organizational the chancery is not a squeeze. sent9: the fact that something is a kind of a squeeze and it is lacrimatory does not hold if it is not organizational. sent10: something is not lacrimatory if that it is a squeeze and is lacrimatory is false. sent11: the chancery is organizational if the polymorphism is not a squeeze. sent12: something is not lacrimatory if it is a kind of non-organizational thing that is not a squeeze. sent13: if something does backpack aphanite then it is lacrimatory. ; $proof$ = | sent8 & sent3 -> int1: the chancery is not a kind of a squeeze.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the pintle does backpack aphanite.; sent13 -> int3: the pintle is lacrimatory if it backpacks aphanite.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if the polymorphism is organizational the chancery is not a squeeze. | [
"the polymorphism is organizational.",
"the pintle does backpack aphanite if the chancery does not squeeze.",
"if something does backpack aphanite then it is lacrimatory."
] | [
"The chancery is not a squeeze if the polymorphism is organizational.",
"The chancery isn't a squeeze if the polymorphism is organizational.",
"The chancery is not a squeeze."
] |
that there is something such that if it is not a kind of a bandsaw then it does not recommend shawm or does not backpack ragamuffin or both does not hold. | sent1: there is something such that if it does not boat rickettsialpox then it is not chronic or it is not a icaco or both. sent2: there is something such that if the fact that it is not a kind of a conspectus is not incorrect it is not haptic and/or it is not geographic. sent3: something does not backpack pillory or it is not precocial or both if it does not backpack ragamuffin. sent4: the astrodome does not recommend shawm or it is not a kind of a commandership or both if it is not stainable. sent5: there is something such that if it is not assertive then it is not a Gymnocladus or it is leaky or both. sent6: there is something such that if it does not serve fetometry it is not a kind of a tick and/or is not a cranberry. sent7: there exists something such that if the fact that it recommends ophthalmoscope is true it does not incur or it does not boat mealberry or both. sent8: if the fact that the vase is not a spinnability is not incorrect either it is not a cupflower or it does not serve unattractiveness or both. sent9: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a bandsaw then it recommends shawm or it does not backpack ragamuffin or both. sent10: the astrodome does not recommend shawm or it does not backpack ragamuffin or both if it is not a bandsaw. sent11: there is something such that if it is a bandsaw then that either it does not recommend shawm or it does not backpack ragamuffin or both is not wrong. sent12: if the astrodome is not a kind of a bandsaw then it does recommend shawm and/or it does not backpack ragamuffin. sent13: if the astrodome is not a bandsaw then it does not recommend shawm or backpacks ragamuffin or both. sent14: there is something such that if it does vow it does not serve vase and/or does not serve chelonian. sent15: there is something such that if it does not serve gluteus it is not a urinal and/or it is not amnestic. sent16: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a bandsaw is true then it does not recommend shawm and/or it does backpack ragamuffin. sent17: the astrodome either does not recommend shawm or does not backpack ragamuffin or both if that it is a kind of a bandsaw is right. | ¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x)) | sent1: (Ex): ¬{FC}x -> (¬{GR}x v ¬{AD}x) sent2: (Ex): ¬{IN}x -> (¬{CM}x v ¬{DC}x) sent3: (x): ¬{AB}x -> (¬{GC}x v ¬{FR}x) sent4: ¬{BE}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{DK}{aa}) sent5: (Ex): ¬{AC}x -> (¬{AK}x v {ET}x) sent6: (Ex): ¬{L}x -> (¬{CI}x v ¬{JD}x) sent7: (Ex): {DI}x -> (¬{HC}x v ¬{ER}x) sent8: ¬{EF}{gc} -> (¬{IU}{gc} v ¬{BG}{gc}) sent9: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent10: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent11: (Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent12: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent13: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent14: (Ex): {CU}x -> (¬{DQ}x v ¬{GA}x) sent15: (Ex): ¬{IF}x -> (¬{AN}x v ¬{GD}x) sent16: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) sent17: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) | [
"sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 1 | 1 | 16 | 0 | 16 | if the astrodome does not backpack ragamuffin it does not backpack pillory and/or it is not precocial. | ¬{AB}{aa} -> (¬{GC}{aa} v ¬{FR}{aa}) | 1 | [
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if it is not a kind of a bandsaw then it does not recommend shawm or does not backpack ragamuffin or both does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it does not boat rickettsialpox then it is not chronic or it is not a icaco or both. sent2: there is something such that if the fact that it is not a kind of a conspectus is not incorrect it is not haptic and/or it is not geographic. sent3: something does not backpack pillory or it is not precocial or both if it does not backpack ragamuffin. sent4: the astrodome does not recommend shawm or it is not a kind of a commandership or both if it is not stainable. sent5: there is something such that if it is not assertive then it is not a Gymnocladus or it is leaky or both. sent6: there is something such that if it does not serve fetometry it is not a kind of a tick and/or is not a cranberry. sent7: there exists something such that if the fact that it recommends ophthalmoscope is true it does not incur or it does not boat mealberry or both. sent8: if the fact that the vase is not a spinnability is not incorrect either it is not a cupflower or it does not serve unattractiveness or both. sent9: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a bandsaw then it recommends shawm or it does not backpack ragamuffin or both. sent10: the astrodome does not recommend shawm or it does not backpack ragamuffin or both if it is not a bandsaw. sent11: there is something such that if it is a bandsaw then that either it does not recommend shawm or it does not backpack ragamuffin or both is not wrong. sent12: if the astrodome is not a kind of a bandsaw then it does recommend shawm and/or it does not backpack ragamuffin. sent13: if the astrodome is not a bandsaw then it does not recommend shawm or backpacks ragamuffin or both. sent14: there is something such that if it does vow it does not serve vase and/or does not serve chelonian. sent15: there is something such that if it does not serve gluteus it is not a urinal and/or it is not amnestic. sent16: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a bandsaw is true then it does not recommend shawm and/or it does backpack ragamuffin. sent17: the astrodome either does not recommend shawm or does not backpack ragamuffin or both if that it is a kind of a bandsaw is right. ; $proof$ = | sent10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the astrodome does not recommend shawm or it does not backpack ragamuffin or both if it is not a bandsaw. | [] | [
"the astrodome does not recommend shawm or it does not backpack ragamuffin or both if it is not a bandsaw."
] |
the backpacking angled occurs. | sent1: if the crouching happens the backpacking insert happens. sent2: if the insufficientness does not occur that the non-fittingness and the non-erythropoieticness happens is not right. sent3: if the genericness does not occur then the non-salientness and the sufficientness happens. sent4: that the backpacking angled does not occur is not incorrect if the fact that that the surmounting does not occur and the recurring happens is incorrect is not false. sent5: the abiogeneticness occurs or the uniforming happens or both. sent6: if the surmounting occurs the backpacking angled happens. sent7: the syncategorematicness leads to that the tracing does not occur but the misting occurs. sent8: the Rorschach occurs or the ligature occurs or both. sent9: the backpacking angled happens if the recurring happens. sent10: the surmounting occurs or the recurring occurs or both. sent11: if the backpacking insert happens the fact that the surmounting does not occur and the recurring happens does not hold. sent12: that the tracing does not occur yields that both the crouching and the socage occurs. sent13: the syncategorematicness occurs if that both the non-fittingness and the non-erythropoieticness occurs does not hold. sent14: if the downhill occurs the serving acetabulum happens. | {C} | sent1: {E} -> {D} sent2: ¬{L} -> ¬(¬{J} & ¬{K}) sent3: ¬{N} -> (¬{M} & ¬{L}) sent4: ¬(¬{A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent5: ({O} v {CK}) sent6: {A} -> {C} sent7: {I} -> (¬{G} & {H}) sent8: ({AC} v {HO}) sent9: {B} -> {C} sent10: ({A} v {B}) sent11: {D} -> ¬(¬{A} & {B}) sent12: ¬{G} -> ({E} & {F}) sent13: ¬(¬{J} & ¬{K}) -> {I} sent14: {BF} -> {FA} | [
"sent10 & sent6 & sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent10 & sent6 & sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 1 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 11 | the fact that the backpacking angled does not occur is correct. | ¬{C} | 13 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the backpacking angled occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the crouching happens the backpacking insert happens. sent2: if the insufficientness does not occur that the non-fittingness and the non-erythropoieticness happens is not right. sent3: if the genericness does not occur then the non-salientness and the sufficientness happens. sent4: that the backpacking angled does not occur is not incorrect if the fact that that the surmounting does not occur and the recurring happens is incorrect is not false. sent5: the abiogeneticness occurs or the uniforming happens or both. sent6: if the surmounting occurs the backpacking angled happens. sent7: the syncategorematicness leads to that the tracing does not occur but the misting occurs. sent8: the Rorschach occurs or the ligature occurs or both. sent9: the backpacking angled happens if the recurring happens. sent10: the surmounting occurs or the recurring occurs or both. sent11: if the backpacking insert happens the fact that the surmounting does not occur and the recurring happens does not hold. sent12: that the tracing does not occur yields that both the crouching and the socage occurs. sent13: the syncategorematicness occurs if that both the non-fittingness and the non-erythropoieticness occurs does not hold. sent14: if the downhill occurs the serving acetabulum happens. ; $proof$ = | sent10 & sent6 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the surmounting occurs or the recurring occurs or both. | [
"if the surmounting occurs the backpacking angled happens.",
"the backpacking angled happens if the recurring happens."
] | [
"The recurring occurs or the surmounting occurs.",
"Either the surmounting occurs or the recurring occurs."
] |
the mucin does not serve self-defense and it is not unworthy. | sent1: the fact that the antimony is not a bloat is not wrong. sent2: if the antimony is unworthy the mucin does not serve self-defense and it is not unworthy. sent3: the mucin does not bloat. sent4: the antimony does serve antimony if it does not serve self-defense. sent5: the antimony bloats if that the merino is not a bloats but it is wigless is false. sent6: if the mucin does serve self-defense then the antimony is a kind of worthy thing that does not serve self-defense. sent7: the antimony is not a kind of an accompaniment. sent8: the mucin pulls. sent9: if the antimony is unworthy it does serve self-defense. sent10: the ram does not bloat. sent11: the antimony is Deweyan if it does not bloat. sent12: if something bloats it does serve self-defense. sent13: the mucin is not atmospheric. | (¬{D}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) | sent1: ¬{A}{a} sent2: {C}{a} -> (¬{D}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent3: ¬{A}{b} sent4: ¬{D}{a} -> {FS}{a} sent5: ¬(¬{A}{c} & {E}{c}) -> {A}{a} sent6: {D}{b} -> (¬{C}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent7: ¬{DA}{a} sent8: {I}{b} sent9: {C}{a} -> {D}{a} sent10: ¬{A}{gp} sent11: ¬{A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent12: (x): {A}x -> {D}x sent13: ¬{FF}{b} | [
"sent11 & sent1 -> int1: the antimony is Deweyan.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent11 & sent1 -> int1: {B}{a};"
] | UNKNOWN | 3 | null | 10 | 0 | 10 | that the mucin does not serve self-defense and it is not unworthy is not right. | ¬(¬{D}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) | 6 | [
"sent12 -> int2: if the antimony bloats then it serves self-defense.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the mucin does not serve self-defense and it is not unworthy. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the antimony is not a bloat is not wrong. sent2: if the antimony is unworthy the mucin does not serve self-defense and it is not unworthy. sent3: the mucin does not bloat. sent4: the antimony does serve antimony if it does not serve self-defense. sent5: the antimony bloats if that the merino is not a bloats but it is wigless is false. sent6: if the mucin does serve self-defense then the antimony is a kind of worthy thing that does not serve self-defense. sent7: the antimony is not a kind of an accompaniment. sent8: the mucin pulls. sent9: if the antimony is unworthy it does serve self-defense. sent10: the ram does not bloat. sent11: the antimony is Deweyan if it does not bloat. sent12: if something bloats it does serve self-defense. sent13: the mucin is not atmospheric. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | the antimony is Deweyan if it does not bloat. | [
"the fact that the antimony is not a bloat is not wrong."
] | [
"the antimony is Deweyan if it does not bloat."
