hypothesis
stringlengths
11
177
context
stringlengths
0
2.71k
hypothesis_formula
stringlengths
3
35
context_formula
stringlengths
0
865
proofs
sequence
proof_label
stringclasses
3 values
proofs_formula
sequence
world_assump_label
stringclasses
3 values
original_tree_depth
int64
1
4
depth
int64
1
3
num_formula_distractors
int64
0
22
num_translation_distractors
int64
0
0
num_all_distractors
int64
0
22
negative_hypothesis
stringlengths
15
158
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
99
2.85k
proof_serial
stringlengths
11
654
version
stringclasses
1 value
premise
stringlengths
0
188
assumptions
sequence
paraphrased_premises
sequence
paraphrased_premise
stringlengths
0
753
assumption
stringlengths
0
200
the maul is not obligatory.
sent1: the agglutination is illicit if there is something such that the fact that either it does ligate or it is not a Attilio or both is false. sent2: that the fact that the agglutination is non-geological thing that is a kind of a Attilio is wrong is correct. sent3: if something that is illicit is a kind of a Attilio then it is not obligatory. sent4: the fact that that the agglutination is geological and it is a Attilio is not right is not false. sent5: the maul is illicit and it ligates. sent6: if that the agglutination is a kind of non-geological thing that is a Attilio is wrong then the maul is a Attilio. sent7: the agglutination noses Idaho if it is a splat and is not a flatbed.
¬{D}{a}
sent1: (x): ¬({B}x v ¬{C}x) -> {A}{b} sent2: ¬(¬{E}{b} & {C}{b}) sent3: (x): ({A}x & {C}x) -> ¬{D}x sent4: ¬({E}{b} & {C}{b}) sent5: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent6: ¬(¬{E}{b} & {C}{b}) -> {C}{a} sent7: ({F}{b} & ¬{G}{b}) -> {P}{b}
[ "sent5 -> int1: that the maul is illicit is right.; sent6 & sent2 -> int2: that the maul is a Attilio is not incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the maul is illicit and it is a Attilio.; sent3 -> int4: if the maul is illicit and it is a Attilio it is not obligatory.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
[ "sent5 -> int1: {A}{a}; sent6 & sent2 -> int2: {C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({A}{a} & {C}{a}); sent3 -> int4: ({A}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a}; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
3
3
3
0
3
the agglutination is illicit and it does nose Idaho.
({A}{b} & {P}{b})
5
[]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the maul is not obligatory. ; $context$ = sent1: the agglutination is illicit if there is something such that the fact that either it does ligate or it is not a Attilio or both is false. sent2: that the fact that the agglutination is non-geological thing that is a kind of a Attilio is wrong is correct. sent3: if something that is illicit is a kind of a Attilio then it is not obligatory. sent4: the fact that that the agglutination is geological and it is a Attilio is not right is not false. sent5: the maul is illicit and it ligates. sent6: if that the agglutination is a kind of non-geological thing that is a Attilio is wrong then the maul is a Attilio. sent7: the agglutination noses Idaho if it is a splat and is not a flatbed. ; $proof$ =
sent5 -> int1: that the maul is illicit is right.; sent6 & sent2 -> int2: that the maul is a Attilio is not incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the maul is illicit and it is a Attilio.; sent3 -> int4: if the maul is illicit and it is a Attilio it is not obligatory.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
DeductionInstance
the maul is illicit and it ligates.
[ "if that the agglutination is a kind of non-geological thing that is a Attilio is wrong then the maul is a Attilio.", "that the fact that the agglutination is non-geological thing that is a kind of a Attilio is wrong is correct.", "if something that is illicit is a kind of a Attilio then it is not obligatory." ]
[ "The maul is not legal.", "The maul is illegal.", "The maul is not legit." ]
The maul is not legit.
if something that is illicit is a kind of a Attilio then it is not obligatory.
the scandalization and the non-glovelessness happens.
sent1: the fact that the licentiousness happens and the redeployment occurs does not hold. sent2: if the photoconductivity occurs then the fact that the leaflessness happens and the canine happens does not hold. sent3: that the strumming and the galvanizing occurs is wrong. sent4: that the hijab does not occur and the gastrointestinalness happens is incorrect. sent5: the vagary is triggered by that the swerve happens. sent6: if the fact that the vagary occurs is true then the congratulating happens. sent7: if the inshoreness happens then the fact that the flushing happens and the canvassing fogged does not occur is not correct. sent8: the fact that the allergicness occurs and the harvest occurs is false. sent9: that the sexualness and the faith happens does not hold. sent10: if the fact that the hijab does not occur and the gastrointestinalness happens is not correct the breeze happens. sent11: the fact that if the fact that the nosing indigestion does not occur and the rushing blues happens does not hold the canvassing Bubo occurs is not false. sent12: the fact that both the inshoreness and the undependableness occurs is wrong. sent13: if the swerve occurs the fact that the ophthalmicness happens but the possessiveness does not occur is incorrect. sent14: the fact that both the confutation and the uneagerness happens is not correct if the producer occurs. sent15: the fact that the protrusiveness happens and the canvassing beadsman happens is false. sent16: the fact that the flashing occurs and the entrapment occurs is not true. sent17: the fact that the unripeness occurs but the deforestation does not occur is not true. sent18: if the breeze happens then the fact that the scandalization and the non-glovelessness happens is not true. sent19: the fact that the flushing occurs and the honorableness occurs is not true.
({C} & ¬{A})
sent1: ¬({CD} & {GT}) sent2: {EO} -> ¬({II} & {IH}) sent3: ¬({GR} & {AC}) sent4: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent5: {DC} -> {FI} sent6: {FI} -> {H} sent7: {FL} -> ¬({DN} & ¬{BD}) sent8: ¬({CL} & {CP}) sent9: ¬({HS} & {GS}) sent10: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent11: ¬(¬{DL} & {JH}) -> {ID} sent12: ¬({FL} & {JD}) sent13: {DC} -> ¬({EG} & ¬{IP}) sent14: {IJ} -> ¬({BF} & {AK}) sent15: ¬({R} & {FS}) sent16: ¬({DH} & {HL}) sent17: ¬({S} & ¬{AU}) sent18: {B} -> ¬({C} & ¬{A}) sent19: ¬({DN} & {DF})
[ "sent10 & sent4 -> int1: the breezing occurs.; sent18 & int1 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
[ "sent10 & sent4 -> int1: {B}; sent18 & int1 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
2
2
16
0
16
null
null
null
[]
null
null
$hypothesis$ = the scandalization and the non-glovelessness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the licentiousness happens and the redeployment occurs does not hold. sent2: if the photoconductivity occurs then the fact that the leaflessness happens and the canine happens does not hold. sent3: that the strumming and the galvanizing occurs is wrong. sent4: that the hijab does not occur and the gastrointestinalness happens is incorrect. sent5: the vagary is triggered by that the swerve happens. sent6: if the fact that the vagary occurs is true then the congratulating happens. sent7: if the inshoreness happens then the fact that the flushing happens and the canvassing fogged does not occur is not correct. sent8: the fact that the allergicness occurs and the harvest occurs is false. sent9: that the sexualness and the faith happens does not hold. sent10: if the fact that the hijab does not occur and the gastrointestinalness happens is not correct the breeze happens. sent11: the fact that if the fact that the nosing indigestion does not occur and the rushing blues happens does not hold the canvassing Bubo occurs is not false. sent12: the fact that both the inshoreness and the undependableness occurs is wrong. sent13: if the swerve occurs the fact that the ophthalmicness happens but the possessiveness does not occur is incorrect. sent14: the fact that both the confutation and the uneagerness happens is not correct if the producer occurs. sent15: the fact that the protrusiveness happens and the canvassing beadsman happens is false. sent16: the fact that the flashing occurs and the entrapment occurs is not true. sent17: the fact that the unripeness occurs but the deforestation does not occur is not true. sent18: if the breeze happens then the fact that the scandalization and the non-glovelessness happens is not true. sent19: the fact that the flushing occurs and the honorableness occurs is not true. ; $proof$ =
sent10 & sent4 -> int1: the breezing occurs.; sent18 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
DeductionInstance
if the fact that the hijab does not occur and the gastrointestinalness happens is not correct the breeze happens.
[ "that the hijab does not occur and the gastrointestinalness happens is incorrect.", "if the breeze happens then the fact that the scandalization and the non-glovelessness happens is not true." ]
[ "The breeze happens if the hijab doesn't happen and the gastrointestinalness doesn't happen.", "The breeze happens if the hijab doesn't happen and the gastrointestinalness happens." ]
The breeze happens if the hijab doesn't happen and the gastrointestinalness doesn't happen.
that the hijab does not occur and the gastrointestinalness happens is incorrect.
the scandalization and the non-glovelessness happens.
sent1: the fact that the licentiousness happens and the redeployment occurs does not hold. sent2: if the photoconductivity occurs then the fact that the leaflessness happens and the canine happens does not hold. sent3: that the strumming and the galvanizing occurs is wrong. sent4: that the hijab does not occur and the gastrointestinalness happens is incorrect. sent5: the vagary is triggered by that the swerve happens. sent6: if the fact that the vagary occurs is true then the congratulating happens. sent7: if the inshoreness happens then the fact that the flushing happens and the canvassing fogged does not occur is not correct. sent8: the fact that the allergicness occurs and the harvest occurs is false. sent9: that the sexualness and the faith happens does not hold. sent10: if the fact that the hijab does not occur and the gastrointestinalness happens is not correct the breeze happens. sent11: the fact that if the fact that the nosing indigestion does not occur and the rushing blues happens does not hold the canvassing Bubo occurs is not false. sent12: the fact that both the inshoreness and the undependableness occurs is wrong. sent13: if the swerve occurs the fact that the ophthalmicness happens but the possessiveness does not occur is incorrect. sent14: the fact that both the confutation and the uneagerness happens is not correct if the producer occurs. sent15: the fact that the protrusiveness happens and the canvassing beadsman happens is false. sent16: the fact that the flashing occurs and the entrapment occurs is not true. sent17: the fact that the unripeness occurs but the deforestation does not occur is not true. sent18: if the breeze happens then the fact that the scandalization and the non-glovelessness happens is not true. sent19: the fact that the flushing occurs and the honorableness occurs is not true.
({C} & ¬{A})
sent1: ¬({CD} & {GT}) sent2: {EO} -> ¬({II} & {IH}) sent3: ¬({GR} & {AC}) sent4: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent5: {DC} -> {FI} sent6: {FI} -> {H} sent7: {FL} -> ¬({DN} & ¬{BD}) sent8: ¬({CL} & {CP}) sent9: ¬({HS} & {GS}) sent10: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent11: ¬(¬{DL} & {JH}) -> {ID} sent12: ¬({FL} & {JD}) sent13: {DC} -> ¬({EG} & ¬{IP}) sent14: {IJ} -> ¬({BF} & {AK}) sent15: ¬({R} & {FS}) sent16: ¬({DH} & {HL}) sent17: ¬({S} & ¬{AU}) sent18: {B} -> ¬({C} & ¬{A}) sent19: ¬({DN} & {DF})
[ "sent10 & sent4 -> int1: the breezing occurs.; sent18 & int1 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
[ "sent10 & sent4 -> int1: {B}; sent18 & int1 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
2
2
16
0
16
null
null
null
[]
null
null
$hypothesis$ = the scandalization and the non-glovelessness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the licentiousness happens and the redeployment occurs does not hold. sent2: if the photoconductivity occurs then the fact that the leaflessness happens and the canine happens does not hold. sent3: that the strumming and the galvanizing occurs is wrong. sent4: that the hijab does not occur and the gastrointestinalness happens is incorrect. sent5: the vagary is triggered by that the swerve happens. sent6: if the fact that the vagary occurs is true then the congratulating happens. sent7: if the inshoreness happens then the fact that the flushing happens and the canvassing fogged does not occur is not correct. sent8: the fact that the allergicness occurs and the harvest occurs is false. sent9: that the sexualness and the faith happens does not hold. sent10: if the fact that the hijab does not occur and the gastrointestinalness happens is not correct the breeze happens. sent11: the fact that if the fact that the nosing indigestion does not occur and the rushing blues happens does not hold the canvassing Bubo occurs is not false. sent12: the fact that both the inshoreness and the undependableness occurs is wrong. sent13: if the swerve occurs the fact that the ophthalmicness happens but the possessiveness does not occur is incorrect. sent14: the fact that both the confutation and the uneagerness happens is not correct if the producer occurs. sent15: the fact that the protrusiveness happens and the canvassing beadsman happens is false. sent16: the fact that the flashing occurs and the entrapment occurs is not true. sent17: the fact that the unripeness occurs but the deforestation does not occur is not true. sent18: if the breeze happens then the fact that the scandalization and the non-glovelessness happens is not true. sent19: the fact that the flushing occurs and the honorableness occurs is not true. ; $proof$ =
sent10 & sent4 -> int1: the breezing occurs.; sent18 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
DeductionInstance
if the fact that the hijab does not occur and the gastrointestinalness happens is not correct the breeze happens.