] |
the fact that the two-dimensionalness does not occur is not correct. | sent1: the contractualness occurs. sent2: that the expropriation happens yields that the homocercalness and the non-two-dimensionalness occurs. sent3: the fact that the Chinaman happens is not wrong. sent4: if the negligentness does not occur then the expropriation happens and the homocercalness occurs. sent5: the fact that the two-dimensionalness occurs is not false. sent6: that the lettering occurs or that the serving multicollinearity does not occur or both is brought about by that the reenactment does not occur. sent7: if the homocercalness happens the undemocraticness but not the two-dimensionalness occurs. sent8: that the reenactment occurs and the pteridologicalness does not occur is not right if the shielding does not occur. sent9: the recommending unacceptability happens. sent10: if the letter occurs and/or the serving multicollinearity does not occur the negligentness does not occur. sent11: the fact that the prudentness happens is not incorrect. sent12: the dystopianness happens. sent13: the mucinousness occurs. sent14: the sweeping occurs. sent15: if that the reenactment happens and the pteridologicalness does not occur does not hold then the fact that the reenactment does not occur hold. sent16: the Manxness happens. | {A} | sent1: {CP} sent2: {C} -> ({B} & ¬{A}) sent3: {EQ} sent4: ¬{D} -> ({C} & {B}) sent5: {A} sent6: ¬{G} -> ({F} v ¬{E}) sent7: {B} -> ({AJ} & ¬{A}) sent8: ¬{I} -> ¬({G} & ¬{H}) sent9: {FR} sent10: ({F} v ¬{E}) -> ¬{D} sent11: {EL} sent12: {FC} sent13: {CQ} sent14: {JJ} sent15: ¬({G} & ¬{H}) -> ¬{G} sent16: {DN} | [
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 1 | 0 | 15 | 0 | 15 | that the two-dimensionalness does not occur hold. | ¬{A} | 6 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the two-dimensionalness does not occur is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the contractualness occurs. sent2: that the expropriation happens yields that the homocercalness and the non-two-dimensionalness occurs. sent3: the fact that the Chinaman happens is not wrong. sent4: if the negligentness does not occur then the expropriation happens and the homocercalness occurs. sent5: the fact that the two-dimensionalness occurs is not false. sent6: that the lettering occurs or that the serving multicollinearity does not occur or both is brought about by that the reenactment does not occur. sent7: if the homocercalness happens the undemocraticness but not the two-dimensionalness occurs. sent8: that the reenactment occurs and the pteridologicalness does not occur is not right if the shielding does not occur. sent9: the recommending unacceptability happens. sent10: if the letter occurs and/or the serving multicollinearity does not occur the negligentness does not occur. sent11: the fact that the prudentness happens is not incorrect. sent12: the dystopianness happens. sent13: the mucinousness occurs. sent14: the sweeping occurs. sent15: if that the reenactment happens and the pteridologicalness does not occur does not hold then the fact that the reenactment does not occur hold. sent16: the Manxness happens. ; $proof$ = | sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the fact that the two-dimensionalness occurs is not false. | [] | [
"the fact that the two-dimensionalness occurs is not false."
] |
the meclofenamate is an arrival. | sent1: if something is not a Dostoyevsky the meclofenamate is not an arrival and does not recommend NREM. sent2: something is not a kind of a Dostoyevsky. sent3: something is not a kind of a Lycaeon if it is not a Dostoyevsky. | {B}{a} | sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent2: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent3: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{AP}x | [
"sent2 & sent1 -> int1: the meclofenamate is not a kind of an arrival and it does not recommend NREM.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent2 & sent1 -> int1: (¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | there is something such that it is not a Lycaeon. | (Ex): ¬{AP}x | 4 | [
"sent3 -> int2: if the fact that the meclofenamate is not a Dostoyevsky is true then it is not a Lycaeon.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the meclofenamate is an arrival. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not a Dostoyevsky the meclofenamate is not an arrival and does not recommend NREM. sent2: something is not a kind of a Dostoyevsky. sent3: something is not a kind of a Lycaeon if it is not a Dostoyevsky. ; $proof$ = | sent2 & sent1 -> int1: the meclofenamate is not a kind of an arrival and it does not recommend NREM.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | something is not a kind of a Dostoyevsky. | [
"if something is not a Dostoyevsky the meclofenamate is not an arrival and does not recommend NREM."
] | [
"something is not a kind of a Dostoyevsky."
] |
the dendrite is a convertibility and is managerial. | sent1: if something is non-kafkaesque the fact that it is a convertibility and is managerial is not correct. sent2: if the racist is not a idiolect that the cockscomb is kafkaesque and it does point does not hold. sent3: the dendrite is a kind of a convertibility. sent4: the fact that the dendrite is managerial is right. | ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) | sent1: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({A}x & {B}x) sent2: ¬{E}{c} -> ¬({C}{b} & {D}{b}) sent3: {A}{a} sent4: {B}{a} | [
"sent3 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent3 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | that the dendrite is a kind of a convertibility and is managerial is wrong. | ¬({A}{a} & {B}{a}) | 6 | [
"sent1 -> int1: if the dendrite is not kafkaesque that it is a kind of a convertibility and it is managerial is incorrect.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the dendrite is a convertibility and is managerial. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is non-kafkaesque the fact that it is a convertibility and is managerial is not correct. sent2: if the racist is not a idiolect that the cockscomb is kafkaesque and it does point does not hold. sent3: the dendrite is a kind of a convertibility. sent4: the fact that the dendrite is managerial is right. ; $proof$ = | sent3 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the dendrite is a kind of a convertibility. | [
"the fact that the dendrite is managerial is right."
] | [
"the dendrite is a kind of a convertibility."
] |
that the customer does recruit humming but it does not platitudinize is false. | sent1: that that something is a Peary but it is not Moroccan hold is not true if it is a locomotive. sent2: if something is agonadal then it is a locomotive. sent3: there exists nothing such that it recruits humming and it does not platitudinize. sent4: that something is agonadal is not false if that it does not speak headmistressship and it is malign is false. sent5: everything is masochistic. sent6: there is nothing such that it does recruit humming and it does platitudinize. sent7: something does recruit humming and does not platitudinize if it is non-locomotive. sent8: that something does not speak headmistressship and is malign is not right if it is masochistic. | ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) | sent1: (x): {A}x -> ¬({EU}x & ¬{GF}x) sent2: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent3: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent4: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & {C}x) -> {B}x sent5: (x): {E}x sent6: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent8: (x): {E}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & {C}x) | [
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 1 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 7 | the customer recruits humming and does not platitudinize. | ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) | 5 | [
"sent7 -> int1: the customer does recruit humming and does not platitudinize if it is not a locomotive.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = that the customer does recruit humming but it does not platitudinize is false. ; $context$ = sent1: that that something is a Peary but it is not Moroccan hold is not true if it is a locomotive. sent2: if something is agonadal then it is a locomotive. sent3: there exists nothing such that it recruits humming and it does not platitudinize. sent4: that something is agonadal is not false if that it does not speak headmistressship and it is malign is false. sent5: everything is masochistic. sent6: there is nothing such that it does recruit humming and it does platitudinize. sent7: something does recruit humming and does not platitudinize if it is non-locomotive. sent8: that something does not speak headmistressship and is malign is not right if it is masochistic. ; $proof$ = | sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | there exists nothing such that it recruits humming and it does not platitudinize. | [] | [
"there exists nothing such that it recruits humming and it does not platitudinize."
] |
that there exists something such that that it is both not disrespectful and not a picture is incorrect is false. | sent1: something is both not disrespectful and not a picture. sent2: that the emission does not sew and is a unevenness is not right if something is not antagonistic. sent3: the fact that the emission is not a ortolan but it is tropical does not hold if there exists something such that it does not recruit glume. sent4: something is not a kind of a ortolan. sent5: the fact that the emission is not disrespectful but it does picture does not hold. sent6: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not brisant is not incorrect then the fact that the emission is a ortolan and is not a kind of a odds-maker is incorrect. sent7: that the emission is both not disrespectful and not a picture is not true if there is something such that that it is not a kind of a ortolan is correct. sent8: there is something such that that it is not a kind of a tourist and is not a jet is incorrect. sent9: the fact that if there is something such that the fact that it is not a picture is correct then the fact that the smoke is not categoric and it does not dodge Rhinobatidae is incorrect is not false. sent10: something is a ortolan. sent11: that the emission is not unpropitious and is not a picture is not right. sent12: the fact that the scrubland is not a seigniorage but it is carposporic does not hold. sent13: there is something such that that it is disrespectful and it is not a kind of a picture is wrong. sent14: the fact that the emission is not disrespectful but it does picture is not true if there is something such that the fact that it is not a ortolan is true. sent15: there exists something such that it impoverishes. sent16: if something is not unpublishable that that the attar is a tourist and is not a Pullman is correct is wrong. sent17: there is something such that that it is non-disrespectful thing that is a picture is not right. sent18: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a subtonic and speaks Lascar is false. sent19: the fact that the emission is not respectful and not a picture is not true. sent20: there are non-ethnographic things. sent21: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a ortolan that the emission is disrespectful but it is not a picture is not correct. sent22: that the emission is not surficial and it is not a kind of a ortolan is not right. | ¬((Ex): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{C}x)) | sent1: (Ex): (¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) sent2: (x): ¬{ID}x -> ¬(¬{CI}{a} & {DN}{a}) sent3: (x): ¬{GJ}x -> ¬(¬{A}{a} & {CR}{a}) sent4: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent5: ¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent6: (x): ¬{AB}x -> ¬({A}{a} & ¬{L}{a}) sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent8: (Ex): ¬(¬{BB}x & ¬{GK}x) sent9: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{IR}{ja} & ¬{BJ}{ja}) sent10: (Ex): {A}x sent11: ¬({FM}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent12: ¬(¬{GB}{bs} & {CS}{bs}) sent13: (Ex): ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x) sent14: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent15: (Ex): {DB}x sent16: (x): ¬{IU}x -> ¬({BB}{ao} & ¬{E}{ao}) sent17: (Ex): ¬(¬{B}x & {C}x) sent18: (Ex): ¬(¬{M}x & {DC}x) sent19: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent20: (Ex): ¬{FG}x sent21: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent22: ¬(¬{HG}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) | [
"sent4 & sent7 -> int1: that the emission is not disrespectful and it is not a picture is incorrect.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent4 & sent7 -> int1: ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 20 | 0 | 20 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that that it is both not disrespectful and not a picture is incorrect is false. ; $context$ = sent1: something is both not disrespectful and not a picture. sent2: that the emission does not sew and is a unevenness is not right if something is not antagonistic. sent3: the fact that the emission is not a ortolan but it is tropical does not hold if there exists something such that it does not recruit glume. sent4: something is not a kind of a ortolan. sent5: the fact that the emission is not disrespectful but it does picture does not hold. sent6: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not brisant is not incorrect then the fact that the emission is a ortolan and is not a kind of a odds-maker is incorrect. sent7: that the emission is both not disrespectful and not a picture is not true if there is something such that that it is not a kind of a ortolan is correct. sent8: there is something such that that it is not a kind of a tourist and is not a jet is incorrect. sent9: the fact that if there is something such that the fact that it is not a picture is correct then the fact that the smoke is not categoric and it does not dodge Rhinobatidae is incorrect is not false. sent10: something is a ortolan. sent11: that the emission is not unpropitious and is not a picture is not right. sent12: the fact that the scrubland is not a seigniorage but it is carposporic does not hold. sent13: there is something such that that it is disrespectful and it is not a kind of a picture is wrong. sent14: the fact that the emission is not disrespectful but it does picture is not true if there is something such that the fact that it is not a ortolan is true. sent15: there exists something such that it impoverishes. sent16: if something is not unpublishable that that the attar is a tourist and is not a Pullman is correct is wrong. sent17: there is something such that that it is non-disrespectful thing that is a picture is not right. sent18: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a subtonic and speaks Lascar is false. sent19: the fact that the emission is not respectful and not a picture is not true. sent20: there are non-ethnographic things. sent21: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a ortolan that the emission is disrespectful but it is not a picture is not correct. sent22: that the emission is not surficial and it is not a kind of a ortolan is not right. ; $proof$ = | sent4 & sent7 -> int1: that the emission is not disrespectful and it is not a picture is incorrect.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | something is not a kind of a ortolan. | [
"that the emission is both not disrespectful and not a picture is not true if there is something such that that it is not a kind of a ortolan is correct."
] | [
"something is not a kind of a ortolan."