[ "that the hijab does not occur and the gastrointestinalness happens is incorrect.", "if the breeze happens then the fact that the scandalization and the non-glovelessness happens is not true." ]
[ "The breeze happens if the hijab doesn't happen and the gastrointestinalness doesn't happen.", "The breeze happens if the hijab doesn't happen and the gastrointestinalness happens." ]
The breeze happens if the hijab doesn't happen and the gastrointestinalness happens.
if the breeze happens then the fact that the scandalization and the non-glovelessness happens is not true.
that something is solanaceous but it does not nose eschatologist does not hold.
sent1: the psocid is solanaceous and does not canvass acupuncture. sent2: if something is a kind of a Phyllostomus it is solanaceous. sent3: if the territory is not insubordinate but it does rush Desmanthus then the crawler does not rush Desmanthus. sent4: if something is a kind of a Secale then it does cork and it does not conspire. sent5: if the fact that the psocid is a keelson hold that it is impermanent is not wrong. sent6: something that is a Phyllostomus is a intentness that does not canvass sentimentalist. sent7: something is insubordinate and is not a century. sent8: something is a kind of solanaceous thing that does not nose eschatologist if it is a Phyllostomus. sent9: everything is a matter. sent10: the psocid is solanaceous if it is a kind of a Phyllostomus. sent11: if the assemblyman sells that it is a neuter hold. sent12: everything is a Phyllostomus. sent13: the psocid is a kind of a neomycin but it is not a peel. sent14: something is solanaceous. sent15: if the transactor is a kind of a Phyllostomus then that it does rush Abyssinian and it is not a kind of a feminist is not false. sent16: if something is a Phyllostomus it is a kind of a trade-in. sent17: the psocid is solanaceous. sent18: there exists something such that it souses and is not a poltergeist. sent19: everything is a protest. sent20: the territory is not insubordinate but it rushes Desmanthus if it does castle. sent21: there exists something such that it does not castle.
¬((Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x))
sent1: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{CP}{aa}) sent2: (x): {A}x -> {AA}x sent3: (¬{E}{b} & {C}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent4: (x): {U}x -> ({FM}x & ¬{FK}x) sent5: {AT}{aa} -> {BC}{aa} sent6: (x): {A}x -> ({II}x & ¬{JE}x) sent7: (Ex): ({E}x & ¬{JI}x) sent8: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent9: (x): {FP}x sent10: {A}{aa} -> {AA}{aa} sent11: {IS}{ir} -> {HP}{ir} sent12: (x): {A}x sent13: ({DF}{aa} & ¬{DT}{aa}) sent14: (Ex): {AA}x sent15: {A}{fd} -> ({I}{fd} & ¬{DU}{fd}) sent16: (x): {A}x -> {FS}x sent17: {AA}{aa} sent18: (Ex): ({GA}x & ¬{CO}x) sent19: (x): {HC}x sent20: {D}{b} -> (¬{E}{b} & {C}{b}) sent21: (Ex): ¬{D}x
[ "sent8 -> int1: the psocid is solanaceous but it does not nose eschatologist if it is a Phyllostomus.; sent12 -> int2: the psocid is a kind of a Phyllostomus.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the psocid is a kind of solanaceous thing that does not nose eschatologist.; int3 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
[ "sent8 -> int1: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); sent12 -> int2: {A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int3 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
3
3
19
0
19
there is something such that it is a kind of a intentness and it does not canvass sentimentalist.
(Ex): ({II}x & ¬{JE}x)
6
[ "sent6 -> int4: the crawler is a intentness and does not canvass sentimentalist if it is a Phyllostomus.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = that something is solanaceous but it does not nose eschatologist does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the psocid is solanaceous and does not canvass acupuncture. sent2: if something is a kind of a Phyllostomus it is solanaceous. sent3: if the territory is not insubordinate but it does rush Desmanthus then the crawler does not rush Desmanthus. sent4: if something is a kind of a Secale then it does cork and it does not conspire. sent5: if the fact that the psocid is a keelson hold that it is impermanent is not wrong. sent6: something that is a Phyllostomus is a intentness that does not canvass sentimentalist. sent7: something is insubordinate and is not a century. sent8: something is a kind of solanaceous thing that does not nose eschatologist if it is a Phyllostomus. sent9: everything is a matter. sent10: the psocid is solanaceous if it is a kind of a Phyllostomus. sent11: if the assemblyman sells that it is a neuter hold. sent12: everything is a Phyllostomus. sent13: the psocid is a kind of a neomycin but it is not a peel. sent14: something is solanaceous. sent15: if the transactor is a kind of a Phyllostomus then that it does rush Abyssinian and it is not a kind of a feminist is not false. sent16: if something is a Phyllostomus it is a kind of a trade-in. sent17: the psocid is solanaceous. sent18: there exists something such that it souses and is not a poltergeist. sent19: everything is a protest. sent20: the territory is not insubordinate but it rushes Desmanthus if it does castle. sent21: there exists something such that it does not castle. ; $proof$ =
sent8 -> int1: the psocid is solanaceous but it does not nose eschatologist if it is a Phyllostomus.; sent12 -> int2: the psocid is a kind of a Phyllostomus.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the psocid is a kind of solanaceous thing that does not nose eschatologist.; int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
DeductionInstance
something is a kind of solanaceous thing that does not nose eschatologist if it is a Phyllostomus.
[ "everything is a Phyllostomus." ]
[ "something is a kind of solanaceous thing that does not nose eschatologist if it is a Phyllostomus." ]
something is a kind of solanaceous thing that does not nose eschatologist if it is a Phyllostomus.
everything is a Phyllostomus.
the fact that the psychotherapeuticness happens and the cyprinidness occurs does not hold.
sent1: if the cleavage does not occur then the cyprinidness occurs. sent2: the psychotherapeuticness happens if the canvassing livery occurs. sent3: that both the canvassing livery and the expiratoriness occurs is triggered by the non-Senecanness. sent4: the Senecanness occurs. sent5: both the canvassing livery and the Senecanness occurs. sent6: if the Down occurs or the cleavage does not occur or both then the cyprinidness occurs. sent7: that the psychotherapeuticness happens and the cyprinid occurs is wrong if that the canvassing livery does not occur hold. sent8: the misrepresentation does not occur. sent9: that the pregnantness does not occur leads to the Down or that the cleavage happens or both. sent10: the fact that both the Down and the Senecanness occurs is incorrect if the cleavage does not occur. sent11: the Down or the cleavage or both occurs. sent12: the pregnantness does not occur. sent13: either the Down occurs or the cleavage does not occur or both if the fact that the pregnantness does not occur is correct.
¬({C} & {D})
sent1: ¬{F} -> {D} sent2: {A} -> {C} sent3: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {GC}) sent4: {B} sent5: ({A} & {B}) sent6: ({E} v ¬{F}) -> {D} sent7: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} & {D}) sent8: ¬{DQ} sent9: ¬{G} -> ({E} v {F}) sent10: ¬{F} -> ¬({E} & {B}) sent11: ({E} v {F}) sent12: ¬{G} sent13: ¬{G} -> ({E} v ¬{F})
[ "sent5 -> int1: the canvassing livery occurs.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the psychotherapeuticness occurs.; sent13 & sent12 -> int3: either the Down happens or the cleavage does not occur or both.; sent6 & int3 -> int4: the cyprinidness happens.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
[ "sent5 -> int1: {A}; int1 & sent2 -> int2: {C}; sent13 & sent12 -> int3: ({E} v ¬{F}); sent6 & int3 -> int4: {D}; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
3
3
8
0
8
the fact that the expiratoriness happens is not wrong.
{GC}
6
[]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the psychotherapeuticness happens and the cyprinidness occurs does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the cleavage does not occur then the cyprinidness occurs. sent2: the psychotherapeuticness happens if the canvassing livery occurs. sent3: that both the canvassing livery and the expiratoriness occurs is triggered by the non-Senecanness. sent4: the Senecanness occurs. sent5: both the canvassing livery and the Senecanness occurs. sent6: if the Down occurs or the cleavage does not occur or both then the cyprinidness occurs. sent7: that the psychotherapeuticness happens and the cyprinid occurs is wrong if that the canvassing livery does not occur hold. sent8: the misrepresentation does not occur. sent9: that the pregnantness does not occur leads to the Down or that the cleavage happens or both. sent10: the fact that both the Down and the Senecanness occurs is incorrect if the cleavage does not occur. sent11: the Down or the cleavage or both occurs. sent12: the pregnantness does not occur. sent13: either the Down occurs or the cleavage does not occur or both if the fact that the pregnantness does not occur is correct. ; $proof$ =
sent5 -> int1: the canvassing livery occurs.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the psychotherapeuticness occurs.; sent13 & sent12 -> int3: either the Down happens or the cleavage does not occur or both.; sent6 & int3 -> int4: the cyprinidness happens.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
DeductionInstance
both the canvassing livery and the Senecanness occurs.
[ "the psychotherapeuticness happens if the canvassing livery occurs.", "either the Down occurs or the cleavage does not occur or both if the fact that the pregnantness does not occur is correct.", "the pregnantness does not occur.", "if the Down occurs or the cleavage does not occur or both then the cyprinidness occurs." ]
[ "The canvas livery and the Senecanness occur.", "The canvas livery and the Senecanness occur at the same time.", "The canvas livery and the Senecanness happen.", "The canvas livery and the Senecanness happen at the same time." ]
The canvas livery and the Senecanness occur.
the psychotherapeuticness happens if the canvassing livery occurs.
the fact that the psychotherapeuticness happens and the cyprinidness occurs does not hold.
sent1: if the cleavage does not occur then the cyprinidness occurs. sent2: the psychotherapeuticness happens if the canvassing livery occurs. sent3: that both the canvassing livery and the expiratoriness occurs is triggered by the non-Senecanness. sent4: the Senecanness occurs. sent5: both the canvassing livery and the Senecanness occurs. sent6: if the Down occurs or the cleavage does not occur or both then the cyprinidness occurs. sent7: that the psychotherapeuticness happens and the cyprinid occurs is wrong if that the canvassing livery does not occur hold. sent8: the misrepresentation does not occur. sent9: that the pregnantness does not occur leads to the Down or that the cleavage happens or both. sent10: the fact that both the Down and the Senecanness occurs is incorrect if the cleavage does not occur. sent11: the Down or the cleavage or both occurs. sent12: the pregnantness does not occur. sent13: either the Down occurs or the cleavage does not occur or both if the fact that the pregnantness does not occur is correct.
¬({C} & {D})
sent1: ¬{F} -> {D} sent2: {A} -> {C} sent3: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {GC}) sent4: {B} sent5: ({A} & {B}) sent6: ({E} v ¬{F}) -> {D} sent7: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} & {D}) sent8: ¬{DQ} sent9: ¬{G} -> ({E} v {F}) sent10: ¬{F} -> ¬({E} & {B}) sent11: ({E} v {F}) sent12: ¬{G} sent13: ¬{G} -> ({E} v ¬{F})
[ "sent5 -> int1: the canvassing livery occurs.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the psychotherapeuticness occurs.; sent13 & sent12 -> int3: either the Down happens or the cleavage does not occur or both.; sent6 & int3 -> int4: the cyprinidness happens.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
[ "sent5 -> int1: {A}; int1 & sent2 -> int2: {C}; sent13 & sent12 -> int3: ({E} v ¬{F}); sent6 & int3 -> int4: {D}; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
3
3
8
0
8
the fact that the expiratoriness happens is not wrong.
{GC}
6
[]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the psychotherapeuticness happens and the cyprinidness occurs does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the cleavage does not occur then the cyprinidness occurs. sent2: the psychotherapeuticness happens if the canvassing livery occurs. sent3: that both the canvassing livery and the expiratoriness occurs is triggered by the non-Senecanness. sent4: the Senecanness occurs. sent5: both the canvassing livery and the Senecanness occurs. sent6: if the Down occurs or the cleavage does not occur or both then the cyprinidness occurs. sent7: that the psychotherapeuticness happens and the cyprinid occurs is wrong if that the canvassing livery does not occur hold. sent8: the misrepresentation does not occur. sent9: that the pregnantness does not occur leads to the Down or that the cleavage happens or both. sent10: the fact that both the Down and the Senecanness occurs is incorrect if the cleavage does not occur. sent11: the Down or the cleavage or both occurs. sent12: the pregnantness does not occur. sent13: either the Down occurs or the cleavage does not occur or both if the fact that the pregnantness does not occur is correct. ; $proof$ =
sent5 -> int1: the canvassing livery occurs.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the psychotherapeuticness occurs.; sent13 & sent12 -> int3: either the Down happens or the cleavage does not occur or both.; sent6 & int3 -> int4: the cyprinidness happens.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
DeductionInstance
both the canvassing livery and the Senecanness occurs.
[ "the psychotherapeuticness happens if the canvassing livery occurs.", "either the Down occurs or the cleavage does not occur or both if the fact that the pregnantness does not occur is correct.", "the pregnantness does not occur.", "if the Down occurs or the cleavage does not occur or both then the cyprinidness occurs." ]
[ "The canvas livery and the Senecanness occur.", "The canvas livery and the Senecanness occur at the same time.", "The canvas livery and the Senecanness happen.", "The canvas livery and the Senecanness happen at the same time." ]
The canvas livery and the Senecanness occur at the same time.
either the Down occurs or the cleavage does not occur or both if the fact that the pregnantness does not occur is correct.
the fact that the psychotherapeuticness happens and the cyprinidness occurs does not hold.
sent1: if the cleavage does not occur then the cyprinidness occurs. sent2: the psychotherapeuticness happens if the canvassing livery occurs. sent3: that both the canvassing livery and the expiratoriness occurs is triggered by the non-Senecanness. sent4: the Senecanness occurs. sent5: both the canvassing livery and the Senecanness occurs. sent6: if the Down occurs or the cleavage does not occur or both then the cyprinidness occurs. sent7: that the psychotherapeuticness happens and the cyprinid occurs is wrong if that the canvassing livery does not occur hold. sent8: the misrepresentation does not occur. sent9: that the pregnantness does not occur leads to the Down or that the cleavage happens or both. sent10: the fact that both the Down and the Senecanness occurs is incorrect if the cleavage does not occur. sent11: the Down or the cleavage or both occurs. sent12: the pregnantness does not occur. sent13: either the Down occurs or the cleavage does not occur or both if the fact that the pregnantness does not occur is correct.
¬({C} & {D})
sent1: ¬{F} -> {D} sent2: {A} -> {C} sent3: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {GC}) sent4: {B} sent5: ({A} & {B}) sent6: ({E} v ¬{F}) -> {D} sent7: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} & {D}) sent8: ¬{DQ} sent9: ¬{G} -> ({E} v {F}) sent10: ¬{F} -> ¬({E} & {B}) sent11: ({E} v {F}) sent12: ¬{G} sent13: ¬{G} -> ({E} v ¬{F})
[ "sent5 -> int1: the canvassing livery occurs.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the psychotherapeuticness occurs.; sent13 & sent12 -> int3: either the Down happens or the cleavage does not occur or both.; sent6 & int3 -> int4: the cyprinidness happens.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
[ "sent5 -> int1: {A}; int1 & sent2 -> int2: {C}; sent13 & sent12 -> int3: ({E} v ¬{F}); sent6 & int3 -> int4: {D}; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
3
3
8
0
8
the fact that the expiratoriness happens is not wrong.
{GC}
6
[]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the psychotherapeuticness happens and the cyprinidness occurs does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the cleavage does not occur then the cyprinidness occurs. sent2: the psychotherapeuticness happens if the canvassing livery occurs. sent3: that both the canvassing livery and the expiratoriness occurs is triggered by the non-Senecanness. sent4: the Senecanness occurs. sent5: both the canvassing livery and the Senecanness occurs. sent6: if the Down occurs or the cleavage does not occur or both then the cyprinidness occurs. sent7: that the psychotherapeuticness happens and the cyprinid occurs is wrong if that the canvassing livery does not occur hold. sent8: the misrepresentation does not occur. sent9: that the pregnantness does not occur leads to the Down or that the cleavage happens or both. sent10: the fact that both the Down and the Senecanness occurs is incorrect if the cleavage does not occur. sent11: the Down or the cleavage or both occurs. sent12: the pregnantness does not occur. sent13: either the Down occurs or the cleavage does not occur or both if the fact that the pregnantness does not occur is correct. ; $proof$ =
sent5 -> int1: the canvassing livery occurs.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the psychotherapeuticness occurs.; sent13 & sent12 -> int3: either the Down happens or the cleavage does not occur or both.; sent6 & int3 -> int4: the cyprinidness happens.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
DeductionInstance
both the canvassing livery and the Senecanness occurs.
[ "the psychotherapeuticness happens if the canvassing livery occurs.", "either the Down occurs or the cleavage does not occur or both if the fact that the pregnantness does not occur is correct.", "the pregnantness does not occur.", "if the Down occurs or the cleavage does not occur or both then the cyprinidness occurs." ]
[ "The canvas livery and the Senecanness occur.", "The canvas livery and the Senecanness occur at the same time.", "The canvas livery and the Senecanness happen.", "The canvas livery and the Senecanness happen at the same time." ]
The canvas livery and the Senecanness happen.
the pregnantness does not occur.
the fact that the psychotherapeuticness happens and the cyprinidness occurs does not hold.
sent1: if the cleavage does not occur then the cyprinidness occurs. sent2: the psychotherapeuticness happens if the canvassing livery occurs. sent3: that both the canvassing livery and the expiratoriness occurs is triggered by the non-Senecanness. sent4: the Senecanness occurs. sent5: both the canvassing livery and the Senecanness occurs. sent6: if the Down occurs or the cleavage does not occur or both then the cyprinidness occurs. sent7: that the psychotherapeuticness happens and the cyprinid occurs is wrong if that the canvassing livery does not occur hold. sent8: the misrepresentation does not occur. sent9: that the pregnantness does not occur leads to the Down or that the cleavage happens or both. sent10: the fact that both the Down and the Senecanness occurs is incorrect if the cleavage does not occur. sent11: the Down or the cleavage or both occurs. sent12: the pregnantness does not occur. sent13: either the Down occurs or the cleavage does not occur or both if the fact that the pregnantness does not occur is correct.
¬({C} & {D})
sent1: ¬{F} -> {D} sent2: {A} -> {C} sent3: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {GC}) sent4: {B} sent5: ({A} & {B}) sent6: ({E} v ¬{F}) -> {D} sent7: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} & {D}) sent8: ¬{DQ} sent9: ¬{G} -> ({E} v {F}) sent10: ¬{F} -> ¬({E} & {B}) sent11: ({E} v {F}) sent12: ¬{G} sent13: ¬{G} -> ({E} v ¬{F})
[ "sent5 -> int1: the canvassing livery occurs.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the psychotherapeuticness occurs.; sent13 & sent12 -> int3: either the Down happens or the cleavage does not occur or both.; sent6 & int3 -> int4: the cyprinidness happens.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
[ "sent5 -> int1: {A}; int1 & sent2 -> int2: {C}; sent13 & sent12 -> int3: ({E} v ¬{F}); sent6 & int3 -> int4: {D}; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
3
3
8
0
8
the fact that the expiratoriness happens is not wrong.
{GC}
6
[]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the psychotherapeuticness happens and the cyprinidness occurs does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the cleavage does not occur then the cyprinidness occurs. sent2: the psychotherapeuticness happens if the canvassing livery occurs. sent3: that both the canvassing livery and the expiratoriness occurs is triggered by the non-Senecanness. sent4: the Senecanness occurs. sent5: both the canvassing livery and the Senecanness occurs. sent6: if the Down occurs or the cleavage does not occur or both then the cyprinidness occurs. sent7: that the psychotherapeuticness happens and the cyprinid occurs is wrong if that the canvassing livery does not occur hold. sent8: the misrepresentation does not occur. sent9: that the pregnantness does not occur leads to the Down or that the cleavage happens or both. sent10: the fact that both the Down and the Senecanness occurs is incorrect if the cleavage does not occur. sent11: the Down or the cleavage or both occurs. sent12: the pregnantness does not occur. sent13: either the Down occurs or the cleavage does not occur or both if the fact that the pregnantness does not occur is correct. ; $proof$ =
sent5 -> int1: the canvassing livery occurs.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the psychotherapeuticness occurs.; sent13 & sent12 -> int3: either the Down happens or the cleavage does not occur or both.; sent6 & int3 -> int4: the cyprinidness happens.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
DeductionInstance
both the canvassing livery and the Senecanness occurs.
[ "the psychotherapeuticness happens if the canvassing livery occurs.", "either the Down occurs or the cleavage does not occur or both if the fact that the pregnantness does not occur is correct.", "the pregnantness does not occur.", "if the Down occurs or the cleavage does not occur or both then the cyprinidness occurs." ]
[ "The canvas livery and the Senecanness occur.", "The canvas livery and the Senecanness occur at the same time.", "The canvas livery and the Senecanness happen.", "The canvas livery and the Senecanness happen at the same time." ]
The canvas livery and the Senecanness happen at the same time.
if the Down occurs or the cleavage does not occur or both then the cyprinidness occurs.
the horsepond is a kind of non-unsystematic thing that canvasses Macrocephalon.
sent1: if something is a Boxer either the moss is a kind of a Boxer or it is a material or both. sent2: if the moss is a Boxer the fact that the horsepond is a Boxer is not false. sent3: the pug is agrobiologic. sent4: if that the torturer is not agrobiologic and is not a zone is incorrect the horsepond does not canvass Macrocephalon. sent5: if something is a kind of a Boxer the fact that it noses Lidocaine is not wrong. sent6: there exists something such that it is not a manfulness. sent7: if the moss is unsystematic then that the horsepond canvasses Macrocephalon is not incorrect. sent8: if something is unsystematic then it is not a griminess. sent9: if the horsepond does not canvass Macrocephalon then it rushes Malevich and is not systematic. sent10: the moss is not immoral but it does canvass Macrocephalon. sent11: if the moss is unsystematic the horsepond is non-unsystematic thing that canvasses Macrocephalon. sent12: the horsepond does canvass Macrocephalon. sent13: the car is a Boxer and is a enucleation if something is not a manfulness. sent14: there exists something such that the fact that it is not paranormal and it is a wadi is not true. sent15: if the moss is material the horsepond is a Boxer. sent16: the moss is unsystematic if there is something such that it is paranormal.
(¬{A}{b} & {C}{b})
sent1: (x): {D}x -> ({D}{a} v {F}{a}) sent2: {D}{a} -> {D}{b} sent3: {G}{e} sent4: ¬(¬{G}{d} & ¬{E}{d}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent5: (x): {D}x -> {AH}x sent6: (Ex): ¬{I}x sent7: {A}{a} -> {C}{b} sent8: (x): {A}x -> ¬{CB}x sent9: ¬{C}{b} -> ({B}{b} & {A}{b}) sent10: (¬{DQ}{a} & {C}{a}) sent11: {A}{a} -> (¬{A}{b} & {C}{b}) sent12: {C}{b} sent13: (x): ¬{I}x -> ({D}{c} & {H}{c}) sent14: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent15: {F}{a} -> {D}{b} sent16: (x): {AA}x -> {A}{a}
[]
UNKNOWN
[]
UNKNOWN
2
null
14
0
14
the horsepond is not a kind of a griminess and does nose Lidocaine.
(¬{CB}{b} & {AH}{b})
7
[ "sent8 -> int1: the horsepond is not a griminess if it is unsystematic.; sent3 -> int2: there exists something such that it is agrobiologic.; sent5 -> int3: the horsepond does nose Lidocaine if the fact that it is a kind of a Boxer is not wrong.; sent6 & sent13 -> int4: the car is a Boxer and is a kind of a enucleation.; int4 -> int5: that the car is a kind of a Boxer is not incorrect.; int5 -> int6: there is something such that it is a Boxer.; int6 & sent1 -> int7: the moss is a Boxer and/or it is material.; int7 & sent2 & sent15 -> int8: the horsepond is a kind of a Boxer.; int3 & int8 -> int9: the horsepond does nose Lidocaine.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the horsepond is a kind of non-unsystematic thing that canvasses Macrocephalon. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a Boxer either the moss is a kind of a Boxer or it is a material or both. sent2: if the moss is a Boxer the fact that the horsepond is a Boxer is not false. sent3: the pug is agrobiologic. sent4: if that the torturer is not agrobiologic and is not a zone is incorrect the horsepond does not canvass Macrocephalon. sent5: if something is a kind of a Boxer the fact that it noses Lidocaine is not wrong. sent6: there exists something such that it is not a manfulness. sent7: if the moss is unsystematic then that the horsepond canvasses Macrocephalon is not incorrect. sent8: if something is unsystematic then it is not a griminess. sent9: if the horsepond does not canvass Macrocephalon then it rushes Malevich and is not systematic. sent10: the moss is not immoral but it does canvass Macrocephalon. sent11: if the moss is unsystematic the horsepond is non-unsystematic thing that canvasses Macrocephalon. sent12: the horsepond does canvass Macrocephalon. sent13: the car is a Boxer and is a enucleation if something is not a manfulness. sent14: there exists something such that the fact that it is not paranormal and it is a wadi is not true. sent15: if the moss is material the horsepond is a Boxer. sent16: the moss is unsystematic if there is something such that it is paranormal. ; $proof$ =
__UNKNOWN__
DeductionInstance
the moss is unsystematic if there is something such that it is paranormal.
[ "if something is unsystematic then it is not a griminess." ]
[ "the moss is unsystematic if there is something such that it is paranormal." ]
the moss is unsystematic if there is something such that it is paranormal.
if something is unsystematic then it is not a griminess.
the ebb rushes Yugoslav but it is not a kind of a Mindoro.
sent1: the ebb is a slicker and does not recreate. sent2: the ebb is not open-source. sent3: the ebb does rush Yugoslav but it is not a Mindoro if the Yugoslav is not a Mindoro. sent4: there is something such that the fact that the fact that it rushes Yugoslav and it is not a Mindoro hold is incorrect. sent5: if the fact that the Yugoslav is not a kind of a Mindoro hold then the ebb is not a kind of a Mindoro. sent6: there is something such that the fact that it is non-disciplinary thing that is not open-source is not true. sent7: if the ebb is physiological then the fact that it rushes Yugoslav and it is not a Mindoro does not hold. sent8: something is a kind of a Mindoro and is not disciplinary if it is physiological. sent9: the Yugoslav is not a Mindoro if there is something such that that it is disciplinary hold. sent10: the Yugoslav is not disciplinary if there is something such that that it is not extraterrestrial and it is not a cadetship is wrong.