] |
there exists something such that if it is a subsumption the fact that it is a Kissimmee or not campylotropous or both is false. | sent1: there exists something such that if it is a subsumption then that it is a Kissimmee and/or it is campylotropous is not true. sent2: the fact that either the telpher is a Kissimmee or it is not campylotropous or both does not hold if it is a subsumption. | (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) | sent1: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x v {AB}x) sent2: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) | [
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is a subsumption the fact that it is a Kissimmee or not campylotropous or both is false. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it is a subsumption then that it is a Kissimmee and/or it is campylotropous is not true. sent2: the fact that either the telpher is a Kissimmee or it is not campylotropous or both does not hold if it is a subsumption. ; $proof$ = | sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the fact that either the telpher is a Kissimmee or it is not campylotropous or both does not hold if it is a subsumption. | [] | [
"the fact that either the telpher is a Kissimmee or it is not campylotropous or both does not hold if it is a subsumption."
] |
the integrativeness happens. | sent1: the counterpointing happens. sent2: the pro does not occur. sent3: the formicness does not occur. sent4: the sulking happens. sent5: if the steadying occurs then the non-forcipateness or the integrativeness or both happens. sent6: the integrativeness does not occur if the counterpointing and the non-forcipateness happens. sent7: that both the steadying and the ictalness happens is triggered by that the recruiting flavorsomeness does not occur. sent8: the forcipateness does not occur. sent9: the reign does not occur. sent10: the fact that the counterpoint does not occur and the forcipateness does not occur does not hold if the steadiness happens. sent11: the hazing occurs but the reign does not occur. sent12: if the attaching happens then the recruiting flavorsomeness does not occur but the avirulentness happens. sent13: the swooping disquieting does not occur. sent14: that the counterpointing does not occur causes the vicennialness. | {C} | sent1: {A} sent2: ¬{FD} sent3: ¬{CE} sent4: {BN} sent5: {D} -> (¬{B} v {C}) sent6: ({A} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{C} sent7: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) sent8: ¬{B} sent9: ¬{AQ} sent10: {D} -> ¬(¬{A} & ¬{B}) sent11: ({GI} & ¬{AQ}) sent12: {H} -> (¬{F} & {G}) sent13: ¬{EO} sent14: ¬{A} -> {DR} | [
"sent1 & sent8 -> int1: the counterpointing occurs but the forcipateness does not occur.; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent1 & sent8 -> int1: ({A} & ¬{B}); sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 2 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 11 | the vicennialness occurs. | {DR} | 7 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the integrativeness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the counterpointing happens. sent2: the pro does not occur. sent3: the formicness does not occur. sent4: the sulking happens. sent5: if the steadying occurs then the non-forcipateness or the integrativeness or both happens. sent6: the integrativeness does not occur if the counterpointing and the non-forcipateness happens. sent7: that both the steadying and the ictalness happens is triggered by that the recruiting flavorsomeness does not occur. sent8: the forcipateness does not occur. sent9: the reign does not occur. sent10: the fact that the counterpoint does not occur and the forcipateness does not occur does not hold if the steadiness happens. sent11: the hazing occurs but the reign does not occur. sent12: if the attaching happens then the recruiting flavorsomeness does not occur but the avirulentness happens. sent13: the swooping disquieting does not occur. sent14: that the counterpointing does not occur causes the vicennialness. ; $proof$ = | sent1 & sent8 -> int1: the counterpointing occurs but the forcipateness does not occur.; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the counterpointing happens. | [
"the forcipateness does not occur.",
"the integrativeness does not occur if the counterpointing and the non-forcipateness happens."
] | [
"The counterpointing happens.",
"The counterpointing occurs."
] |
the fact that the longanberry is both not a toponym and not effortless is false. | sent1: the fact that the Delilah is not a kind of a grapefruit and it does not dodge soloist is not correct. sent2: if the grandee is not effortless that the longanberry is both not a toponym and effortless does not hold. sent3: if that the Delilah is not a grapefruit and does not dodge soloist does not hold then the grandee is not effortless. | ¬(¬{A}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) | sent1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent2: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬(¬{A}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) sent3: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} | [
"sent3 & sent1 -> int1: the grandee is not effortless.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent3 & sent1 -> int1: ¬{B}{b}; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the longanberry is both not a toponym and not effortless is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the Delilah is not a kind of a grapefruit and it does not dodge soloist is not correct. sent2: if the grandee is not effortless that the longanberry is both not a toponym and effortless does not hold. sent3: if that the Delilah is not a grapefruit and does not dodge soloist does not hold then the grandee is not effortless. ; $proof$ = | sent3 & sent1 -> int1: the grandee is not effortless.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if that the Delilah is not a grapefruit and does not dodge soloist does not hold then the grandee is not effortless. | [
"the fact that the Delilah is not a kind of a grapefruit and it does not dodge soloist is not correct.",
"if the grandee is not effortless that the longanberry is both not a toponym and effortless does not hold."
] | [
"If the grandee is not effortless because the Delilah does not dodge soloist and the grandee is not effortless because the grandee is not effortless because the Delilah does not dodge soloist and the grandee is not effortless because the grandee is not effortless because the Delilah does not dodge soloist and the",
"If the grandee is not effortless because the Delilah does not dodge soloist and the grandee is not effortless because the grandee is not effortless because the Delilah does not dodge soloist and the grandee is not effortless because the grandee is not effortless because the grandee is not effortless because the"
] |
there exists something such that that it recruits landlord and does recruit aneurysm is not correct. | sent1: if that something does not optimize and it does not orb does not hold then it does not suffer. sent2: there is something such that that it does speak rabbitfish and it is digestive is not true. sent3: that the JDAM is a kind of a hyponym and it swoops sequence is not true. sent4: there is something such that it recruits landlord and does recruit aneurysm. sent5: the fact that the rhymer is a bathe that is cross-cultural is wrong if that it does not librate hold. sent6: the fact that something does not optimize and it does not orb is false if it is not cared-for. sent7: that the rhymer is both tribal and matutinal is not correct if it is not a kind of a radical. sent8: the rhymer does not orb. | (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) | sent1: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{DC}x sent2: (Ex): ¬({K}x & {R}x) sent3: ¬({CD}{cb} & {I}{cb}) sent4: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent5: ¬{EF}{aa} -> ¬({FJ}{aa} & {EH}{aa}) sent6: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) sent7: ¬{EA}{aa} -> ¬({F}{aa} & {CU}{aa}) sent8: ¬{A}{aa} | [] | UNKNOWN | [] | UNKNOWN | 3 | null | 7 | 0 | 7 | the rhymer does not suffer. | ¬{DC}{aa} | 4 | [
"sent1 -> int1: the rhymer does not suffer if the fact that it does not optimize and does not orb is not correct.; sent6 -> int2: if the rhymer is not cared-for that it does not optimize and it does not orb is not right.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = there exists something such that that it recruits landlord and does recruit aneurysm is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something does not optimize and it does not orb does not hold then it does not suffer. sent2: there is something such that that it does speak rabbitfish and it is digestive is not true. sent3: that the JDAM is a kind of a hyponym and it swoops sequence is not true. sent4: there is something such that it recruits landlord and does recruit aneurysm. sent5: the fact that the rhymer is a bathe that is cross-cultural is wrong if that it does not librate hold. sent6: the fact that something does not optimize and it does not orb is false if it is not cared-for. sent7: that the rhymer is both tribal and matutinal is not correct if it is not a kind of a radical. sent8: the rhymer does not orb. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | the fact that something does not optimize and it does not orb is false if it is not cared-for. | [
"there is something such that that it does speak rabbitfish and it is digestive is not true."
] | [
"the fact that something does not optimize and it does not orb is false if it is not cared-for."
] |
the wire is Goethean. | sent1: the wire is not an alabaster. sent2: the wire is not illegible if the hit is Goethean and is a kind of a Cam. sent3: the wire is not illegible. sent4: the hit is not a Cam and is Goethean. sent5: the hit is not a Cam but it is illegible. sent6: if the wire is non-illegible a Cam then the fact that the hit is Goethean is wrong. sent7: if the hit is not bipolar then the hearth is both not a lacuna and aware. sent8: something is Goethean if it is bipolar. sent9: if the hit is both not a Cam and illegible the wire is not Goethean. | {B}{b} | sent1: ¬{FO}{b} sent2: ({B}{a} & {AA}{a}) -> ¬{AB}{b} sent3: ¬{AB}{b} sent4: (¬{AA}{a} & {B}{a}) sent5: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent6: (¬{AB}{b} & {AA}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent7: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{ED}{bj} & {FQ}{bj}) sent8: (x): {A}x -> {B}x sent9: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} | [
"sent9 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent9 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 1 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 7 | the hearth is not a lacuna but aware. | (¬{ED}{bj} & {FQ}{bj}) | 6 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the wire is Goethean. ; $context$ = sent1: the wire is not an alabaster. sent2: the wire is not illegible if the hit is Goethean and is a kind of a Cam. sent3: the wire is not illegible. sent4: the hit is not a Cam and is Goethean. sent5: the hit is not a Cam but it is illegible. sent6: if the wire is non-illegible a Cam then the fact that the hit is Goethean is wrong. sent7: if the hit is not bipolar then the hearth is both not a lacuna and aware. sent8: something is Goethean if it is bipolar. sent9: if the hit is both not a Cam and illegible the wire is not Goethean. ; $proof$ = | sent9 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if the hit is both not a Cam and illegible the wire is not Goethean. | [
"the hit is not a Cam but it is illegible."
] | [
"if the hit is both not a Cam and illegible the wire is not Goethean."
] |
the inessential is uncommunicative or it is a kind of a fairground or both. | sent1: the scaffold does dodge anachronism. sent2: the scaffold does dodge anachronism and is important. sent3: if the scaffold is important then the inessential is a fairground. sent4: the macrame recruits Chionanthus. sent5: if that something is a Betelgeuse and is possessive is false it is not possessive. sent6: if that something is not astringent but it is a Betelgeuse is wrong it is not a Betelgeuse. sent7: if that the dado is not possessive hold then it is uncommunicative thing that is a ruminant. sent8: if there is something such that the fact that it is a Betelgeuse and is not possessive is false the acarus is not important. sent9: the dado dodges anachronism and/or it is not a kind of a ruminant if there is something such that it is not important. sent10: that something is not a kind of an astringent but it is a kind of a Betelgeuse is wrong if it does not recruit Chionanthus. sent11: the macrame is non-mousy thing that is not bilabial if it is not a raft. sent12: the fact that the scaffold dodges anachronism hold if the inessential is important. sent13: if the macrame does recruit Chionanthus then the fact that it is a kind of a Betelgeuse and it is not possessive is incorrect. sent14: if the scaffold is important the inessential does dodge anachronism. sent15: if there exists something such that it is uncommunicative the scaffold is a fairground and/or it is important. sent16: the inessential does dodge anachronism if that the scaffold is a kind of a fairground is not false. sent17: the fact that the dado is a Betelgeuse and it is possessive is incorrect if something is not a kind of a Betelgeuse. sent18: the scaffold is a kind of a fairground and does dodge anachronism. sent19: if a non-mousy thing is not a bilabial the acarus does not recruit Chionanthus. sent20: the macrame is not undrinkable and it is not a kind of a raft. sent21: the inessential is important or is uncommunicative or both. | ({D}{b} v {C}{b}) | sent1: {A}{a} sent2: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent3: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent4: {H}{e} sent5: (x): ¬({G}x & {F}x) -> ¬{F}x sent6: (x): ¬(¬{I}x & {G}x) -> ¬{G}x sent7: ¬{F}{c} -> ({D}{c} & {E}{c}) sent8: (x): ¬({G}x & ¬{F}x) -> ¬{B}{d} sent9: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({A}{c} v ¬{E}{c}) sent10: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬(¬{I}x & {G}x) sent11: ¬{L}{e} -> (¬{K}{e} & ¬{J}{e}) sent12: {B}{b} -> {A}{a} sent13: {H}{e} -> ¬({G}{e} & ¬{F}{e}) sent14: {B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent15: (x): {D}x -> ({C}{a} v {B}{a}) sent16: {C}{a} -> {A}{b} sent17: (x): ¬{G}x -> ¬({G}{c} & {F}{c}) sent18: ({C}{a} & {A}{a}) sent19: (x): (¬{K}x & ¬{J}x) -> ¬{H}{d} sent20: (¬{M}{e} & ¬{L}{e}) sent21: ({B}{b} v {D}{b}) | [
"sent2 -> int1: the fact that the scaffold is important is not false.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: the inessential is a fairground.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent2 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent3 & int1 -> int2: {C}{b}; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 19 | 0 | 19 | the inessential does dodge anachronism. | {A}{b} | 14 | [
"sent5 -> int3: if that the dado is a kind of a Betelgeuse that is possessive does not hold then it is possessive.; sent6 -> int4: the acarus is not a Betelgeuse if that it is not an astringent and is a Betelgeuse is not true.; sent10 -> int5: the fact that the acarus is not an astringent and is a Betelgeuse is wrong if it does not recruit Chionanthus.; sent20 -> int6: the macrame does not raft.; sent11 & int6 -> int7: the macrame is non-mousy thing that is not bilabial.; int7 -> int8: there is something such that it is a kind of non-mousy thing that is not a bilabial.; int8 & sent19 -> int9: the acarus does not recruit Chionanthus.; int5 & int9 -> int10: the fact that the acarus is nonastringent a Betelgeuse is not true.; int4 & int10 -> int11: the acarus is not a Betelgeuse.; int11 -> int12: there is something such that it is not a Betelgeuse.; int12 & sent17 -> int13: that the dado is both a Betelgeuse and possessive does not hold.; int3 & int13 -> int14: the fact that the dado is not possessive is right.; sent7 & int14 -> int15: the dado is uncommunicative and is a ruminant.; int15 -> int16: that the dado is uncommunicative hold.; int16 -> int17: there exists something such that it is uncommunicative.; int17 & sent15 -> int18: either the scaffold is a fairground or it is important or both.; int18 & sent16 & sent14 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = the inessential is uncommunicative or it is a kind of a fairground or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the scaffold does dodge anachronism. sent2: the scaffold does dodge anachronism and is important. sent3: if the scaffold is important then the inessential is a fairground. sent4: the macrame recruits Chionanthus. sent5: if that something is a Betelgeuse and is possessive is false it is not possessive. sent6: if that something is not astringent but it is a Betelgeuse is wrong it is not a Betelgeuse. sent7: if that the dado is not possessive hold then it is uncommunicative thing that is a ruminant. sent8: if there is something such that the fact that it is a Betelgeuse and is not possessive is false the acarus is not important. sent9: the dado dodges anachronism and/or it is not a kind of a ruminant if there is something such that it is not important. sent10: that something is not a kind of an astringent but it is a kind of a Betelgeuse is wrong if it does not recruit Chionanthus. sent11: the macrame is non-mousy thing that is not bilabial if it is not a raft. sent12: the fact that the scaffold dodges anachronism hold if the inessential is important. sent13: if the macrame does recruit Chionanthus then the fact that it is a kind of a Betelgeuse and it is not possessive is incorrect. sent14: if the scaffold is important the inessential does dodge anachronism. sent15: if there exists something such that it is uncommunicative the scaffold is a fairground and/or it is important. sent16: the inessential does dodge anachronism if that the scaffold is a kind of a fairground is not false. sent17: the fact that the dado is a Betelgeuse and it is possessive is incorrect if something is not a kind of a Betelgeuse. sent18: the scaffold is a kind of a fairground and does dodge anachronism. sent19: if a non-mousy thing is not a bilabial the acarus does not recruit Chionanthus. sent20: the macrame is not undrinkable and it is not a kind of a raft. sent21: the inessential is important or is uncommunicative or both. ; $proof$ = | sent2 -> int1: the fact that the scaffold is important is not false.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: the inessential is a fairground.; int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the scaffold does dodge anachronism and is important. | [
"if the scaffold is important then the inessential is a fairground."