({C}{b} & ¬{A}{b})
sent1: ({EA}{b} & ¬{HS}{b}) sent2: ¬{AB}{b} sent3: ¬{A}{a} -> ({C}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent4: (Ex): ¬({C}x & ¬{A}x) sent5: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{A}{b} sent6: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent7: {B}{b} -> ¬({C}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent8: (x): {B}x -> ({A}x & ¬{AA}x) sent9: (x): {AA}x -> ¬{A}{a} sent10: (x): ¬(¬{EC}x & ¬{DM}x) -> ¬{AA}{a}
[]
UNKNOWN
[]
UNKNOWN
2
null
8
0
8
the Yugoslav is not disciplinary.
¬{AA}{a}
5
[ "sent8 -> int1: if the Yugoslav is physiological it is a Mindoro but not disciplinary.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the ebb rushes Yugoslav but it is not a kind of a Mindoro. ; $context$ = sent1: the ebb is a slicker and does not recreate. sent2: the ebb is not open-source. sent3: the ebb does rush Yugoslav but it is not a Mindoro if the Yugoslav is not a Mindoro. sent4: there is something such that the fact that the fact that it rushes Yugoslav and it is not a Mindoro hold is incorrect. sent5: if the fact that the Yugoslav is not a kind of a Mindoro hold then the ebb is not a kind of a Mindoro. sent6: there is something such that the fact that it is non-disciplinary thing that is not open-source is not true. sent7: if the ebb is physiological then the fact that it rushes Yugoslav and it is not a Mindoro does not hold. sent8: something is a kind of a Mindoro and is not disciplinary if it is physiological. sent9: the Yugoslav is not a Mindoro if there is something such that that it is disciplinary hold. sent10: the Yugoslav is not disciplinary if there is something such that that it is not extraterrestrial and it is not a cadetship is wrong. ; $proof$ =
__UNKNOWN__
DeductionInstance
the Yugoslav is not disciplinary if there is something such that that it is not extraterrestrial and it is not a cadetship is wrong.
[ "if the fact that the Yugoslav is not a kind of a Mindoro hold then the ebb is not a kind of a Mindoro." ]
[ "the Yugoslav is not disciplinary if there is something such that that it is not extraterrestrial and it is not a cadetship is wrong." ]
the Yugoslav is not disciplinary if there is something such that that it is not extraterrestrial and it is not a cadetship is wrong.
if the fact that the Yugoslav is not a kind of a Mindoro hold then the ebb is not a kind of a Mindoro.
the sweatsuit is not a vernation but it is an acropolis.
sent1: that the HDL does not canvass candlesnuffer is true if the resident is a sublimate and/or it noses wintergreen. sent2: the sweatsuit is not a kind of a vernation but it does canvass candlesnuffer. sent3: the fact that if the resident is an acropolis the sweatsuit is not a sublimate is correct. sent4: if the resident does not canvass candlesnuffer then the HDL does not sublimate but it is a kind of an acropolis. sent5: if the HDL does not canvass candlesnuffer then the sweatsuit is both not a vernation and an acropolis.
(¬{E}{c} & {D}{c})
sent1: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent2: (¬{E}{c} & {C}{c}) sent3: {D}{a} -> ¬{A}{c} sent4: ¬{C}{a} -> (¬{A}{b} & {D}{b}) sent5: ¬{C}{b} -> (¬{E}{c} & {D}{c})
[]
UNKNOWN
[]
UNKNOWN
3
null
3
0
3
null
null
null
[]
null
null
$hypothesis$ = the sweatsuit is not a vernation but it is an acropolis. ; $context$ = sent1: that the HDL does not canvass candlesnuffer is true if the resident is a sublimate and/or it noses wintergreen. sent2: the sweatsuit is not a kind of a vernation but it does canvass candlesnuffer. sent3: the fact that if the resident is an acropolis the sweatsuit is not a sublimate is correct. sent4: if the resident does not canvass candlesnuffer then the HDL does not sublimate but it is a kind of an acropolis. sent5: if the HDL does not canvass candlesnuffer then the sweatsuit is both not a vernation and an acropolis. ; $proof$ =
__UNKNOWN__
DeductionInstance
that the HDL does not canvass candlesnuffer is true if the resident is a sublimate and/or it noses wintergreen.
[ "if the HDL does not canvass candlesnuffer then the sweatsuit is both not a vernation and an acropolis." ]
[ "that the HDL does not canvass candlesnuffer is true if the resident is a sublimate and/or it noses wintergreen." ]
that the HDL does not canvass candlesnuffer is true if the resident is a sublimate and/or it noses wintergreen.
if the HDL does not canvass candlesnuffer then the sweatsuit is both not a vernation and an acropolis.
the tomtate is not a Ruskin.
sent1: the paint does not rush clubfooted and is a pharmacist. sent2: that the tomtate is a kind of a Ruskin is not false if something does not rush clubfooted and is a kind of a pharmacist. sent3: something is not a Ufa and canvasses Xenopus. sent4: there exists something such that it is not a Ruskin and rushes clubfooted. sent5: something is not a Ruskin but a pharmacist. sent6: the tomtate is a kind of a pharmacist if something that is not a Ruskin rushes clubfooted. sent7: there is something such that it is not a Ruskin.
¬{A}{a}
sent1: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent2: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent3: (Ex): (¬{AL}x & {JD}x) sent4: (Ex): (¬{A}x & {AA}x) sent5: (Ex): (¬{A}x & {AB}x) sent6: (x): (¬{A}x & {AA}x) -> {AB}{a} sent7: (Ex): ¬{A}x
[ "sent1 -> int1: there is something such that it does not rush clubfooted and is a kind of a pharmacist.; int1 & sent2 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
[ "sent1 -> int1: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x); int1 & sent2 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
2
2
5
0
5
null
null
null
[]
null
null
$hypothesis$ = the tomtate is not a Ruskin. ; $context$ = sent1: the paint does not rush clubfooted and is a pharmacist. sent2: that the tomtate is a kind of a Ruskin is not false if something does not rush clubfooted and is a kind of a pharmacist. sent3: something is not a Ufa and canvasses Xenopus. sent4: there exists something such that it is not a Ruskin and rushes clubfooted. sent5: something is not a Ruskin but a pharmacist. sent6: the tomtate is a kind of a pharmacist if something that is not a Ruskin rushes clubfooted. sent7: there is something such that it is not a Ruskin. ; $proof$ =
sent1 -> int1: there is something such that it does not rush clubfooted and is a kind of a pharmacist.; int1 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
DeductionInstance
the paint does not rush clubfooted and is a pharmacist.
[ "that the tomtate is a kind of a Ruskin is not false if something does not rush clubfooted and is a kind of a pharmacist." ]
[ "the paint does not rush clubfooted and is a pharmacist." ]
the paint does not rush clubfooted and is a pharmacist.
that the tomtate is a kind of a Ruskin is not false if something does not rush clubfooted and is a kind of a pharmacist.
the permit is non-mystic.
sent1: the permit is not mystic if the stamen is not immunotherapeutic and is aversive. sent2: the stamen is non-immunotherapeutic but it is aversive if the metharbital is not uricosuric. sent3: the metharbital is not uricosuric. sent4: the metharbital does stress if the fact that the stamen does not stress and it is non-on-street does not hold. sent5: the stamen is not uricosuric if the metharbital is aversive and it is immunotherapeutic. sent6: the metharbital is not on-street if the fact that the stamen is not a kind of a harmonic but it is not on-street does not hold. sent7: if the metharbital is not uricosuric the stamen is not immunotherapeutic. sent8: the psychrometer is not a perennial and rushes volcanism. sent9: if the stamen is immunotherapeutic and it is aversive the permit is not a mystic. sent10: something is uricosuric and is a stress if it is not on-street. sent11: the fact that the stamen is not immunotherapeutic is true. sent12: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a perennial and it does rush volcanism the permit is not a pulse. sent13: if something is uricosuric the silks is non-mystic thing that is diligent.
¬{B}{c}
sent1: (¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{c} sent2: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent3: ¬{A}{a} sent4: ¬(¬{C}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) -> {C}{a} sent5: ({AB}{a} & {AA}{a}) -> ¬{A}{b} sent6: ¬(¬{F}{b} & {D}{b}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent7: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{AA}{b} sent8: (¬{G}{d} & {H}{d}) sent9: ({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{c} sent10: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({A}x & {C}x) sent11: ¬{AA}{b} sent12: (x): (¬{G}x & {H}x) -> ¬{E}{c} sent13: (x): {A}x -> (¬{B}{gd} & {DP}{gd})
[ "sent2 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the stamen is not immunotherapeutic but it is aversive is not incorrect.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
[ "sent2 & sent3 -> int1: (¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}); sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
2
2
10
0
10
the permit is a mystic.
{B}{c}
6
[]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the permit is non-mystic. ; $context$ = sent1: the permit is not mystic if the stamen is not immunotherapeutic and is aversive. sent2: the stamen is non-immunotherapeutic but it is aversive if the metharbital is not uricosuric. sent3: the metharbital is not uricosuric. sent4: the metharbital does stress if the fact that the stamen does not stress and it is non-on-street does not hold. sent5: the stamen is not uricosuric if the metharbital is aversive and it is immunotherapeutic. sent6: the metharbital is not on-street if the fact that the stamen is not a kind of a harmonic but it is not on-street does not hold. sent7: if the metharbital is not uricosuric the stamen is not immunotherapeutic. sent8: the psychrometer is not a perennial and rushes volcanism. sent9: if the stamen is immunotherapeutic and it is aversive the permit is not a mystic. sent10: something is uricosuric and is a stress if it is not on-street. sent11: the fact that the stamen is not immunotherapeutic is true. sent12: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a perennial and it does rush volcanism the permit is not a pulse. sent13: if something is uricosuric the silks is non-mystic thing that is diligent. ; $proof$ =
sent2 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the stamen is not immunotherapeutic but it is aversive is not incorrect.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
DeductionInstance
the stamen is non-immunotherapeutic but it is aversive if the metharbital is not uricosuric.
[ "the metharbital is not uricosuric.", "the permit is not mystic if the stamen is not immunotherapeutic and is aversive." ]
[ "If the metharbital is not uricosuric, the stamen is aversive.", "The stamen is aversive if the metharbital is not uricosuric." ]
If the metharbital is not uricosuric, the stamen is aversive.
the metharbital is not uricosuric.
the permit is non-mystic.
sent1: the permit is not mystic if the stamen is not immunotherapeutic and is aversive. sent2: the stamen is non-immunotherapeutic but it is aversive if the metharbital is not uricosuric. sent3: the metharbital is not uricosuric. sent4: the metharbital does stress if the fact that the stamen does not stress and it is non-on-street does not hold. sent5: the stamen is not uricosuric if the metharbital is aversive and it is immunotherapeutic. sent6: the metharbital is not on-street if the fact that the stamen is not a kind of a harmonic but it is not on-street does not hold. sent7: if the metharbital is not uricosuric the stamen is not immunotherapeutic. sent8: the psychrometer is not a perennial and rushes volcanism. sent9: if the stamen is immunotherapeutic and it is aversive the permit is not a mystic. sent10: something is uricosuric and is a stress if it is not on-street. sent11: the fact that the stamen is not immunotherapeutic is true. sent12: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a perennial and it does rush volcanism the permit is not a pulse. sent13: if something is uricosuric the silks is non-mystic thing that is diligent.
¬{B}{c}
sent1: (¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{c} sent2: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent3: ¬{A}{a} sent4: ¬(¬{C}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) -> {C}{a} sent5: ({AB}{a} & {AA}{a}) -> ¬{A}{b} sent6: ¬(¬{F}{b} & {D}{b}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent7: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{AA}{b} sent8: (¬{G}{d} & {H}{d}) sent9: ({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{c} sent10: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({A}x & {C}x) sent11: ¬{AA}{b} sent12: (x): (¬{G}x & {H}x) -> ¬{E}{c} sent13: (x): {A}x -> (¬{B}{gd} & {DP}{gd})
[ "sent2 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the stamen is not immunotherapeutic but it is aversive is not incorrect.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
[ "sent2 & sent3 -> int1: (¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}); sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
2
2
10
0
10
the permit is a mystic.
{B}{c}
6
[]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the permit is non-mystic. ; $context$ = sent1: the permit is not mystic if the stamen is not immunotherapeutic and is aversive. sent2: the stamen is non-immunotherapeutic but it is aversive if the metharbital is not uricosuric. sent3: the metharbital is not uricosuric. sent4: the metharbital does stress if the fact that the stamen does not stress and it is non-on-street does not hold. sent5: the stamen is not uricosuric if the metharbital is aversive and it is immunotherapeutic. sent6: the metharbital is not on-street if the fact that the stamen is not a kind of a harmonic but it is not on-street does not hold. sent7: if the metharbital is not uricosuric the stamen is not immunotherapeutic. sent8: the psychrometer is not a perennial and rushes volcanism. sent9: if the stamen is immunotherapeutic and it is aversive the permit is not a mystic. sent10: something is uricosuric and is a stress if it is not on-street. sent11: the fact that the stamen is not immunotherapeutic is true. sent12: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a perennial and it does rush volcanism the permit is not a pulse. sent13: if something is uricosuric the silks is non-mystic thing that is diligent. ; $proof$ =
sent2 & sent3 -> int1: the fact that the stamen is not immunotherapeutic but it is aversive is not incorrect.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
DeductionInstance
the stamen is non-immunotherapeutic but it is aversive if the metharbital is not uricosuric.
[ "the metharbital is not uricosuric.", "the permit is not mystic if the stamen is not immunotherapeutic and is aversive." ]
[ "If the metharbital is not uricosuric, the stamen is aversive.", "The stamen is aversive if the metharbital is not uricosuric." ]
The stamen is aversive if the metharbital is not uricosuric.
the permit is not mystic if the stamen is not immunotherapeutic and is aversive.
the sun happens and the no-trump happens.
sent1: both the canvassing orthogonality and the non-steadiedness occurs. sent2: the sensitizing amphitheater happens if that that the no-trump happens but the sun does not occur is right is wrong. sent3: the whelping occurs. sent4: the nonadhesiveness occurs if the sparkling does not occur. sent5: that the sensitizing breechloader does not occur causes that the tessellation but not the bundling occurs. sent6: the tessellation occurs. sent7: if the manicure occurs then the amphitheatricness does not occur. sent8: if the sensitizing breechloader does not occur the tessellation occurs. sent9: the wilding happens. sent10: that the amphitheatricness does not occur prevents that the blitzing does not occur. sent11: the manicure occurs. sent12: the fact that the danger happens but the Aether does not occur does not hold if the nosing alpenstock does not occur. sent13: the fortunateness and the rebellion occurs if the suppurativeness does not occur. sent14: the blitzing occurs. sent15: the colorfulness does not occur. sent16: the rebellion happens. sent17: the fact that the tessellation occurs but the bundle does not occur is not true if the sunning does not occur. sent18: the sensitizing breechloader does not occur. sent19: the cluck happens.
({A} & {B})
sent1: ({CT} & ¬{K}) sent2: ¬({B} & ¬{A}) -> {HP} sent3: {JH} sent4: ¬{IH} -> {S} sent5: ¬{C} -> ({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent6: {AA} sent7: {F} -> ¬{E} sent8: ¬{C} -> {AA} sent9: {HH} sent10: ¬{E} -> {D} sent11: {F} sent12: ¬{EF} -> ¬({BG} & ¬{EP}) sent13: ¬{BL} -> ({GG} & {AH}) sent14: {D} sent15: ¬{U} sent16: {AH} sent17: ¬{A} -> ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent18: ¬{C} sent19: {FT}
[ "void -> assump1: Let's assume that the sunning does not occur.; sent17 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the tessellation but not the bundle occurs does not hold.; sent5 & sent18 -> int2: the tessellation but not the bundle occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the sun happens.; sent7 & sent11 -> int5: the amphitheatricness does not occur.;" ]
UNKNOWN
[ "void -> assump1: ¬{A}; sent17 & assump1 -> int1: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}); sent5 & sent18 -> int2: ({AA} & ¬{AB}); int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: {A}; sent7 & sent11 -> int5: ¬{E};" ]
UNKNOWN
4
null
14
0
14
the fact that the sun happens and the no-trump happens is not right.
¬({A} & {B})
0
[ " -> hypothesis;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the sun happens and the no-trump happens. ; $context$ = sent1: both the canvassing orthogonality and the non-steadiedness occurs. sent2: the sensitizing amphitheater happens if that that the no-trump happens but the sun does not occur is right is wrong. sent3: the whelping occurs. sent4: the nonadhesiveness occurs if the sparkling does not occur. sent5: that the sensitizing breechloader does not occur causes that the tessellation but not the bundling occurs. sent6: the tessellation occurs. sent7: if the manicure occurs then the amphitheatricness does not occur. sent8: if the sensitizing breechloader does not occur the tessellation occurs. sent9: the wilding happens. sent10: that the amphitheatricness does not occur prevents that the blitzing does not occur. sent11: the manicure occurs. sent12: the fact that the danger happens but the Aether does not occur does not hold if the nosing alpenstock does not occur. sent13: the fortunateness and the rebellion occurs if the suppurativeness does not occur. sent14: the blitzing occurs. sent15: the colorfulness does not occur. sent16: the rebellion happens. sent17: the fact that the tessellation occurs but the bundle does not occur is not true if the sunning does not occur. sent18: the sensitizing breechloader does not occur. sent19: the cluck happens. ; $proof$ =
__UNKNOWN__
DeductionInstance
the fact that the tessellation occurs but the bundle does not occur is not true if the sunning does not occur.
[ "that the sensitizing breechloader does not occur causes that the tessellation but not the bundling occurs.", "the sensitizing breechloader does not occur.", "if the manicure occurs then the amphitheatricness does not occur.", "the manicure occurs." ]
[ "The fact that the bundle does not occur is not true if the sunning does not occur.", "It is not true that the tessellation occurs but the bundle does not.", "If the bundle does not occur, it is not true that the tessellation occurs.", "If the tessellation doesn't happen but the bundle doesn't, it's not true." ]
The fact that the bundle does not occur is not true if the sunning does not occur.
that the sensitizing breechloader does not occur causes that the tessellation but not the bundling occurs.
the sun happens and the no-trump happens.
sent1: both the canvassing orthogonality and the non-steadiedness occurs. sent2: the sensitizing amphitheater happens if that that the no-trump happens but the sun does not occur is right is wrong. sent3: the whelping occurs. sent4: the nonadhesiveness occurs if the sparkling does not occur. sent5: that the sensitizing breechloader does not occur causes that the tessellation but not the bundling occurs. sent6: the tessellation occurs. sent7: if the manicure occurs then the amphitheatricness does not occur. sent8: if the sensitizing breechloader does not occur the tessellation occurs. sent9: the wilding happens. sent10: that the amphitheatricness does not occur prevents that the blitzing does not occur. sent11: the manicure occurs. sent12: the fact that the danger happens but the Aether does not occur does not hold if the nosing alpenstock does not occur. sent13: the fortunateness and the rebellion occurs if the suppurativeness does not occur. sent14: the blitzing occurs. sent15: the colorfulness does not occur. sent16: the rebellion happens. sent17: the fact that the tessellation occurs but the bundle does not occur is not true if the sunning does not occur. sent18: the sensitizing breechloader does not occur. sent19: the cluck happens.
({A} & {B})
sent1: ({CT} & ¬{K}) sent2: ¬({B} & ¬{A}) -> {HP} sent3: {JH} sent4: ¬{IH} -> {S} sent5: ¬{C} -> ({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent6: {AA} sent7: {F} -> ¬{E} sent8: ¬{C} -> {AA} sent9: {HH} sent10: ¬{E} -> {D} sent11: {F} sent12: ¬{EF} -> ¬({BG} & ¬{EP}) sent13: ¬{BL} -> ({GG} & {AH}) sent14: {D} sent15: ¬{U} sent16: {AH} sent17: ¬{A} -> ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent18: ¬{C} sent19: {FT}
[ "void -> assump1: Let's assume that the sunning does not occur.; sent17 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the tessellation but not the bundle occurs does not hold.; sent5 & sent18 -> int2: the tessellation but not the bundle occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the sun happens.; sent7 & sent11 -> int5: the amphitheatricness does not occur.;" ]
UNKNOWN
[ "void -> assump1: ¬{A}; sent17 & assump1 -> int1: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}); sent5 & sent18 -> int2: ({AA} & ¬{AB}); int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: {A}; sent7 & sent11 -> int5: ¬{E};" ]
UNKNOWN
4
null
14
0
14
the fact that the sun happens and the no-trump happens is not right.
¬({A} & {B})
0
[ " -> hypothesis;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the sun happens and the no-trump happens. ; $context$ = sent1: both the canvassing orthogonality and the non-steadiedness occurs. sent2: the sensitizing amphitheater happens if that that the no-trump happens but the sun does not occur is right is wrong. sent3: the whelping occurs. sent4: the nonadhesiveness occurs if the sparkling does not occur. sent5: that the sensitizing breechloader does not occur causes that the tessellation but not the bundling occurs. sent6: the tessellation occurs. sent7: if the manicure occurs then the amphitheatricness does not occur. sent8: if the sensitizing breechloader does not occur the tessellation occurs. sent9: the wilding happens. sent10: that the amphitheatricness does not occur prevents that the blitzing does not occur. sent11: the manicure occurs. sent12: the fact that the danger happens but the Aether does not occur does not hold if the nosing alpenstock does not occur. sent13: the fortunateness and the rebellion occurs if the suppurativeness does not occur. sent14: the blitzing occurs. sent15: the colorfulness does not occur. sent16: the rebellion happens. sent17: the fact that the tessellation occurs but the bundle does not occur is not true if the sunning does not occur. sent18: the sensitizing breechloader does not occur. sent19: the cluck happens. ; $proof$ =
__UNKNOWN__
DeductionInstance
the fact that the tessellation occurs but the bundle does not occur is not true if the sunning does not occur.
[ "that the sensitizing breechloader does not occur causes that the tessellation but not the bundling occurs.", "the sensitizing breechloader does not occur.", "if the manicure occurs then the amphitheatricness does not occur.", "the manicure occurs." ]
[ "The fact that the bundle does not occur is not true if the sunning does not occur.", "It is not true that the tessellation occurs but the bundle does not.", "If the bundle does not occur, it is not true that the tessellation occurs.", "If the tessellation doesn't happen but the bundle doesn't, it's not true." ]
It is not true that the tessellation occurs but the bundle does not.
the sensitizing breechloader does not occur.
the sun happens and the no-trump happens.
sent1: both the canvassing orthogonality and the non-steadiedness occurs. sent2: the sensitizing amphitheater happens if that that the no-trump happens but the sun does not occur is right is wrong. sent3: the whelping occurs. sent4: the nonadhesiveness occurs if the sparkling does not occur. sent5: that the sensitizing breechloader does not occur causes that the tessellation but not the bundling occurs. sent6: the tessellation occurs. sent7: if the manicure occurs then the amphitheatricness does not occur. sent8: if the sensitizing breechloader does not occur the tessellation occurs. sent9: the wilding happens. sent10: that the amphitheatricness does not occur prevents that the blitzing does not occur. sent11: the manicure occurs. sent12: the fact that the danger happens but the Aether does not occur does not hold if the nosing alpenstock does not occur. sent13: the fortunateness and the rebellion occurs if the suppurativeness does not occur. sent14: the blitzing occurs. sent15: the colorfulness does not occur. sent16: the rebellion happens. sent17: the fact that the tessellation occurs but the bundle does not occur is not true if the sunning does not occur. sent18: the sensitizing breechloader does not occur. sent19: the cluck happens.
({A} & {B})
sent1: ({CT} & ¬{K}) sent2: ¬({B} & ¬{A}) -> {HP} sent3: {JH} sent4: ¬{IH} -> {S} sent5: ¬{C} -> ({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent6: {AA} sent7: {F} -> ¬{E} sent8: ¬{C} -> {AA} sent9: {HH} sent10: ¬{E} -> {D} sent11: {F} sent12: ¬{EF} -> ¬({BG} & ¬{EP}) sent13: ¬{BL} -> ({GG} & {AH}) sent14: {D} sent15: ¬{U} sent16: {AH} sent17: ¬{A} -> ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent18: ¬{C} sent19: {FT}
[ "void -> assump1: Let's assume that the sunning does not occur.; sent17 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the tessellation but not the bundle occurs does not hold.; sent5 & sent18 -> int2: the tessellation but not the bundle occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the sun happens.; sent7 & sent11 -> int5: the amphitheatricness does not occur.;" ]
UNKNOWN
[ "void -> assump1: ¬{A}; sent17 & assump1 -> int1: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}); sent5 & sent18 -> int2: ({AA} & ¬{AB}); int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: {A}; sent7 & sent11 -> int5: ¬{E};" ]
UNKNOWN
4
null
14
0
14
the fact that the sun happens and the no-trump happens is not right.
¬({A} & {B})
0
[ " -> hypothesis;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the sun happens and the no-trump happens. ; $context$ = sent1: both the canvassing orthogonality and the non-steadiedness occurs. sent2: the sensitizing amphitheater happens if that that the no-trump happens but the sun does not occur is right is wrong. sent3: the whelping occurs. sent4: the nonadhesiveness occurs if the sparkling does not occur. sent5: that the sensitizing breechloader does not occur causes that the tessellation but not the bundling occurs. sent6: the tessellation occurs. sent7: if the manicure occurs then the amphitheatricness does not occur. sent8: if the sensitizing breechloader does not occur the tessellation occurs. sent9: the wilding happens. sent10: that the amphitheatricness does not occur prevents that the blitzing does not occur. sent11: the manicure occurs. sent12: the fact that the danger happens but the Aether does not occur does not hold if the nosing alpenstock does not occur. sent13: the fortunateness and the rebellion occurs if the suppurativeness does not occur. sent14: the blitzing occurs. sent15: the colorfulness does not occur. sent16: the rebellion happens. sent17: the fact that the tessellation occurs but the bundle does not occur is not true if the sunning does not occur. sent18: the sensitizing breechloader does not occur. sent19: the cluck happens. ; $proof$ =
__UNKNOWN__
DeductionInstance
the fact that the tessellation occurs but the bundle does not occur is not true if the sunning does not occur.