] | [
"the scaffold does dodge anachronism and is important."
] |
the asthenosphere handles. | sent1: if the asthenosphere is a kind of a brim and/or it does not preclude then it is a kind of a handling. sent2: the asthenosphere is a handling if it does not preclude. sent3: the asthenosphere is a brim and/or it does not preclude. sent4: the asthenosphere brims and/or precludes. | {B}{a} | sent1: ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent2: ¬{AB}{a} -> {B}{a} sent3: ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent4: ({AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) | [
"sent1 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent1 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = the asthenosphere handles. ; $context$ = sent1: if the asthenosphere is a kind of a brim and/or it does not preclude then it is a kind of a handling. sent2: the asthenosphere is a handling if it does not preclude. sent3: the asthenosphere is a brim and/or it does not preclude. sent4: the asthenosphere brims and/or precludes. ; $proof$ = | sent1 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | if the asthenosphere is a kind of a brim and/or it does not preclude then it is a kind of a handling. | [
"the asthenosphere is a brim and/or it does not preclude."
] | [
"if the asthenosphere is a kind of a brim and/or it does not preclude then it is a kind of a handling."
] |
the fact that the wobbler is not conspicuous but it swoops pastorale does not hold. | sent1: that the sodium does not weaken is true. sent2: the fact that something is antiapartheid and it is a kind of a powdered is not correct if it is not aecial. sent3: if the puttyroot does not evaporate then the fact that the binder does overflow and it fronts is false. sent4: the pilgrim is not passionate. sent5: the harvest-lice does urinate but it is not photoelectric. sent6: the fact that everything is not aecial hold. sent7: a non-non-invertible thing that does recruit flavorsomeness is not expressible. sent8: the wobbler does swoop pastorale. sent9: the wobbler is not conspicuous if it is a kind of a axiology that is passionate. sent10: something does not evaporate if it is not a impairer. sent11: the puttyroot does dodge Empire and/or it is not a impairer if that the defendant romanticizes is right. sent12: if something is passionate but it is not a axiology it does not swoop pastorale. sent13: if that the lagan is antiapartheid and it does powder is not correct then it is not antiapartheid. sent14: the defendant romanticizes and is umbelliferous if that the cue is not a kind of a withe hold. sent15: the wobbler is not passionate. sent16: something is not conspicuous if it is a kind of a axiology and it is not passionate. sent17: if the bedpost does not swoop pastorale then it is non-grapelike thing that is a Navaho. sent18: if that the binder is a kind of an overflow and it is a kind of a front is not correct the wobbler is not a kind of a front. sent19: something is non-non-invertible thing that does recruit flavorsomeness if it is not antiapartheid. sent20: The pastorale does swoop wobbler. sent21: something does not evaporate if it dodges Empire. sent22: the wobbler is a kind of a axiology but it is not passionate. sent23: that the cue is not a kind of a withe is correct if something that is not grapelike is not expressible. sent24: if something does not weaken then the lagan is not grapelike. | ¬(¬{B}{aa} & {A}{aa}) | sent1: ¬{P}{g} sent2: (x): ¬{R}x -> ¬({O}x & {Q}x) sent3: ¬{D}{b} -> ¬({E}{a} & {C}{a}) sent4: ¬{AB}{ej} sent5: ({FE}{fn} & ¬{CI}{fn}) sent6: (x): ¬{R}x sent7: (x): (¬{M}x & {N}x) -> ¬{L}x sent8: {A}{aa} sent9: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent10: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬{D}x sent11: {H}{c} -> ({G}{b} v ¬{F}{b}) sent12: (x): ({AB}x & ¬{AA}x) -> ¬{A}x sent13: ¬({O}{e} & {Q}{e}) -> ¬{O}{e} sent14: ¬{J}{d} -> ({H}{c} & {I}{c}) sent15: ¬{AB}{aa} sent16: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent17: ¬{A}{ef} -> (¬{K}{ef} & {FJ}{ef}) sent18: ¬({E}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{C}{aa} sent19: (x): ¬{O}x -> (¬{M}x & {N}x) sent20: {AC}{ab} sent21: (x): {G}x -> ¬{D}x sent22: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent23: (x): (¬{K}x & ¬{L}x) -> ¬{J}{d} sent24: (x): ¬{P}x -> ¬{K}{e} | [
"sent16 -> int1: if the wobbler is both a axiology and not passionate then it is not conspicuous.; int1 & sent22 -> int2: the wobbler is not conspicuous.; int2 & sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent16 -> int1: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; int1 & sent22 -> int2: ¬{B}{aa}; int2 & sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 21 | 0 | 21 | the bedpost is not grapelike but it is a Navaho. | (¬{K}{ef} & {FJ}{ef}) | 5 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the wobbler is not conspicuous but it swoops pastorale does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that the sodium does not weaken is true. sent2: the fact that something is antiapartheid and it is a kind of a powdered is not correct if it is not aecial. sent3: if the puttyroot does not evaporate then the fact that the binder does overflow and it fronts is false. sent4: the pilgrim is not passionate. sent5: the harvest-lice does urinate but it is not photoelectric. sent6: the fact that everything is not aecial hold. sent7: a non-non-invertible thing that does recruit flavorsomeness is not expressible. sent8: the wobbler does swoop pastorale. sent9: the wobbler is not conspicuous if it is a kind of a axiology that is passionate. sent10: something does not evaporate if it is not a impairer. sent11: the puttyroot does dodge Empire and/or it is not a impairer if that the defendant romanticizes is right. sent12: if something is passionate but it is not a axiology it does not swoop pastorale. sent13: if that the lagan is antiapartheid and it does powder is not correct then it is not antiapartheid. sent14: the defendant romanticizes and is umbelliferous if that the cue is not a kind of a withe hold. sent15: the wobbler is not passionate. sent16: something is not conspicuous if it is a kind of a axiology and it is not passionate. sent17: if the bedpost does not swoop pastorale then it is non-grapelike thing that is a Navaho. sent18: if that the binder is a kind of an overflow and it is a kind of a front is not correct the wobbler is not a kind of a front. sent19: something is non-non-invertible thing that does recruit flavorsomeness if it is not antiapartheid. sent20: The pastorale does swoop wobbler. sent21: something does not evaporate if it dodges Empire. sent22: the wobbler is a kind of a axiology but it is not passionate. sent23: that the cue is not a kind of a withe is correct if something that is not grapelike is not expressible. sent24: if something does not weaken then the lagan is not grapelike. ; $proof$ = | sent16 -> int1: if the wobbler is both a axiology and not passionate then it is not conspicuous.; int1 & sent22 -> int2: the wobbler is not conspicuous.; int2 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | something is not conspicuous if it is a kind of a axiology and it is not passionate. | [
"the wobbler is a kind of a axiology but it is not passionate.",
"the wobbler does swoop pastorale."
] | [
"It is not noticeable if it is not passionate.",
"It is not noticeable if it is a kind of axiology and not passionate."
] |
the fact that there is something such that if it is a Kingstown the fact that it is a kind of non-Nigerian thing that is democratic is false is right. | sent1: if the celom is argumentative then the fact that it swoops leatherette and does swoop waterfowl does not hold. sent2: there is something such that if it is a Kingstown the fact that it is Nigerian and is democratic is false. sent3: the fact that something is not a transpiration but it is a Tokyo does not hold if it is spatiotemporal. sent4: that the leatherette is non-Nigerian but it is democratic is wrong if it is a Kingstown. sent5: that the fact that the leatherette is a Nigerian and is democratic is false is not wrong if it is a Kingstown. sent6: there exists something such that if the fact that it dodges meanness is true then the fact that it does swoop celom and is wholesome is not true. | (Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) | sent1: {FU}{fu} -> ¬({EU}{fu} & {GG}{fu}) sent2: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: (x): {BD}x -> ¬(¬{AN}x & {BJ}x) sent4: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent5: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent6: (Ex): {EE}x -> ¬({AR}x & {GC}x) | [
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 1 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 5 | there exists something such that if it is spatiotemporal then the fact that it is not a transpiration and is a kind of a Tokyo is not correct. | (Ex): {BD}x -> ¬(¬{AN}x & {BJ}x) | 2 | [
"sent3 -> int1: if the waterfowl is spatiotemporal then that it is not a transpiration and it is a Tokyo is incorrect.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if it is a Kingstown the fact that it is a kind of non-Nigerian thing that is democratic is false is right. ; $context$ = sent1: if the celom is argumentative then the fact that it swoops leatherette and does swoop waterfowl does not hold. sent2: there is something such that if it is a Kingstown the fact that it is Nigerian and is democratic is false. sent3: the fact that something is not a transpiration but it is a Tokyo does not hold if it is spatiotemporal. sent4: that the leatherette is non-Nigerian but it is democratic is wrong if it is a Kingstown. sent5: that the fact that the leatherette is a Nigerian and is democratic is false is not wrong if it is a Kingstown. sent6: there exists something such that if the fact that it dodges meanness is true then the fact that it does swoop celom and is wholesome is not true. ; $proof$ = | sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that the leatherette is non-Nigerian but it is democratic is wrong if it is a Kingstown. | [] | [
"that the leatherette is non-Nigerian but it is democratic is wrong if it is a Kingstown."
] |
the foreground does not speak iodination. | sent1: the mallow is not a Purcell. sent2: if the mallow is a Purcell or not a bioweapon or both the foreground does not dodge Donatism. sent3: the foreground does not speak mallow if it is not unconscientious. sent4: if the foreground does not dodge Donatism that it speaks iodination and/or is not a Purcell is not false. sent5: if something is a Aeolian then it is a Purcell. sent6: if that the foreground does recruit mischief is right then the mallow is Aeolian. sent7: something does recruit mischief and is not non-Aeolian if the fact that it does not speak mallow is not wrong. sent8: the mallow is a bioweapon or it does not dodge Donatism or both if it is not a Purcell. sent9: something speaks iodination if it is a Purcell. sent10: the foreground does not speak iodination if the mallow is a bioweapon or it does not dodge Donatism or both. sent11: if the mallow is not a Purcell then it is a bioweapon or dodges Donatism or both. sent12: the foreground does not speak iodination if the mallow does not dodge Donatism. sent13: that the iodination is non-Aeolian thing that does not recruit mischief is not right. sent14: the mallow is a bioweapon and/or it does dodge Donatism. | ¬{B}{b} | sent1: ¬{A}{a} sent2: ({A}{a} v ¬{AA}{a}) -> ¬{AB}{b} sent3: ¬{F}{b} -> ¬{E}{b} sent4: ¬{AB}{b} -> ({B}{b} v ¬{A}{b}) sent5: (x): {C}x -> {A}x sent6: {D}{b} -> {C}{a} sent7: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({D}x & {C}x) sent8: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent9: (x): {A}x -> {B}x sent10: ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent11: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent12: ¬{AB}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent13: ¬(¬{C}{d} & ¬{D}{d}) sent14: ({AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) | [
"sent8 & sent1 -> int1: the mallow is a bioweapon or it does not dodge Donatism or both.; int1 & sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent8 & sent1 -> int1: ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}); int1 & sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 11 | the foreground speaks iodination. | {B}{b} | 6 | [
"sent9 -> int2: the foreground speaks iodination if it is a kind of a Purcell.; sent5 -> int3: if the foreground is a Aeolian it is a kind of a Purcell.; sent7 -> int4: if the foreground does not speak mallow then it recruits mischief and it is a Aeolian.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the foreground does not speak iodination. ; $context$ = sent1: the mallow is not a Purcell. sent2: if the mallow is a Purcell or not a bioweapon or both the foreground does not dodge Donatism. sent3: the foreground does not speak mallow if it is not unconscientious. sent4: if the foreground does not dodge Donatism that it speaks iodination and/or is not a Purcell is not false. sent5: if something is a Aeolian then it is a Purcell. sent6: if that the foreground does recruit mischief is right then the mallow is Aeolian. sent7: something does recruit mischief and is not non-Aeolian if the fact that it does not speak mallow is not wrong. sent8: the mallow is a bioweapon or it does not dodge Donatism or both if it is not a Purcell. sent9: something speaks iodination if it is a Purcell. sent10: the foreground does not speak iodination if the mallow is a bioweapon or it does not dodge Donatism or both. sent11: if the mallow is not a Purcell then it is a bioweapon or dodges Donatism or both. sent12: the foreground does not speak iodination if the mallow does not dodge Donatism. sent13: that the iodination is non-Aeolian thing that does not recruit mischief is not right. sent14: the mallow is a bioweapon and/or it does dodge Donatism. ; $proof$ = | sent8 & sent1 -> int1: the mallow is a bioweapon or it does not dodge Donatism or both.; int1 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the mallow is a bioweapon or it does not dodge Donatism or both if it is not a Purcell. | [
"the mallow is not a Purcell.",
"the foreground does not speak iodination if the mallow is a bioweapon or it does not dodge Donatism or both."
] | [
"If the mallow is a bio weapon, it does not dodge Donatism or both.",
"If the mallow is a bioweapon, it does not dodge Donatism or both."
] |
the operations does not occur. | sent1: if the diplomaticness does not occur the fact that the sequel does not occur and the queuing does not occur does not hold. sent2: the operations and the queue happens. sent3: the queuing happens. | ¬{A} | sent1: ¬{D} -> ¬(¬{C} & ¬{B}) sent2: ({A} & {B}) sent3: {B} | [
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | the operations does not occur. | ¬{A} | 6 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the operations does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the diplomaticness does not occur the fact that the sequel does not occur and the queuing does not occur does not hold. sent2: the operations and the queue happens. sent3: the queuing happens. ; $proof$ = | sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the operations and the queue happens. | [] | [
"the operations and the queue happens."
] |
that the diesel-hydraulic is not non-existential but a Zweig is wrong. | sent1: that something is existential hold if that it does not attach is not incorrect. sent2: the diesel-hydraulic is not a kind of a zone. sent3: something that does not recruit Westminster is existential. sent4: something is a misogynist. sent5: the diesel-hydraulic is not fractional. sent6: the diesel-hydraulic does not attach if there is something such that it is a misogynist. sent7: the mesohippus is a fineness if it is not cellulosid. sent8: the diesel-hydraulic is a kind of a Zweig and it recruits Westminster. sent9: there is something such that it is a Zweig. sent10: if something is a Zweig then the diesel-hydraulic does not recruit Sparidae. | ¬({C}{a} & {D}{a}) | sent1: (x): ¬{B}x -> {C}x sent2: ¬{F}{a} sent3: (x): ¬{E}x -> {C}x sent4: (Ex): {A}x sent5: ¬{FS}{a} sent6: (x): {A}x -> ¬{B}{a} sent7: ¬{HC}{dg} -> {JA}{dg} sent8: ({D}{a} & {E}{a}) sent9: (Ex): {D}x sent10: (x): {D}x -> ¬{HA}{a} | [
"sent4 & sent6 -> int1: the diesel-hydraulic does not attach.; sent1 -> int2: if the diesel-hydraulic does not attach then it is existential.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the diesel-hydraulic is existential.; sent8 -> int4: the diesel-hydraulic is a Zweig.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent4 & sent6 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; sent1 -> int2: ¬{B}{a} -> {C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {C}{a}; sent8 -> int4: {D}{a}; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 6 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = that the diesel-hydraulic is not non-existential but a Zweig is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is existential hold if that it does not attach is not incorrect. sent2: the diesel-hydraulic is not a kind of a zone. sent3: something that does not recruit Westminster is existential. sent4: something is a misogynist. sent5: the diesel-hydraulic is not fractional. sent6: the diesel-hydraulic does not attach if there is something such that it is a misogynist. sent7: the mesohippus is a fineness if it is not cellulosid. sent8: the diesel-hydraulic is a kind of a Zweig and it recruits Westminster. sent9: there is something such that it is a Zweig. sent10: if something is a Zweig then the diesel-hydraulic does not recruit Sparidae. ; $proof$ = | sent4 & sent6 -> int1: the diesel-hydraulic does not attach.; sent1 -> int2: if the diesel-hydraulic does not attach then it is existential.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the diesel-hydraulic is existential.; sent8 -> int4: the diesel-hydraulic is a Zweig.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | something is a misogynist. | [
"the diesel-hydraulic does not attach if there is something such that it is a misogynist.",
"that something is existential hold if that it does not attach is not incorrect.",
"the diesel-hydraulic is a kind of a Zweig and it recruits Westminster."
] | [
"Something is a misogynist.",
"Someone is a misogynist.",
"Something is misogynist."
] |
if the strip is not lesser then the fact that the Uniat is a kind of absolutist thing that is not a synonymy is wrong. | ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) | [
"void -> assump2: Let's assume that the Uniat is a kind of absolutist thing that is not a kind of a synonymy.; assump2 -> int1: something is an absolutist but it is not a kind of a synonymy.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"void -> assump2: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); assump2 -> int1: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x);"
] | UNKNOWN | 4 | null | 0 | 0 | 0 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = if the strip is not lesser then the fact that the Uniat is a kind of absolutist thing that is not a synonymy is wrong. ; $context$ = ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | [
""
] | [
""
] |
|||
that the fact that the active occurs and/or the dodging batman does not occur hold is not correct. | sent1: the activeness occurs or the dodging batman does not occur or both. sent2: the Ceyloneseness or the fitter or both occurs. sent3: the spiral happens and/or the swooping A-line does not occur. sent4: the swooping expressionism happens or the hatting does not occur or both. sent5: either the recruiting hopper happens or the mushroom happens or both. sent6: the tutorial occurs or the senior does not occur or both. | ¬({AA} v ¬{AB}) | sent1: ({AA} v ¬{AB}) sent2: ({CF} v {JC}) sent3: ({GO} v ¬{CI}) sent4: ({DC} v ¬{CO}) sent5: ({EU} v {GA}) sent6: ({ED} v ¬{GI}) | [
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 1 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 5 | null | null | null | [] | null | null | $hypothesis$ = that the fact that the active occurs and/or the dodging batman does not occur hold is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the activeness occurs or the dodging batman does not occur or both. sent2: the Ceyloneseness or the fitter or both occurs. sent3: the spiral happens and/or the swooping A-line does not occur. sent4: the swooping expressionism happens or the hatting does not occur or both. sent5: either the recruiting hopper happens or the mushroom happens or both. sent6: the tutorial occurs or the senior does not occur or both. ; $proof$ = | sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the activeness occurs or the dodging batman does not occur or both. | [] | [
"the activeness occurs or the dodging batman does not occur or both."
] |
the fact that the plonk is a teammate that is bismuthic does not hold. | sent1: if there is something such that the fact that it is non-anthropometric thing that does not recruit waterproofing is incorrect then the conformist is neuromuscular. sent2: if there is something such that the fact that it is either non-minimal or not non-bismuthic or both is not correct the answer is not a teammate. sent3: something is intramolecular. sent4: if that the plonk does not swoop horsebean is right then it is a teammate. sent5: something is either not a Charleroi or a andrena or both. sent6: that the answer is not minimal or it is a tyrannosaur or both is not correct. sent7: the necker is neoplastic and it is fertile if the fact that the papovavirus is not a kind of a visiting is not incorrect. sent8: the fact that the answer is not a kind of a tyrannosaur is right. sent9: something is not a grit. sent10: the papovavirus does not visit. sent11: the answer does not swoop horsebean. sent12: the fact that something swoops horsebean is true if it is neuromuscular. sent13: if something is neoplastic then the fact that it is not anthropometric and it does not recruit waterproofing is not right. sent14: there exists something such that it is impure. sent15: there is something such that that it is minimal and/or it is a tyrannosaur does not hold. sent16: the plonk does not swoop horsebean if there exists something such that that it is not minimal and/or it is a tyrannosaur is not correct. sent17: if that something does not swoop horsebean hold then it is a teammate and it is bismuthic. sent18: there is something such that it is not a tyrannosaur. sent19: that the plonk is not a teammate or does swoop Jew or both is false. | ¬({C}{a} & {B}{a}) | sent1: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{F}x) -> {D}{b} sent2: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x v {B}x) -> ¬{C}{aa} sent3: (Ex): {EF}x sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> {C}{a} sent5: (Ex): (¬{CE}x v {AF}x) sent6: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent7: ¬{I}{d} -> ({G}{c} & {H}{c}) sent8: ¬{AB}{aa} sent9: (Ex): ¬{CH}x sent10: ¬{I}{d} sent11: ¬{A}{aa} sent12: (x): {D}x -> {A}x sent13: (x): {G}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{F}x) sent14: (Ex): {FQ}x sent15: (Ex): ¬({AA}x v {AB}x) sent16: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent17: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({C}x & {B}x) sent18: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent19: ¬(¬{C}{a} v {FT}{a}) | [
"sent6 -> int1: there exists something such that that it is not minimal or a tyrannosaur or both does not hold.; int1 & sent16 -> int2: the plonk does not swoop horsebean.; sent17 -> int3: if the plonk does not swoop horsebean then it is a teammate and it is bismuthic.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent6 -> int1: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x); int1 & sent16 -> int2: ¬{A}{a}; sent17 -> int3: ¬{A}{a} -> ({C}{a} & {B}{a}); int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 16 | 0 | 16 | the fact that the plonk is both a teammate and not non-bismuthic is not true. | ¬({C}{a} & {B}{a}) | 8 | [
"sent12 -> int4: that the conformist swoops horsebean is correct if it is neuromuscular.; sent13 -> int5: if the necker is not non-neoplastic the fact that it is non-anthropometric thing that does not recruit waterproofing is not true.; sent7 & sent10 -> int6: the necker is neoplastic and it is fertile.; int6 -> int7: the necker is neoplastic.; int5 & int7 -> int8: that the necker is non-anthropometric and it does not recruit waterproofing does not hold.; int8 -> int9: there exists something such that that it is non-anthropometric thing that does not recruit waterproofing is not right.; int9 & sent1 -> int10: the conformist is neuromuscular.; int4 & int10 -> int11: the conformist does swoop horsebean.; int11 -> int12: something swoops horsebean.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the plonk is a teammate that is bismuthic does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if there is something such that the fact that it is non-anthropometric thing that does not recruit waterproofing is incorrect then the conformist is neuromuscular. sent2: if there is something such that the fact that it is either non-minimal or not non-bismuthic or both is not correct the answer is not a teammate. sent3: something is intramolecular. sent4: if that the plonk does not swoop horsebean is right then it is a teammate. sent5: something is either not a Charleroi or a andrena or both. sent6: that the answer is not minimal or it is a tyrannosaur or both is not correct. sent7: the necker is neoplastic and it is fertile if the fact that the papovavirus is not a kind of a visiting is not incorrect. sent8: the fact that the answer is not a kind of a tyrannosaur is right. sent9: something is not a grit. sent10: the papovavirus does not visit. sent11: the answer does not swoop horsebean. sent12: the fact that something swoops horsebean is true if it is neuromuscular. sent13: if something is neoplastic then the fact that it is not anthropometric and it does not recruit waterproofing is not right. sent14: there exists something such that it is impure. sent15: there is something such that that it is minimal and/or it is a tyrannosaur does not hold. sent16: the plonk does not swoop horsebean if there exists something such that that it is not minimal and/or it is a tyrannosaur is not correct. sent17: if that something does not swoop horsebean hold then it is a teammate and it is bismuthic. sent18: there is something such that it is not a tyrannosaur. sent19: that the plonk is not a teammate or does swoop Jew or both is false. ; $proof$ = | sent6 -> int1: there exists something such that that it is not minimal or a tyrannosaur or both does not hold.; int1 & sent16 -> int2: the plonk does not swoop horsebean.; sent17 -> int3: if the plonk does not swoop horsebean then it is a teammate and it is bismuthic.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that the answer is not minimal or it is a tyrannosaur or both is not correct. | [
"the plonk does not swoop horsebean if there exists something such that that it is not minimal and/or it is a tyrannosaur is not correct.",
"if that something does not swoop horsebean hold then it is a teammate and it is bismuthic."