[ "that the sensitizing breechloader does not occur causes that the tessellation but not the bundling occurs.", "the sensitizing breechloader does not occur.", "if the manicure occurs then the amphitheatricness does not occur.", "the manicure occurs." ]
[ "The fact that the bundle does not occur is not true if the sunning does not occur.", "It is not true that the tessellation occurs but the bundle does not.", "If the bundle does not occur, it is not true that the tessellation occurs.", "If the tessellation doesn't happen but the bundle doesn't, it's not true." ]
If the bundle does not occur, it is not true that the tessellation occurs.
if the manicure occurs then the amphitheatricness does not occur.
the sun happens and the no-trump happens.
sent1: both the canvassing orthogonality and the non-steadiedness occurs. sent2: the sensitizing amphitheater happens if that that the no-trump happens but the sun does not occur is right is wrong. sent3: the whelping occurs. sent4: the nonadhesiveness occurs if the sparkling does not occur. sent5: that the sensitizing breechloader does not occur causes that the tessellation but not the bundling occurs. sent6: the tessellation occurs. sent7: if the manicure occurs then the amphitheatricness does not occur. sent8: if the sensitizing breechloader does not occur the tessellation occurs. sent9: the wilding happens. sent10: that the amphitheatricness does not occur prevents that the blitzing does not occur. sent11: the manicure occurs. sent12: the fact that the danger happens but the Aether does not occur does not hold if the nosing alpenstock does not occur. sent13: the fortunateness and the rebellion occurs if the suppurativeness does not occur. sent14: the blitzing occurs. sent15: the colorfulness does not occur. sent16: the rebellion happens. sent17: the fact that the tessellation occurs but the bundle does not occur is not true if the sunning does not occur. sent18: the sensitizing breechloader does not occur. sent19: the cluck happens.
({A} & {B})
sent1: ({CT} & ¬{K}) sent2: ¬({B} & ¬{A}) -> {HP} sent3: {JH} sent4: ¬{IH} -> {S} sent5: ¬{C} -> ({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent6: {AA} sent7: {F} -> ¬{E} sent8: ¬{C} -> {AA} sent9: {HH} sent10: ¬{E} -> {D} sent11: {F} sent12: ¬{EF} -> ¬({BG} & ¬{EP}) sent13: ¬{BL} -> ({GG} & {AH}) sent14: {D} sent15: ¬{U} sent16: {AH} sent17: ¬{A} -> ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent18: ¬{C} sent19: {FT}
[ "void -> assump1: Let's assume that the sunning does not occur.; sent17 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the tessellation but not the bundle occurs does not hold.; sent5 & sent18 -> int2: the tessellation but not the bundle occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the sun happens.; sent7 & sent11 -> int5: the amphitheatricness does not occur.;" ]
UNKNOWN
[ "void -> assump1: ¬{A}; sent17 & assump1 -> int1: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}); sent5 & sent18 -> int2: ({AA} & ¬{AB}); int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: {A}; sent7 & sent11 -> int5: ¬{E};" ]
UNKNOWN
4
null
14
0
14
the fact that the sun happens and the no-trump happens is not right.
¬({A} & {B})
0
[ " -> hypothesis;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the sun happens and the no-trump happens. ; $context$ = sent1: both the canvassing orthogonality and the non-steadiedness occurs. sent2: the sensitizing amphitheater happens if that that the no-trump happens but the sun does not occur is right is wrong. sent3: the whelping occurs. sent4: the nonadhesiveness occurs if the sparkling does not occur. sent5: that the sensitizing breechloader does not occur causes that the tessellation but not the bundling occurs. sent6: the tessellation occurs. sent7: if the manicure occurs then the amphitheatricness does not occur. sent8: if the sensitizing breechloader does not occur the tessellation occurs. sent9: the wilding happens. sent10: that the amphitheatricness does not occur prevents that the blitzing does not occur. sent11: the manicure occurs. sent12: the fact that the danger happens but the Aether does not occur does not hold if the nosing alpenstock does not occur. sent13: the fortunateness and the rebellion occurs if the suppurativeness does not occur. sent14: the blitzing occurs. sent15: the colorfulness does not occur. sent16: the rebellion happens. sent17: the fact that the tessellation occurs but the bundle does not occur is not true if the sunning does not occur. sent18: the sensitizing breechloader does not occur. sent19: the cluck happens. ; $proof$ =
__UNKNOWN__
DeductionInstance
the fact that the tessellation occurs but the bundle does not occur is not true if the sunning does not occur.
[ "that the sensitizing breechloader does not occur causes that the tessellation but not the bundling occurs.", "the sensitizing breechloader does not occur.", "if the manicure occurs then the amphitheatricness does not occur.", "the manicure occurs." ]
[ "The fact that the bundle does not occur is not true if the sunning does not occur.", "It is not true that the tessellation occurs but the bundle does not.", "If the bundle does not occur, it is not true that the tessellation occurs.", "If the tessellation doesn't happen but the bundle doesn't, it's not true." ]
If the tessellation doesn't happen but the bundle doesn't, it's not true.
the manicure occurs.
the dhole is a strum if the marjoram is a kind of a Scincidae.
sent1: the dhole does not strum if it crazes. sent2: the marjoram is a strum if the dhole is a Scincidae. sent3: if the marjoram is a kind of a strum but it is not a Cheiranthus the dhole is a craze. sent4: if the dhole is a kind of a craze the marjoram strums. sent5: the set-back does not rush Passer if that it does rush Passer and does not canvass spectrometer is not true. sent6: the laptop is a Conepatus that is not a suffragette if it is a strum. sent7: the dhole is a Cheiranthus. sent8: if the marjoram strums it is slippery. sent9: the dhole strums if the marjoram is a kind of a craze that is not a Cheiranthus. sent10: the marjoram is not a Cheiranthus. sent11: the miller is a kind of a Scincidae. sent12: if the marjoram is a Scincidae it is a craze and it is not a Cheiranthus.
{A}{a} -> {B}{b}
sent1: {AA}{b} -> ¬{B}{b} sent2: {A}{b} -> {B}{a} sent3: ({B}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {AA}{b} sent4: {AA}{b} -> {B}{a} sent5: ¬({C}{fs} & ¬{E}{fs}) -> ¬{C}{fs} sent6: {B}{bq} -> ({FD}{bq} & ¬{FT}{bq}) sent7: {AB}{b} sent8: {B}{a} -> {CH}{a} sent9: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent10: ¬{AB}{a} sent11: {A}{hd} sent12: {A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})
[ "void -> assump1: Let's assume that the marjoram is a Scincidae.; sent12 & assump1 -> int1: the marjoram does craze but it is not a Cheiranthus.; sent9 & int1 -> int2: the dhole is a kind of a strum.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
[ "void -> assump1: {A}{a}; sent12 & assump1 -> int1: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); sent9 & int1 -> int2: {B}{b}; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
3
3
10
0
10
the set-back does strum.
{B}{fs}
7
[]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the dhole is a strum if the marjoram is a kind of a Scincidae. ; $context$ = sent1: the dhole does not strum if it crazes. sent2: the marjoram is a strum if the dhole is a Scincidae. sent3: if the marjoram is a kind of a strum but it is not a Cheiranthus the dhole is a craze. sent4: if the dhole is a kind of a craze the marjoram strums. sent5: the set-back does not rush Passer if that it does rush Passer and does not canvass spectrometer is not true. sent6: the laptop is a Conepatus that is not a suffragette if it is a strum. sent7: the dhole is a Cheiranthus. sent8: if the marjoram strums it is slippery. sent9: the dhole strums if the marjoram is a kind of a craze that is not a Cheiranthus. sent10: the marjoram is not a Cheiranthus. sent11: the miller is a kind of a Scincidae. sent12: if the marjoram is a Scincidae it is a craze and it is not a Cheiranthus. ; $proof$ =
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the marjoram is a Scincidae.; sent12 & assump1 -> int1: the marjoram does craze but it is not a Cheiranthus.; sent9 & int1 -> int2: the dhole is a kind of a strum.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
DeductionInstance
if the marjoram is a Scincidae it is a craze and it is not a Cheiranthus.
[ "the dhole strums if the marjoram is a kind of a craze that is not a Cheiranthus." ]
[ "if the marjoram is a Scincidae it is a craze and it is not a Cheiranthus." ]
if the marjoram is a Scincidae it is a craze and it is not a Cheiranthus.
the dhole strums if the marjoram is a kind of a craze that is not a Cheiranthus.
the dimmedness occurs.
sent1: the hydrousness does not occur if that the surfing does not occur or the hydrousness does not occur or both is not false. sent2: the gobble occurs and the enhancement occurs. sent3: the resuscitating does not occur. sent4: if the esophagealness occurs then the fact that the extinguishing happens hold. sent5: the esophagealness and the theater happens. sent6: if the hydrousness does not occur that both the attitude and the rushing Balkan occurs is wrong. sent7: both the celibacy and the rushing Myrica happens. sent8: if the attitude does not occur both the rushing Merckx and the containment happens. sent9: if the theater does not occur then that both the non-dimmedness and the esophagealness occurs is not correct. sent10: if the fact that the theater occurs and the celibacy happens hold then the dimming does not occur. sent11: the esophagealness occurs. sent12: the expedition happens and the two-wheelness happens. sent13: the detribalization and the rentableness happens. sent14: the rushing Myrica happens. sent15: that both the brachycephalicness and the containment happens yields that the celibacy does not occur. sent16: the brachycephalicness occurs and the ping happens if the resuscitating does not occur. sent17: if that the attitude and the rushing Balkan happens is not true then the attitude does not occur. sent18: that if the celibacy does not occur the fact that the theater happens and the rushing Myrica does not occur is not right is not incorrect. sent19: the dimmedness happens if that the dimmedness does not occur and the esophagealness occurs does not hold.
{D}
sent1: (¬{O} v ¬{M}) -> ¬{M} sent2: ({HG} & {BC}) sent3: ¬{L} sent4: {A} -> {IQ} sent5: ({A} & {B}) sent6: ¬{M} -> ¬({J} & {K}) sent7: ({C} & {E}) sent8: ¬{J} -> ({H} & {G}) sent9: ¬{B} -> ¬(¬{D} & {A}) sent10: ({B} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent11: {A} sent12: ({IB} & {GL}) sent13: ({AK} & {JG}) sent14: {E} sent15: ({F} & {G}) -> ¬{C} sent16: ¬{L} -> ({F} & {I}) sent17: ¬({J} & {K}) -> ¬{J} sent18: ¬{C} -> ¬({B} & ¬{E}) sent19: ¬(¬{D} & {A}) -> {D}
[ "sent5 -> int1: the theater occurs.; sent7 -> int2: the celibacy happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the theater and the celibacy happens.; int3 & sent10 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
[ "sent5 -> int1: {B}; sent7 -> int2: {C}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({B} & {C}); int3 & sent10 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
3
3
16
0
16
the dimmedness occurs.
{D}
13
[ "sent16 & sent3 -> int4: both the brachycephalic and the ping happens.; int4 -> int5: the brachycephalic happens.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the dimmedness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the hydrousness does not occur if that the surfing does not occur or the hydrousness does not occur or both is not false. sent2: the gobble occurs and the enhancement occurs. sent3: the resuscitating does not occur. sent4: if the esophagealness occurs then the fact that the extinguishing happens hold. sent5: the esophagealness and the theater happens. sent6: if the hydrousness does not occur that both the attitude and the rushing Balkan occurs is wrong. sent7: both the celibacy and the rushing Myrica happens. sent8: if the attitude does not occur both the rushing Merckx and the containment happens. sent9: if the theater does not occur then that both the non-dimmedness and the esophagealness occurs is not correct. sent10: if the fact that the theater occurs and the celibacy happens hold then the dimming does not occur. sent11: the esophagealness occurs. sent12: the expedition happens and the two-wheelness happens. sent13: the detribalization and the rentableness happens. sent14: the rushing Myrica happens. sent15: that both the brachycephalicness and the containment happens yields that the celibacy does not occur. sent16: the brachycephalicness occurs and the ping happens if the resuscitating does not occur. sent17: if that the attitude and the rushing Balkan happens is not true then the attitude does not occur. sent18: that if the celibacy does not occur the fact that the theater happens and the rushing Myrica does not occur is not right is not incorrect. sent19: the dimmedness happens if that the dimmedness does not occur and the esophagealness occurs does not hold. ; $proof$ =
sent5 -> int1: the theater occurs.; sent7 -> int2: the celibacy happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the theater and the celibacy happens.; int3 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
DeductionInstance
the esophagealness and the theater happens.
[ "both the celibacy and the rushing Myrica happens.", "if the fact that the theater occurs and the celibacy happens hold then the dimming does not occur." ]
[ "The theater and the esophagealness are1-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-6556", "The theater happens." ]
The theater and the esophagealness are1-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-6556
both the celibacy and the rushing Myrica happens.
the dimmedness occurs.
sent1: the hydrousness does not occur if that the surfing does not occur or the hydrousness does not occur or both is not false. sent2: the gobble occurs and the enhancement occurs. sent3: the resuscitating does not occur. sent4: if the esophagealness occurs then the fact that the extinguishing happens hold. sent5: the esophagealness and the theater happens. sent6: if the hydrousness does not occur that both the attitude and the rushing Balkan occurs is wrong. sent7: both the celibacy and the rushing Myrica happens. sent8: if the attitude does not occur both the rushing Merckx and the containment happens. sent9: if the theater does not occur then that both the non-dimmedness and the esophagealness occurs is not correct. sent10: if the fact that the theater occurs and the celibacy happens hold then the dimming does not occur. sent11: the esophagealness occurs. sent12: the expedition happens and the two-wheelness happens. sent13: the detribalization and the rentableness happens. sent14: the rushing Myrica happens. sent15: that both the brachycephalicness and the containment happens yields that the celibacy does not occur. sent16: the brachycephalicness occurs and the ping happens if the resuscitating does not occur. sent17: if that the attitude and the rushing Balkan happens is not true then the attitude does not occur. sent18: that if the celibacy does not occur the fact that the theater happens and the rushing Myrica does not occur is not right is not incorrect. sent19: the dimmedness happens if that the dimmedness does not occur and the esophagealness occurs does not hold.