] | [
"The answer is either a tyrannosaur or not.",
"The answer is not minimal or it is a tyrannosaur."
] |
the Palatinate is iconic. | sent1: the Palatinate does not upload if that that the Capricorn does upload and it is algal is not right is correct. sent2: the Palatinate is nondeductible. sent3: something is not a kind of a consulate and is not iconic if it is expressible. sent4: the Palatinate is not iconic if the Alka-seltzer scavenges. sent5: the Palatinate is not iconic if the fact that the Alka-seltzer does not scavenge and it is not nondeductible does not hold. sent6: the fact that something does upload but it is not nondeductible is not correct if it is not iconic. sent7: the Alka-seltzer is algal and does not upload. sent8: that something does not scavenge and it is not nondeductible is wrong if it does not upload. sent9: if the abscission is not iconic that the fact that the Capricorn does upload and is algal is not true is not false. | {B}{a} | sent1: ¬({A}{b} & {C}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent2: {AB}{a} sent3: (x): {E}x -> (¬{D}x & ¬{B}x) sent4: {AA}{aa} -> ¬{B}{a} sent5: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent6: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({A}x & ¬{AB}x) sent7: ({C}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa}) sent8: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent9: ¬{B}{c} -> ¬({A}{b} & {C}{b}) | [
"sent8 -> int1: the fact that the fact that the Alka-seltzer does not scavenge and is not nondeductible is wrong if the Alka-seltzer does not upload hold.; sent7 -> int2: the Alka-seltzer does not upload.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the Alka-seltzer does not scavenge and it is not nondeductible is not right.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent8 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); sent7 -> int2: ¬{A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 3 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 6 | the Palatinate does not upload. | ¬{A}{a} | 6 | [
"sent3 -> int4: if the abscission is expressible then it is both not a consulate and not iconic.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the Palatinate is iconic. ; $context$ = sent1: the Palatinate does not upload if that that the Capricorn does upload and it is algal is not right is correct. sent2: the Palatinate is nondeductible. sent3: something is not a kind of a consulate and is not iconic if it is expressible. sent4: the Palatinate is not iconic if the Alka-seltzer scavenges. sent5: the Palatinate is not iconic if the fact that the Alka-seltzer does not scavenge and it is not nondeductible does not hold. sent6: the fact that something does upload but it is not nondeductible is not correct if it is not iconic. sent7: the Alka-seltzer is algal and does not upload. sent8: that something does not scavenge and it is not nondeductible is wrong if it does not upload. sent9: if the abscission is not iconic that the fact that the Capricorn does upload and is algal is not true is not false. ; $proof$ = | sent8 -> int1: the fact that the fact that the Alka-seltzer does not scavenge and is not nondeductible is wrong if the Alka-seltzer does not upload hold.; sent7 -> int2: the Alka-seltzer does not upload.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the Alka-seltzer does not scavenge and it is not nondeductible is not right.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | that something does not scavenge and it is not nondeductible is wrong if it does not upload. | [
"the Alka-seltzer is algal and does not upload.",
"the Palatinate is not iconic if the fact that the Alka-seltzer does not scavenge and it is not nondeductible does not hold."
] | [
"If something does not upload, it is wrong.",
"It is wrong if something does not upload."
] |
there is something such that if it is not afloat and it is not amoebic it is not parabolic. | sent1: there is something such that if it does not recruit behaviorism and it does not recruit Llullaillaco it is not a clearway. sent2: the terbium does not dodge filigree if that it is non-afloat thing that is not a Morrison is not incorrect. sent3: if the terbium is afloat but it is not amoebic it is not parabolic. sent4: something is not parabolic if it is not afloat and is amoebic. sent5: if something that is not a asexuality is not disloyal it is not euphemistic. sent6: something is not non-parabolic if it is not afloat and not amoebic. sent7: something is not parabolic if it is non-afloat and is not amoebic. sent8: if the terbium is not afloat and is amoebic then it is not parabolic. sent9: the terbium is not a kinesiology if it is not parabolic and not bibliopolic. sent10: the terbium is parabolic if it is both not afloat and not amoebic. sent11: there is something such that if it is afloat and it is not amoebic it is not parabolic. sent12: if something that is not amoebic is not crustal it is not a hajj. sent13: there exists something such that if it is non-afloat thing that is amoebic it is not parabolic. sent14: there exists something such that if it is not afloat and it is not amoebic it is parabolic. sent15: if something is afloat and not amoebic then it is not parabolic. | (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x | sent1: (Ex): (¬{IS}x & ¬{GP}x) -> ¬{FM}x sent2: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{D}{aa}) -> ¬{IH}{aa} sent3: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent4: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent5: (x): (¬{GM}x & ¬{IM}x) -> ¬{M}x sent6: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent7: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent8: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent9: (¬{B}{aa} & ¬{EQ}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent10: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent11: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent12: (x): (¬{AB}x & ¬{ID}x) -> ¬{DU}x sent13: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent14: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent15: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x | [
"sent7 -> int1: the terbium is not parabolic if it is non-afloat thing that is not amoebic.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent7 -> int1: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 2 | 2 | 14 | 0 | 14 | the flipper is not a hajj if it is not amoebic and it is not crustal. | (¬{AB}{gh} & ¬{ID}{gh}) -> ¬{DU}{gh} | 1 | [
"sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is not afloat and it is not amoebic it is not parabolic. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it does not recruit behaviorism and it does not recruit Llullaillaco it is not a clearway. sent2: the terbium does not dodge filigree if that it is non-afloat thing that is not a Morrison is not incorrect. sent3: if the terbium is afloat but it is not amoebic it is not parabolic. sent4: something is not parabolic if it is not afloat and is amoebic. sent5: if something that is not a asexuality is not disloyal it is not euphemistic. sent6: something is not non-parabolic if it is not afloat and not amoebic. sent7: something is not parabolic if it is non-afloat and is not amoebic. sent8: if the terbium is not afloat and is amoebic then it is not parabolic. sent9: the terbium is not a kinesiology if it is not parabolic and not bibliopolic. sent10: the terbium is parabolic if it is both not afloat and not amoebic. sent11: there is something such that if it is afloat and it is not amoebic it is not parabolic. sent12: if something that is not amoebic is not crustal it is not a hajj. sent13: there exists something such that if it is non-afloat thing that is amoebic it is not parabolic. sent14: there exists something such that if it is not afloat and it is not amoebic it is parabolic. sent15: if something is afloat and not amoebic then it is not parabolic. ; $proof$ = | sent7 -> int1: the terbium is not parabolic if it is non-afloat thing that is not amoebic.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | something is not parabolic if it is non-afloat and is not amoebic. | [] | [
"something is not parabolic if it is non-afloat and is not amoebic."
] |
the recruiting crossbench and/or the walk happens. | sent1: both the speaking crossbench and the reproduction occurs. sent2: that the recruiting crossbench and/or the walking happens does not hold if the scraping does not occur. sent3: if the aceticness occurs that either the pavage does not occur or the robbing happens or both is incorrect. sent4: that if the hiatus does not occur not the swooping abiotrophy but the unbrokenness happens is not incorrect. sent5: the reverberantness does not occur. sent6: the recruiting rydberg is prevented by that the recruiting haymow occurs and the Levantineness happens. sent7: the intolerantness occurs and the aceticness does not occur. sent8: the atrocity does not occur and the perforation does not occur if the embolism does not occur. sent9: the cyclicness happens if the fact that the non-cyclicness and the recruiting crossbench happens is false. sent10: if the aceticness does not occur then that both the non-cyclicness and the recruiting crossbench happens is wrong. sent11: that the embolism happens is prevented by that the swooping abiotrophy does not occur and the electiveness does not occur. sent12: both the aceticness and the intolerantness happens if the recruiting rydberg does not occur. sent13: the resurrection and the patriarchalness happens. sent14: that both the recruiting haymow and the bastardization occurs is triggered by the unreverberantness. sent15: if the fact that the robbing happens is not incorrect then the recruiting crossbench occurs. sent16: the scraping happens. sent17: both the amnestying and the Levantineness happens if the atrocity does not occur. sent18: the hiatus does not occur. sent19: if the fact that the pavage does not occur or the robbing happens or both does not hold the scraping does not occur. | ({C} v {D}) | sent1: ({AS} & {IR}) sent2: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} v {D}) sent3: {F} -> ¬(¬{E} v {B}) sent4: ¬{T} -> (¬{Q} & {S}) sent5: ¬{P} sent6: ({J} & {I}) -> ¬{H} sent7: ({G} & ¬{F}) sent8: ¬{N} -> (¬{L} & ¬{M}) sent9: ¬(¬{DR} & {C}) -> {DR} sent10: ¬{F} -> ¬(¬{DR} & {C}) sent11: (¬{Q} & ¬{R}) -> ¬{N} sent12: ¬{H} -> ({F} & {G}) sent13: ({AK} & {BL}) sent14: ¬{P} -> ({J} & {O}) sent15: {B} -> {C} sent16: {A} sent17: ¬{L} -> ({K} & {I}) sent18: ¬{T} sent19: ¬(¬{E} v {B}) -> ¬{A} | [] | UNKNOWN | [] | UNKNOWN | 3 | null | 18 | 0 | 18 | the cyclicness occurs and the diffusion occurs. | ({DR} & {ER}) | 5 | [
"sent7 -> int1: the aceticness does not occur.; sent10 & int1 -> int2: that the noncyclicness and the recruiting crossbench happens is not right.; sent9 & int2 -> int3: the cyclicness occurs.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the recruiting crossbench and/or the walk happens. ; $context$ = sent1: both the speaking crossbench and the reproduction occurs. sent2: that the recruiting crossbench and/or the walking happens does not hold if the scraping does not occur. sent3: if the aceticness occurs that either the pavage does not occur or the robbing happens or both is incorrect. sent4: that if the hiatus does not occur not the swooping abiotrophy but the unbrokenness happens is not incorrect. sent5: the reverberantness does not occur. sent6: the recruiting rydberg is prevented by that the recruiting haymow occurs and the Levantineness happens. sent7: the intolerantness occurs and the aceticness does not occur. sent8: the atrocity does not occur and the perforation does not occur if the embolism does not occur. sent9: the cyclicness happens if the fact that the non-cyclicness and the recruiting crossbench happens is false. sent10: if the aceticness does not occur then that both the non-cyclicness and the recruiting crossbench happens is wrong. sent11: that the embolism happens is prevented by that the swooping abiotrophy does not occur and the electiveness does not occur. sent12: both the aceticness and the intolerantness happens if the recruiting rydberg does not occur. sent13: the resurrection and the patriarchalness happens. sent14: that both the recruiting haymow and the bastardization occurs is triggered by the unreverberantness. sent15: if the fact that the robbing happens is not incorrect then the recruiting crossbench occurs. sent16: the scraping happens. sent17: both the amnestying and the Levantineness happens if the atrocity does not occur. sent18: the hiatus does not occur. sent19: if the fact that the pavage does not occur or the robbing happens or both does not hold the scraping does not occur. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | both the aceticness and the intolerantness happens if the recruiting rydberg does not occur. | [
"the scraping happens."
] | [
"both the aceticness and the intolerantness happens if the recruiting rydberg does not occur."
] |
the fact that the skyline is not an intifada and does not recruit mercantilism is wrong. | sent1: if the skyline does not recruit usufructuary it is not a kind of a Ecballium. sent2: if something devotes it recruits Stuttgart and/or does not recruit usufructuary. sent3: if the jawan recruits Stuttgart the missal does recruit usufructuary. sent4: the snow-in-summer does not dodge Key and/or it does not stipulate. sent5: the fact that the skyline does not recruit Bruchidae is correct if it does not swoop duce. sent6: the engorgement is not a Bigfoot if the genealogist is not fallible and is not a subscriber. sent7: if something is a Crockett then the missal glimpses and it is zoic. sent8: the snow-in-summer does not stipulate if it does not dodge Key or it does not stipulate or both. sent9: something does devote and is a hang if it is not pyrogallic. sent10: if the fact that the Bermudan swoops Jute is true then the fact that the genealogist does swoop seniti is right. sent11: that something is not fallible and is not a kind of a subscriber is true if it does swoop seniti. sent12: the fact that the skyline does swoop dosimetry and does not recruit usufructuary is not true. sent13: if the snow-in-summer does not stipulate then the Bermudan does swoop Jute and is a Assumption. sent14: if the slating is not a Ecballium the skyline is not an intifada and does not recruit mercantilism. sent15: that the skyline does not recruit usufructuary is not false. sent16: the fact that that the rootstock does sled but it does not recruit mercantilism is not false is not true if it does not bate. sent17: if the jawan does not recruit usufructuary then the fact that the missal recruit usufructuary is correct. sent18: the fact that the glomerulus is not a Ecballium and does not recruit recall is not right if that it is not a lithomancy is not incorrect. sent19: That the usufructuary does not recruit skyline is not false. sent20: something is a kind of a Crockett that recruits traveled if it is not a kind of a Bigfoot. sent21: the fact that the skullcap is antithyroid but it is not a clomipramine is wrong if it is not hermeneutics. sent22: everything is non-pyrogallic. sent23: the slating is a Ecballium if the missal is not a glimpse and it is not a Ecballium. | ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) | sent1: ¬{B}{aa} -> ¬{A}{aa} sent2: (x): {E}x -> ({D}x v ¬{B}x) sent3: {D}{c} -> {B}{b} sent4: (¬{S}{h} v ¬{Q}{h}) sent5: ¬{AL}{aa} -> ¬{GH}{aa} sent6: (¬{K}{f} & ¬{L}{f}) -> ¬{J}{d} sent7: (x): {G}x -> ({C}{b} & {F}{b}) sent8: (¬{S}{h} v ¬{Q}{h}) -> ¬{Q}{h} sent9: (x): ¬{N}x -> ({E}x & {H}x) sent10: {O}{g} -> {M}{f} sent11: (x): {M}x -> (¬{K}x & ¬{L}x) sent12: ¬({HE}{aa} & ¬{B}{aa}) sent13: ¬{Q}{h} -> ({O}{g} & {P}{g}) sent14: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent15: ¬{B}{aa} sent16: ¬{CR}{ce} -> ¬({IS}{ce} & ¬{AB}{ce}) sent17: ¬{B}{c} -> {B}{b} sent18: ¬{R}{bq} -> ¬(¬{A}{bq} & ¬{AN}{bq}) sent19: ¬{AC}{ab} sent20: (x): ¬{J}x -> ({G}x & {I}x) sent21: ¬{JC}{fm} -> ¬({FP}{fm} & ¬{HJ}{fm}) sent22: (x): ¬{N}x sent23: (¬{C}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) -> {A}{a} | [
"sent1 & sent15 -> int1: the skyline is not a Ecballium.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent1 & sent15 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa};"
] | UNKNOWN | 2 | null | 21 | 0 | 21 | the skyline is not an intifada and it does not recruit mercantilism. | (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) | 5 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the skyline is not an intifada and does not recruit mercantilism is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the skyline does not recruit usufructuary it is not a kind of a Ecballium. sent2: if something devotes it recruits Stuttgart and/or does not recruit usufructuary. sent3: if the jawan recruits Stuttgart the missal does recruit usufructuary. sent4: the snow-in-summer does not dodge Key and/or it does not stipulate. sent5: the fact that the skyline does not recruit Bruchidae is correct if it does not swoop duce. sent6: the engorgement is not a Bigfoot if the genealogist is not fallible and is not a subscriber. sent7: if something is a Crockett then the missal glimpses and it is zoic. sent8: the snow-in-summer does not stipulate if it does not dodge Key or it does not stipulate or both. sent9: something does devote and is a hang if it is not pyrogallic. sent10: if the fact that the Bermudan swoops Jute is true then the fact that the genealogist does swoop seniti is right. sent11: that something is not fallible and is not a kind of a subscriber is true if it does swoop seniti. sent12: the fact that the skyline does swoop dosimetry and does not recruit usufructuary is not true. sent13: if the snow-in-summer does not stipulate then the Bermudan does swoop Jute and is a Assumption. sent14: if the slating is not a Ecballium the skyline is not an intifada and does not recruit mercantilism. sent15: that the skyline does not recruit usufructuary is not false. sent16: the fact that that the rootstock does sled but it does not recruit mercantilism is not false is not true if it does not bate. sent17: if the jawan does not recruit usufructuary then the fact that the missal recruit usufructuary is correct. sent18: the fact that the glomerulus is not a Ecballium and does not recruit recall is not right if that it is not a lithomancy is not incorrect. sent19: That the usufructuary does not recruit skyline is not false. sent20: something is a kind of a Crockett that recruits traveled if it is not a kind of a Bigfoot. sent21: the fact that the skullcap is antithyroid but it is not a clomipramine is wrong if it is not hermeneutics. sent22: everything is non-pyrogallic. sent23: the slating is a Ecballium if the missal is not a glimpse and it is not a Ecballium. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | if the skyline does not recruit usufructuary it is not a kind of a Ecballium. | [
"that the skyline does not recruit usufructuary is not false."
] | [
"if the skyline does not recruit usufructuary it is not a kind of a Ecballium."
] |
the periosteum is not a kind of a Pica. | sent1: the silhouette is a Beaverbrook. sent2: if that something does recruit Jew and is a kind of a Kabbalah is wrong it is not plumbaginaceous. sent3: a non-plumbaginaceous thing does swoop hypertrophy and is a Pica. sent4: the silhouette is not frivolous. sent5: if the silhouette does not swoop hypertrophy the fact that the Southerner is plumbaginaceous and it is a kind of a Beaverbrook is false. sent6: the periosteum is not a kind of a Pica if the fact that the Southerner does not swoop hypertrophy and is a Kabbalah is false. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is labyrinthine thing that does not dodge lull is wrong. sent8: if something does recruit bluefish but it is not a Pica then it is not a headgear. sent9: a non-frivolous Beaverbrook is not plumbaginaceous. | ¬{D}{b} | sent1: {AA}{aa} sent2: (x): ¬({E}x & {C}x) -> ¬{B}x sent3: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({A}x & {D}x) sent4: ¬{AB}{aa} sent5: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({B}{a} & {AA}{a}) sent6: ¬(¬{A}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent7: (Ex): ¬({G}x & ¬{H}x) sent8: (x): ({BR}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{BL}x sent9: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x | [
"sent9 -> int1: the silhouette is not plumbaginaceous if it is a Beaverbrook and is not frivolous.; sent1 & sent4 -> int2: the silhouette is a Beaverbrook but it is not frivolous.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the silhouette is not plumbaginaceous is right.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent9 -> int1: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; sent1 & sent4 -> int2: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬{B}{aa};"
] | UNKNOWN | 4 | null | 5 | 0 | 5 | the periosteum is not a kind of a headgear if it does recruit bluefish and it is not a Pica. | ({BR}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) -> ¬{BL}{b} | 1 | [
"sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = the periosteum is not a kind of a Pica. ; $context$ = sent1: the silhouette is a Beaverbrook. sent2: if that something does recruit Jew and is a kind of a Kabbalah is wrong it is not plumbaginaceous. sent3: a non-plumbaginaceous thing does swoop hypertrophy and is a Pica. sent4: the silhouette is not frivolous. sent5: if the silhouette does not swoop hypertrophy the fact that the Southerner is plumbaginaceous and it is a kind of a Beaverbrook is false. sent6: the periosteum is not a kind of a Pica if the fact that the Southerner does not swoop hypertrophy and is a Kabbalah is false. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is labyrinthine thing that does not dodge lull is wrong. sent8: if something does recruit bluefish but it is not a Pica then it is not a headgear. sent9: a non-frivolous Beaverbrook is not plumbaginaceous. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | a non-frivolous Beaverbrook is not plumbaginaceous. | [
"the silhouette is a Beaverbrook.",
"the silhouette is not frivolous."
] | [
"A non-frivolous Beaverbrook is not plumbaginaceous.",
"The non-frivolous Beaverbrook is not plumbaginaceous."
] |
the flybridge is not a fold. | sent1: the flybridge is non-Senegalese a TLC if it is not a fold. sent2: The technocracy does not dodge haymow. sent3: there is nothing such that it is not a result or it is a trapezohedron or both. sent4: something is not a TLC if it does not swoop gallbladder and is Senegalese. sent5: something is non-jittery if the fact that it does not result and/or is a trapezohedron is wrong. sent6: the haymow does not dodge technocracy. sent7: the haymow does not swoop gallbladder but it is Senegalese if it does not dodge technocracy. sent8: if the haymow is not a TLC then the flybridge does not fold. sent9: the fact that the haymow is not back-channel is not incorrect. sent10: something is not a Senegalese if it does not dodge technocracy and it swoops gallbladder. sent11: something is not a Senegalese if it dodges technocracy and it is a TLC. | ¬{C}{b} | sent1: ¬{C}{b} -> (¬{AB}{b} & {B}{b}) sent2: ¬{AC}{aa} sent3: (x): ¬(¬{F}x v {E}x) sent4: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent5: (x): ¬(¬{F}x v {E}x) -> ¬{D}x sent6: ¬{A}{a} sent7: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent8: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬{C}{b} sent9: ¬{IN}{a} sent10: (x): (¬{A}x & {AA}x) -> ¬{AB}x sent11: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{AB}x | [
"sent7 & sent6 -> int1: that the haymow does not swoop gallbladder but it is a Senegalese is not incorrect.; sent4 -> int2: the haymow is not a TLC if it does not swoop gallbladder and is a Senegalese.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the haymow is not a TLC.; int3 & sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent7 & sent6 -> int1: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}); sent4 -> int2: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬{B}{a}; int3 & sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 7 | the fact that the change is not a kind of a TLC hold. | ¬{B}{cu} | 6 | [
"sent5 -> int4: if that the haymow does not result and/or is a kind of a trapezohedron does not hold then it is not jittery.; sent3 -> int5: that the haymow is not a result and/or it is a trapezohedron is false.; int4 & int5 -> int6: that the haymow is not jittery is not wrong.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the flybridge is not a fold. ; $context$ = sent1: the flybridge is non-Senegalese a TLC if it is not a fold. sent2: The technocracy does not dodge haymow. sent3: there is nothing such that it is not a result or it is a trapezohedron or both. sent4: something is not a TLC if it does not swoop gallbladder and is Senegalese. sent5: something is non-jittery if the fact that it does not result and/or is a trapezohedron is wrong. sent6: the haymow does not dodge technocracy. sent7: the haymow does not swoop gallbladder but it is Senegalese if it does not dodge technocracy. sent8: if the haymow is not a TLC then the flybridge does not fold. sent9: the fact that the haymow is not back-channel is not incorrect. sent10: something is not a Senegalese if it does not dodge technocracy and it swoops gallbladder. sent11: something is not a Senegalese if it dodges technocracy and it is a TLC. ; $proof$ = | sent7 & sent6 -> int1: that the haymow does not swoop gallbladder but it is a Senegalese is not incorrect.; sent4 -> int2: the haymow is not a TLC if it does not swoop gallbladder and is a Senegalese.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the haymow is not a TLC.; int3 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the haymow does not swoop gallbladder but it is Senegalese if it does not dodge technocracy. | [
"the haymow does not dodge technocracy.",
"something is not a TLC if it does not swoop gallbladder and is Senegalese.",
"if the haymow is not a TLC then the flybridge does not fold."