{D}
sent1: (¬{O} v ¬{M}) -> ¬{M} sent2: ({HG} & {BC}) sent3: ¬{L} sent4: {A} -> {IQ} sent5: ({A} & {B}) sent6: ¬{M} -> ¬({J} & {K}) sent7: ({C} & {E}) sent8: ¬{J} -> ({H} & {G}) sent9: ¬{B} -> ¬(¬{D} & {A}) sent10: ({B} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent11: {A} sent12: ({IB} & {GL}) sent13: ({AK} & {JG}) sent14: {E} sent15: ({F} & {G}) -> ¬{C} sent16: ¬{L} -> ({F} & {I}) sent17: ¬({J} & {K}) -> ¬{J} sent18: ¬{C} -> ¬({B} & ¬{E}) sent19: ¬(¬{D} & {A}) -> {D}
[ "sent5 -> int1: the theater occurs.; sent7 -> int2: the celibacy happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the theater and the celibacy happens.; int3 & sent10 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
[ "sent5 -> int1: {B}; sent7 -> int2: {C}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({B} & {C}); int3 & sent10 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
3
3
16
0
16
the dimmedness occurs.
{D}
13
[ "sent16 & sent3 -> int4: both the brachycephalic and the ping happens.; int4 -> int5: the brachycephalic happens.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the dimmedness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the hydrousness does not occur if that the surfing does not occur or the hydrousness does not occur or both is not false. sent2: the gobble occurs and the enhancement occurs. sent3: the resuscitating does not occur. sent4: if the esophagealness occurs then the fact that the extinguishing happens hold. sent5: the esophagealness and the theater happens. sent6: if the hydrousness does not occur that both the attitude and the rushing Balkan occurs is wrong. sent7: both the celibacy and the rushing Myrica happens. sent8: if the attitude does not occur both the rushing Merckx and the containment happens. sent9: if the theater does not occur then that both the non-dimmedness and the esophagealness occurs is not correct. sent10: if the fact that the theater occurs and the celibacy happens hold then the dimming does not occur. sent11: the esophagealness occurs. sent12: the expedition happens and the two-wheelness happens. sent13: the detribalization and the rentableness happens. sent14: the rushing Myrica happens. sent15: that both the brachycephalicness and the containment happens yields that the celibacy does not occur. sent16: the brachycephalicness occurs and the ping happens if the resuscitating does not occur. sent17: if that the attitude and the rushing Balkan happens is not true then the attitude does not occur. sent18: that if the celibacy does not occur the fact that the theater happens and the rushing Myrica does not occur is not right is not incorrect. sent19: the dimmedness happens if that the dimmedness does not occur and the esophagealness occurs does not hold. ; $proof$ =
sent5 -> int1: the theater occurs.; sent7 -> int2: the celibacy happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the theater and the celibacy happens.; int3 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
DeductionInstance
the esophagealness and the theater happens.
[ "both the celibacy and the rushing Myrica happens.", "if the fact that the theater occurs and the celibacy happens hold then the dimming does not occur." ]
[ "The theater and the esophagealness are1-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-65561-6556", "The theater happens." ]
The theater happens.
if the fact that the theater occurs and the celibacy happens hold then the dimming does not occur.
the dextrose is locomotive and catapultic.
sent1: if the memsahib does canvass oculism and it is pyretic it is not an oscillation. sent2: there is something such that it is shockable. sent3: the polymastigote is not orthographic if the fact that the grind is not a soar and not a Chekhov does not hold. sent4: the thecodont does not oblige or it is not Carthaginian or both. sent5: the thickhead is a kind of a Ana and does not rush devilfish if it does not ambulate. sent6: if there exists something such that it is not a chorus then the thecodont is not shockable. sent7: that the thickhead is a lowland is not true if it is a Ana and does not rush devilfish. sent8: the thickhead does not ambulate if the notepad is a Romulus but it is not a radio. sent9: if something is not staphylococcal then the devilfish choruses but it is not a polypeptide. sent10: the thecodont does oblige or is not a Carthaginian or both. sent11: the dextrose is shockable and it is apothegmatic. sent12: if there exists something such that it is not an oscillation then the fact that the grind is not a soar and it is not a Chekhov does not hold. sent13: if the fact that the chrysoprase is staphylococcal a lowland does not hold it is not staphylococcal. sent14: if something is idiographic then it is locomotive. sent15: if the thecodont does not oblige or it is not a kind of a Carthaginian or both the dextrose is idiographic. sent16: the notepad is a Romulus that is not a radio if the polymastigote is not orthographic. sent17: the memsahib does canvass oculism and is pyretic. sent18: if something is not idiographic the fact that it is locomotive and is catapultic is not true. sent19: if that there is something such that that it is not a lowland is not false is not incorrect that the fact that the chrysoprase is staphylococcal and it is a kind of a lowland is not incorrect does not hold. sent20: if the devilfish choruses but it is not a polypeptide then the discard does not choruses. sent21: something is catapultic if it is apothegmatic. sent22: the thecodont is apothegmatic if something is shockable.
({A}{b} & {C}{b})
sent1: ({S}{j} & {T}{j}) -> ¬{R}{j} sent2: (Ex): {E}x sent3: ¬(¬{Q}{i} & ¬{P}{i}) -> ¬{O}{h} sent4: (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent5: ¬{L}{f} -> ({K}{f} & ¬{I}{f}) sent6: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬{E}{a} sent7: ({K}{f} & ¬{I}{f}) -> ¬{J}{f} sent8: ({M}{g} & ¬{N}{g}) -> ¬{L}{f} sent9: (x): ¬{H}x -> ({F}{d} & ¬{G}{d}) sent10: ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent11: ({E}{b} & {D}{b}) sent12: (x): ¬{R}x -> ¬(¬{Q}{i} & ¬{P}{i}) sent13: ¬({H}{e} & {J}{e}) -> ¬{H}{e} sent14: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent15: (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent16: ¬{O}{h} -> ({M}{g} & ¬{N}{g}) sent17: ({S}{j} & {T}{j}) sent18: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({A}x & {C}x) sent19: (x): ¬{J}x -> ¬({H}{e} & {J}{e}) sent20: ({F}{d} & ¬{G}{d}) -> ¬{F}{c} sent21: (x): {D}x -> {C}x sent22: (x): {E}x -> {D}{a}
[ "sent15 & sent4 -> int1: the dextrose is idiographic.; sent14 -> int2: if the dextrose is idiographic it is a locomotive.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the dextrose is locomotive.; sent21 -> int4: if the dextrose is apothegmatic then it is catapultic.; sent11 -> int5: the dextrose is apothegmatic.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the dextrose is catapultic.; int3 & int6 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
[ "sent15 & sent4 -> int1: {B}{b}; sent14 -> int2: {B}{b} -> {A}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {A}{b}; sent21 -> int4: {D}{b} -> {C}{b}; sent11 -> int5: {D}{b}; int4 & int5 -> int6: {C}{b}; int3 & int6 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
3
3
17
0
17
the dextrose is cannibalistic and it is a kind of a externalization.
({HD}{b} & {AH}{b})
5
[ "sent2 & sent22 -> int7: the thecodont is apothegmatic.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the dextrose is locomotive and catapultic. ; $context$ = sent1: if the memsahib does canvass oculism and it is pyretic it is not an oscillation. sent2: there is something such that it is shockable. sent3: the polymastigote is not orthographic if the fact that the grind is not a soar and not a Chekhov does not hold. sent4: the thecodont does not oblige or it is not Carthaginian or both. sent5: the thickhead is a kind of a Ana and does not rush devilfish if it does not ambulate. sent6: if there exists something such that it is not a chorus then the thecodont is not shockable. sent7: that the thickhead is a lowland is not true if it is a Ana and does not rush devilfish. sent8: the thickhead does not ambulate if the notepad is a Romulus but it is not a radio. sent9: if something is not staphylococcal then the devilfish choruses but it is not a polypeptide. sent10: the thecodont does oblige or is not a Carthaginian or both. sent11: the dextrose is shockable and it is apothegmatic. sent12: if there exists something such that it is not an oscillation then the fact that the grind is not a soar and it is not a Chekhov does not hold. sent13: if the fact that the chrysoprase is staphylococcal a lowland does not hold it is not staphylococcal. sent14: if something is idiographic then it is locomotive. sent15: if the thecodont does not oblige or it is not a kind of a Carthaginian or both the dextrose is idiographic. sent16: the notepad is a Romulus that is not a radio if the polymastigote is not orthographic. sent17: the memsahib does canvass oculism and is pyretic. sent18: if something is not idiographic the fact that it is locomotive and is catapultic is not true. sent19: if that there is something such that that it is not a lowland is not false is not incorrect that the fact that the chrysoprase is staphylococcal and it is a kind of a lowland is not incorrect does not hold. sent20: if the devilfish choruses but it is not a polypeptide then the discard does not choruses. sent21: something is catapultic if it is apothegmatic. sent22: the thecodont is apothegmatic if something is shockable. ; $proof$ =
sent15 & sent4 -> int1: the dextrose is idiographic.; sent14 -> int2: if the dextrose is idiographic it is a locomotive.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the dextrose is locomotive.; sent21 -> int4: if the dextrose is apothegmatic then it is catapultic.; sent11 -> int5: the dextrose is apothegmatic.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the dextrose is catapultic.; int3 & int6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
DeductionInstance
if the thecodont does not oblige or it is not a kind of a Carthaginian or both the dextrose is idiographic.
[ "the thecodont does not oblige or it is not Carthaginian or both.", "if something is idiographic then it is locomotive.", "something is catapultic if it is apothegmatic.", "the dextrose is shockable and it is apothegmatic." ]
[ "Either the thecodont does not oblige or it is not a kind of Carthaginian.", "If the thecodont doesn't oblige, it is either a Carthaginian or idiographic.", "If the thecodont doesn't oblige or it isn't a kind of Carthaginian, the dextrose is idiographic.", "If the thecodont does not oblige or it is not a kind of Carthaginian, the dextrose is idiographic." ]
Either the thecodont does not oblige or it is not a kind of Carthaginian.
the thecodont does not oblige or it is not Carthaginian or both.
the dextrose is locomotive and catapultic.
sent1: if the memsahib does canvass oculism and it is pyretic it is not an oscillation. sent2: there is something such that it is shockable. sent3: the polymastigote is not orthographic if the fact that the grind is not a soar and not a Chekhov does not hold. sent4: the thecodont does not oblige or it is not Carthaginian or both. sent5: the thickhead is a kind of a Ana and does not rush devilfish if it does not ambulate. sent6: if there exists something such that it is not a chorus then the thecodont is not shockable. sent7: that the thickhead is a lowland is not true if it is a Ana and does not rush devilfish. sent8: the thickhead does not ambulate if the notepad is a Romulus but it is not a radio. sent9: if something is not staphylococcal then the devilfish choruses but it is not a polypeptide. sent10: the thecodont does oblige or is not a Carthaginian or both. sent11: the dextrose is shockable and it is apothegmatic. sent12: if there exists something such that it is not an oscillation then the fact that the grind is not a soar and it is not a Chekhov does not hold. sent13: if the fact that the chrysoprase is staphylococcal a lowland does not hold it is not staphylococcal. sent14: if something is idiographic then it is locomotive. sent15: if the thecodont does not oblige or it is not a kind of a Carthaginian or both the dextrose is idiographic. sent16: the notepad is a Romulus that is not a radio if the polymastigote is not orthographic. sent17: the memsahib does canvass oculism and is pyretic. sent18: if something is not idiographic the fact that it is locomotive and is catapultic is not true. sent19: if that there is something such that that it is not a lowland is not false is not incorrect that the fact that the chrysoprase is staphylococcal and it is a kind of a lowland is not incorrect does not hold. sent20: if the devilfish choruses but it is not a polypeptide then the discard does not choruses. sent21: something is catapultic if it is apothegmatic. sent22: the thecodont is apothegmatic if something is shockable.