] | [
"The haymow does not swoop the gallbladder, but it does dodge technocracy.",
"The haymow does not swoop the gallbladder but it does dodge technocracy.",
"The haymow doesn't swoop the gallbladder but it does dodge technocracy."
] |
the cereal is a bouillabaisse but it is not Monacan. | sent1: the cereal does not rap and it is not a kind of a choke if it does dodge motorcade. sent2: if something recruits pectin then it is a bouillabaisse. sent3: if the fact that something is not a rap is right then it is either a bouillabaisse or not Monacan or both. sent4: there is something such that it is not a Eleotridae. sent5: that the cereal is a rap and does not recruit pectin does not hold. sent6: if the fact that the cereal does rap but it does not recruit pectin does not hold then it does recruit pectin. sent7: the fact that either the boar is not a Jerome or it is a Eleotridae or both is not right. sent8: the consomme is non-Monacan if something is a bouillabaisse or it is not non-Monacan or both. | ({B}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) | sent1: {F}{a} -> (¬{D}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) sent2: (x): {C}x -> {B}x sent3: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({B}x v ¬{A}x) sent4: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent5: ¬({D}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent6: ¬({D}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {C}{a} sent7: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent8: (x): ({B}x v ¬{A}x) -> ¬{A}{bp} | [
"sent7 -> int1: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a Jerome and/or it is a kind of a Eleotridae is wrong.; sent2 -> int2: the cereal is a kind of a bouillabaisse if it recruits pectin.; sent6 & sent5 -> int3: the cereal recruits pectin.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the cereal is a bouillabaisse.;"
] | UNKNOWN | [
"sent7 -> int1: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x); sent2 -> int2: {C}{a} -> {B}{a}; sent6 & sent5 -> int3: {C}{a}; int2 & int3 -> int4: {B}{a};"
] | UNKNOWN | 3 | null | 4 | 0 | 4 | the consomme does recruit pectin. | {C}{bp} | 6 | [
"sent3 -> int5: if the cereal is not a kind of a rap then it is a bouillabaisse and/or it is not Monacan.;"
] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the cereal is a bouillabaisse but it is not Monacan. ; $context$ = sent1: the cereal does not rap and it is not a kind of a choke if it does dodge motorcade. sent2: if something recruits pectin then it is a bouillabaisse. sent3: if the fact that something is not a rap is right then it is either a bouillabaisse or not Monacan or both. sent4: there is something such that it is not a Eleotridae. sent5: that the cereal is a rap and does not recruit pectin does not hold. sent6: if the fact that the cereal does rap but it does not recruit pectin does not hold then it does recruit pectin. sent7: the fact that either the boar is not a Jerome or it is a Eleotridae or both is not right. sent8: the consomme is non-Monacan if something is a bouillabaisse or it is not non-Monacan or both. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ | DeductionInstance | the fact that either the boar is not a Jerome or it is a Eleotridae or both is not right. | [
"if something recruits pectin then it is a bouillabaisse.",
"if the fact that the cereal does rap but it does not recruit pectin does not hold then it does recruit pectin.",
"that the cereal is a rap and does not recruit pectin does not hold."
] | [
"The fact that it is a Eleotridae or not is not right.",
"The fact that the boar is not a Jerome or Eleotridae is not right.",
"The fact that the boar isn't a Jerome or Eleotridae isn't right."
] |
that the basophil is not cecal hold. | sent1: that the basophil is both a rennet and a takeover is wrong. sent2: if something is a modernization but it is not a rennet then it is not cecal. sent3: if the inkberry is a keratotomy and it is cecal then that it is not a kind of a rennet is right. sent4: the basophil is a kind of a modernization if the inkberry is both not a daub and not subsurface. sent5: the inkberry is not a daub and it is not subsurface. sent6: the basophil is not a rennet if that it is a rennet and a takeover is wrong. | ¬{C}{b} | sent1: ¬({A}{b} & {E}{b}) sent2: (x): ({B}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{C}x sent3: ({D}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent4: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent5: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent6: ¬({A}{b} & {E}{b}) -> ¬{A}{b} | [
"sent4 & sent5 -> int1: the basophil is a modernization.; sent6 & sent1 -> int2: the basophil is not a rennet.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the basophil is a modernization but not a rennet.; sent2 -> int4: if the basophil is a modernization and not a rennet it is not cecal.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | [
"sent4 & sent5 -> int1: {B}{b}; sent6 & sent1 -> int2: ¬{A}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({B}{b} & ¬{A}{b}); sent2 -> int4: ({B}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) -> ¬{C}{b}; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | the humanities is not Aberdonian and it is not a kind of a modernization. | (¬{EO}{ig} & ¬{B}{ig}) | 6 | [] | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = that the basophil is not cecal hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that the basophil is both a rennet and a takeover is wrong. sent2: if something is a modernization but it is not a rennet then it is not cecal. sent3: if the inkberry is a keratotomy and it is cecal then that it is not a kind of a rennet is right. sent4: the basophil is a kind of a modernization if the inkberry is both not a daub and not subsurface. sent5: the inkberry is not a daub and it is not subsurface. sent6: the basophil is not a rennet if that it is a rennet and a takeover is wrong. ; $proof$ = | sent4 & sent5 -> int1: the basophil is a modernization.; sent6 & sent1 -> int2: the basophil is not a rennet.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the basophil is a modernization but not a rennet.; sent2 -> int4: if the basophil is a modernization and not a rennet it is not cecal.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the basophil is a kind of a modernization if the inkberry is both not a daub and not subsurface. | [
"the inkberry is not a daub and it is not subsurface.",
"the basophil is not a rennet if that it is a rennet and a takeover is wrong.",
"that the basophil is both a rennet and a takeover is wrong.",
"if something is a modernization but it is not a rennet then it is not cecal."
] | [
"The basophil is a kind of modernization if the inkberry is not a daub.",
"If the inkberry is not a daub and not a subsurface, the basophil is a kind of modernization.",
"If the inkberry is neither a daub nor a subsurface, the basophil is a kind of modernization.",
"If the inkberry is not a daub, the basophil is a kind of modernization."
] |
the fact that there exists something such that if it does not swoop humin that it does not dodge indistinctness and it is not a tercentennial does not hold is not right. | sent1: that something is not a truss and it does not speak masculinity is not right if it is not a topping. sent2: there exists something such that if it is not a mattress then that that it is not a Khepera and it is not unprofessional is not false does not hold. sent3: if the apple does not swoop humin the fact that it does not dodge indistinctness and is a tercentennial is not true. sent4: there exists something such that if it does not swoop humin then it does not dodge indistinctness and is not a kind of a tercentennial. sent5: the apple does not dodge indistinctness and is not a tercentennial if it does not swoop humin. sent6: if the apple is not an expedient then the fact that it does not swoop humin and is not a pink does not hold. sent7: there exists something such that if it does swoop humin the fact that it does not dodge indistinctness and is not a tercentennial is not correct. sent8: there is something such that if it does not swoop humin then the fact that it does not dodge indistinctness and is a tercentennial is false. sent9: that the apple does not dodge indistinctness and it is not a tercentennial is incorrect if it swoops humin. sent10: the fact that the puddingwife does not dodge indistinctness and it is not a Bigfoot is incorrect if it does not toast. sent11: there is something such that if it is not a turbulence then that it is not a Mondrian and does not recruit skylight is wrong. sent12: there is something such that if that it does not recruit Gambian is correct that it does not dodge puddingwife and it does not dodge Belostomatidae is not right. sent13: there is something such that if it is not prosthodontics the fact that it does not dodge Black and it does not speak handline is incorrect. sent14: there is something such that if it does not swoop humin that it does dodge indistinctness and is not a tercentennial is false. sent15: there is something such that if it is not nonproprietary that it does not speak antepenult and it is not a kind of a Stylomecon is false. sent16: there is something such that if it is not a stele then the fact that it does not recruit Peristedion and it is not a Tyche is wrong. sent17: there is something such that if it does not recruit reason then the fact that it is not a misfit and it does not swoop Pandora is wrong. sent18: if the apple does not swoop humin that it dodges indistinctness and it is not a tercentennial is not right. sent19: the fact that the apple does not dodge indistinctness and it is not a tercentennial is not right if it does not swoop humin. | ¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)) | sent1: (x): ¬{DN}x -> ¬(¬{GP}x & ¬{DI}x) sent2: (Ex): ¬{JK}x -> ¬(¬{GR}x & ¬{BE}x) sent3: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent4: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent5: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent6: ¬{AT}{aa} -> ¬(¬{A}{aa} & ¬{HD}{aa}) sent7: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent8: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent9: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent10: ¬{FN}{gk} -> ¬(¬{AA}{gk} & ¬{AL}{gk}) sent11: (Ex): ¬{EO}x -> ¬(¬{GK}x & ¬{GG}x) sent12: (Ex): ¬{GM}x -> ¬(¬{FQ}x & ¬{HG}x) sent13: (Ex): ¬{EM}x -> ¬(¬{HL}x & ¬{FL}x) sent14: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent15: (Ex): ¬{EC}x -> ¬(¬{CQ}x & ¬{EQ}x) sent16: (Ex): ¬{HK}x -> ¬(¬{DK}x & ¬{BI}x) sent17: (Ex): ¬{AH}x -> ¬(¬{AG}x & ¬{ES}x) sent18: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent19: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) | [
"sent19 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | [
"sent19 -> hypothesis;"
] | DISPROVED | 1 | 1 | 18 | 0 | 18 | the fact that the modifier does not truss and does not speak masculinity is not right if it does not top. | ¬{DN}{ba} -> ¬(¬{GP}{ba} & ¬{DI}{ba}) | 1 | [
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it does not swoop humin that it does not dodge indistinctness and it is not a tercentennial does not hold is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is not a truss and it does not speak masculinity is not right if it is not a topping. sent2: there exists something such that if it is not a mattress then that that it is not a Khepera and it is not unprofessional is not false does not hold. sent3: if the apple does not swoop humin the fact that it does not dodge indistinctness and is a tercentennial is not true. sent4: there exists something such that if it does not swoop humin then it does not dodge indistinctness and is not a kind of a tercentennial. sent5: the apple does not dodge indistinctness and is not a tercentennial if it does not swoop humin. sent6: if the apple is not an expedient then the fact that it does not swoop humin and is not a pink does not hold. sent7: there exists something such that if it does swoop humin the fact that it does not dodge indistinctness and is not a tercentennial is not correct. sent8: there is something such that if it does not swoop humin then the fact that it does not dodge indistinctness and is a tercentennial is false. sent9: that the apple does not dodge indistinctness and it is not a tercentennial is incorrect if it swoops humin. sent10: the fact that the puddingwife does not dodge indistinctness and it is not a Bigfoot is incorrect if it does not toast. sent11: there is something such that if it is not a turbulence then that it is not a Mondrian and does not recruit skylight is wrong. sent12: there is something such that if that it does not recruit Gambian is correct that it does not dodge puddingwife and it does not dodge Belostomatidae is not right. sent13: there is something such that if it is not prosthodontics the fact that it does not dodge Black and it does not speak handline is incorrect. sent14: there is something such that if it does not swoop humin that it does dodge indistinctness and is not a tercentennial is false. sent15: there is something such that if it is not nonproprietary that it does not speak antepenult and it is not a kind of a Stylomecon is false. sent16: there is something such that if it is not a stele then the fact that it does not recruit Peristedion and it is not a Tyche is wrong. sent17: there is something such that if it does not recruit reason then the fact that it is not a misfit and it does not swoop Pandora is wrong. sent18: if the apple does not swoop humin that it dodges indistinctness and it is not a tercentennial is not right. sent19: the fact that the apple does not dodge indistinctness and it is not a tercentennial is not right if it does not swoop humin. ; $proof$ = | sent19 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ | DeductionInstance | the fact that the apple does not dodge indistinctness and it is not a tercentennial is not right if it does not swoop humin. | [] | [
"the fact that the apple does not dodge indistinctness and it is not a tercentennial is not right if it does not swoop humin."
] |