({A}{b} & {C}{b})
sent1: ({S}{j} & {T}{j}) -> ¬{R}{j} sent2: (Ex): {E}x sent3: ¬(¬{Q}{i} & ¬{P}{i}) -> ¬{O}{h} sent4: (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent5: ¬{L}{f} -> ({K}{f} & ¬{I}{f}) sent6: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬{E}{a} sent7: ({K}{f} & ¬{I}{f}) -> ¬{J}{f} sent8: ({M}{g} & ¬{N}{g}) -> ¬{L}{f} sent9: (x): ¬{H}x -> ({F}{d} & ¬{G}{d}) sent10: ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent11: ({E}{b} & {D}{b}) sent12: (x): ¬{R}x -> ¬(¬{Q}{i} & ¬{P}{i}) sent13: ¬({H}{e} & {J}{e}) -> ¬{H}{e} sent14: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent15: (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent16: ¬{O}{h} -> ({M}{g} & ¬{N}{g}) sent17: ({S}{j} & {T}{j}) sent18: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({A}x & {C}x) sent19: (x): ¬{J}x -> ¬({H}{e} & {J}{e}) sent20: ({F}{d} & ¬{G}{d}) -> ¬{F}{c} sent21: (x): {D}x -> {C}x sent22: (x): {E}x -> {D}{a}
[ "sent15 & sent4 -> int1: the dextrose is idiographic.; sent14 -> int2: if the dextrose is idiographic it is a locomotive.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the dextrose is locomotive.; sent21 -> int4: if the dextrose is apothegmatic then it is catapultic.; sent11 -> int5: the dextrose is apothegmatic.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the dextrose is catapultic.; int3 & int6 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
[ "sent15 & sent4 -> int1: {B}{b}; sent14 -> int2: {B}{b} -> {A}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {A}{b}; sent21 -> int4: {D}{b} -> {C}{b}; sent11 -> int5: {D}{b}; int4 & int5 -> int6: {C}{b}; int3 & int6 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
3
3
17
0
17
the dextrose is cannibalistic and it is a kind of a externalization.
({HD}{b} & {AH}{b})
5
[ "sent2 & sent22 -> int7: the thecodont is apothegmatic.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the dextrose is locomotive and catapultic. ; $context$ = sent1: if the memsahib does canvass oculism and it is pyretic it is not an oscillation. sent2: there is something such that it is shockable. sent3: the polymastigote is not orthographic if the fact that the grind is not a soar and not a Chekhov does not hold. sent4: the thecodont does not oblige or it is not Carthaginian or both. sent5: the thickhead is a kind of a Ana and does not rush devilfish if it does not ambulate. sent6: if there exists something such that it is not a chorus then the thecodont is not shockable. sent7: that the thickhead is a lowland is not true if it is a Ana and does not rush devilfish. sent8: the thickhead does not ambulate if the notepad is a Romulus but it is not a radio. sent9: if something is not staphylococcal then the devilfish choruses but it is not a polypeptide. sent10: the thecodont does oblige or is not a Carthaginian or both. sent11: the dextrose is shockable and it is apothegmatic. sent12: if there exists something such that it is not an oscillation then the fact that the grind is not a soar and it is not a Chekhov does not hold. sent13: if the fact that the chrysoprase is staphylococcal a lowland does not hold it is not staphylococcal. sent14: if something is idiographic then it is locomotive. sent15: if the thecodont does not oblige or it is not a kind of a Carthaginian or both the dextrose is idiographic. sent16: the notepad is a Romulus that is not a radio if the polymastigote is not orthographic. sent17: the memsahib does canvass oculism and is pyretic. sent18: if something is not idiographic the fact that it is locomotive and is catapultic is not true. sent19: if that there is something such that that it is not a lowland is not false is not incorrect that the fact that the chrysoprase is staphylococcal and it is a kind of a lowland is not incorrect does not hold. sent20: if the devilfish choruses but it is not a polypeptide then the discard does not choruses. sent21: something is catapultic if it is apothegmatic. sent22: the thecodont is apothegmatic if something is shockable. ; $proof$ =
sent15 & sent4 -> int1: the dextrose is idiographic.; sent14 -> int2: if the dextrose is idiographic it is a locomotive.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the dextrose is locomotive.; sent21 -> int4: if the dextrose is apothegmatic then it is catapultic.; sent11 -> int5: the dextrose is apothegmatic.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the dextrose is catapultic.; int3 & int6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
DeductionInstance
if the thecodont does not oblige or it is not a kind of a Carthaginian or both the dextrose is idiographic.
[ "the thecodont does not oblige or it is not Carthaginian or both.", "if something is idiographic then it is locomotive.", "something is catapultic if it is apothegmatic.", "the dextrose is shockable and it is apothegmatic." ]
[ "Either the thecodont does not oblige or it is not a kind of Carthaginian.", "If the thecodont doesn't oblige, it is either a Carthaginian or idiographic.", "If the thecodont doesn't oblige or it isn't a kind of Carthaginian, the dextrose is idiographic.", "If the thecodont does not oblige or it is not a kind of Carthaginian, the dextrose is idiographic." ]
If the thecodont doesn't oblige, it is either a Carthaginian or idiographic.
if something is idiographic then it is locomotive.
the dextrose is locomotive and catapultic.
sent1: if the memsahib does canvass oculism and it is pyretic it is not an oscillation. sent2: there is something such that it is shockable. sent3: the polymastigote is not orthographic if the fact that the grind is not a soar and not a Chekhov does not hold. sent4: the thecodont does not oblige or it is not Carthaginian or both. sent5: the thickhead is a kind of a Ana and does not rush devilfish if it does not ambulate. sent6: if there exists something such that it is not a chorus then the thecodont is not shockable. sent7: that the thickhead is a lowland is not true if it is a Ana and does not rush devilfish. sent8: the thickhead does not ambulate if the notepad is a Romulus but it is not a radio. sent9: if something is not staphylococcal then the devilfish choruses but it is not a polypeptide. sent10: the thecodont does oblige or is not a Carthaginian or both. sent11: the dextrose is shockable and it is apothegmatic. sent12: if there exists something such that it is not an oscillation then the fact that the grind is not a soar and it is not a Chekhov does not hold. sent13: if the fact that the chrysoprase is staphylococcal a lowland does not hold it is not staphylococcal. sent14: if something is idiographic then it is locomotive. sent15: if the thecodont does not oblige or it is not a kind of a Carthaginian or both the dextrose is idiographic. sent16: the notepad is a Romulus that is not a radio if the polymastigote is not orthographic. sent17: the memsahib does canvass oculism and is pyretic. sent18: if something is not idiographic the fact that it is locomotive and is catapultic is not true. sent19: if that there is something such that that it is not a lowland is not false is not incorrect that the fact that the chrysoprase is staphylococcal and it is a kind of a lowland is not incorrect does not hold. sent20: if the devilfish choruses but it is not a polypeptide then the discard does not choruses. sent21: something is catapultic if it is apothegmatic. sent22: the thecodont is apothegmatic if something is shockable.
({A}{b} & {C}{b})
sent1: ({S}{j} & {T}{j}) -> ¬{R}{j} sent2: (Ex): {E}x sent3: ¬(¬{Q}{i} & ¬{P}{i}) -> ¬{O}{h} sent4: (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent5: ¬{L}{f} -> ({K}{f} & ¬{I}{f}) sent6: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬{E}{a} sent7: ({K}{f} & ¬{I}{f}) -> ¬{J}{f} sent8: ({M}{g} & ¬{N}{g}) -> ¬{L}{f} sent9: (x): ¬{H}x -> ({F}{d} & ¬{G}{d}) sent10: ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent11: ({E}{b} & {D}{b}) sent12: (x): ¬{R}x -> ¬(¬{Q}{i} & ¬{P}{i}) sent13: ¬({H}{e} & {J}{e}) -> ¬{H}{e} sent14: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent15: (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent16: ¬{O}{h} -> ({M}{g} & ¬{N}{g}) sent17: ({S}{j} & {T}{j}) sent18: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({A}x & {C}x) sent19: (x): ¬{J}x -> ¬({H}{e} & {J}{e}) sent20: ({F}{d} & ¬{G}{d}) -> ¬{F}{c} sent21: (x): {D}x -> {C}x sent22: (x): {E}x -> {D}{a}
[ "sent15 & sent4 -> int1: the dextrose is idiographic.; sent14 -> int2: if the dextrose is idiographic it is a locomotive.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the dextrose is locomotive.; sent21 -> int4: if the dextrose is apothegmatic then it is catapultic.; sent11 -> int5: the dextrose is apothegmatic.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the dextrose is catapultic.; int3 & int6 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
[ "sent15 & sent4 -> int1: {B}{b}; sent14 -> int2: {B}{b} -> {A}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {A}{b}; sent21 -> int4: {D}{b} -> {C}{b}; sent11 -> int5: {D}{b}; int4 & int5 -> int6: {C}{b}; int3 & int6 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
3
3
17
0
17
the dextrose is cannibalistic and it is a kind of a externalization.
({HD}{b} & {AH}{b})
5
[ "sent2 & sent22 -> int7: the thecodont is apothegmatic.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the dextrose is locomotive and catapultic. ; $context$ = sent1: if the memsahib does canvass oculism and it is pyretic it is not an oscillation. sent2: there is something such that it is shockable. sent3: the polymastigote is not orthographic if the fact that the grind is not a soar and not a Chekhov does not hold. sent4: the thecodont does not oblige or it is not Carthaginian or both. sent5: the thickhead is a kind of a Ana and does not rush devilfish if it does not ambulate. sent6: if there exists something such that it is not a chorus then the thecodont is not shockable. sent7: that the thickhead is a lowland is not true if it is a Ana and does not rush devilfish. sent8: the thickhead does not ambulate if the notepad is a Romulus but it is not a radio. sent9: if something is not staphylococcal then the devilfish choruses but it is not a polypeptide. sent10: the thecodont does oblige or is not a Carthaginian or both. sent11: the dextrose is shockable and it is apothegmatic. sent12: if there exists something such that it is not an oscillation then the fact that the grind is not a soar and it is not a Chekhov does not hold. sent13: if the fact that the chrysoprase is staphylococcal a lowland does not hold it is not staphylococcal. sent14: if something is idiographic then it is locomotive. sent15: if the thecodont does not oblige or it is not a kind of a Carthaginian or both the dextrose is idiographic. sent16: the notepad is a Romulus that is not a radio if the polymastigote is not orthographic. sent17: the memsahib does canvass oculism and is pyretic. sent18: if something is not idiographic the fact that it is locomotive and is catapultic is not true. sent19: if that there is something such that that it is not a lowland is not false is not incorrect that the fact that the chrysoprase is staphylococcal and it is a kind of a lowland is not incorrect does not hold. sent20: if the devilfish choruses but it is not a polypeptide then the discard does not choruses. sent21: something is catapultic if it is apothegmatic. sent22: the thecodont is apothegmatic if something is shockable. ; $proof$ =
sent15 & sent4 -> int1: the dextrose is idiographic.; sent14 -> int2: if the dextrose is idiographic it is a locomotive.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the dextrose is locomotive.; sent21 -> int4: if the dextrose is apothegmatic then it is catapultic.; sent11 -> int5: the dextrose is apothegmatic.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the dextrose is catapultic.; int3 & int6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
DeductionInstance
if the thecodont does not oblige or it is not a kind of a Carthaginian or both the dextrose is idiographic.
[ "the thecodont does not oblige or it is not Carthaginian or both.", "if something is idiographic then it is locomotive.", "something is catapultic if it is apothegmatic.", "the dextrose is shockable and it is apothegmatic." ]
[ "Either the thecodont does not oblige or it is not a kind of Carthaginian.", "If the thecodont doesn't oblige, it is either a Carthaginian or idiographic.", "If the thecodont doesn't oblige or it isn't a kind of Carthaginian, the dextrose is idiographic.", "If the thecodont does not oblige or it is not a kind of Carthaginian, the dextrose is idiographic." ]
If the thecodont doesn't oblige or it isn't a kind of Carthaginian, the dextrose is idiographic.
something is catapultic if it is apothegmatic.
the dextrose is locomotive and catapultic.
sent1: if the memsahib does canvass oculism and it is pyretic it is not an oscillation. sent2: there is something such that it is shockable. sent3: the polymastigote is not orthographic if the fact that the grind is not a soar and not a Chekhov does not hold. sent4: the thecodont does not oblige or it is not Carthaginian or both. sent5: the thickhead is a kind of a Ana and does not rush devilfish if it does not ambulate. sent6: if there exists something such that it is not a chorus then the thecodont is not shockable. sent7: that the thickhead is a lowland is not true if it is a Ana and does not rush devilfish. sent8: the thickhead does not ambulate if the notepad is a Romulus but it is not a radio. sent9: if something is not staphylococcal then the devilfish choruses but it is not a polypeptide. sent10: the thecodont does oblige or is not a Carthaginian or both. sent11: the dextrose is shockable and it is apothegmatic. sent12: if there exists something such that it is not an oscillation then the fact that the grind is not a soar and it is not a Chekhov does not hold. sent13: if the fact that the chrysoprase is staphylococcal a lowland does not hold it is not staphylococcal. sent14: if something is idiographic then it is locomotive. sent15: if the thecodont does not oblige or it is not a kind of a Carthaginian or both the dextrose is idiographic. sent16: the notepad is a Romulus that is not a radio if the polymastigote is not orthographic. sent17: the memsahib does canvass oculism and is pyretic. sent18: if something is not idiographic the fact that it is locomotive and is catapultic is not true. sent19: if that there is something such that that it is not a lowland is not false is not incorrect that the fact that the chrysoprase is staphylococcal and it is a kind of a lowland is not incorrect does not hold. sent20: if the devilfish choruses but it is not a polypeptide then the discard does not choruses. sent21: something is catapultic if it is apothegmatic. sent22: the thecodont is apothegmatic if something is shockable.
({A}{b} & {C}{b})
sent1: ({S}{j} & {T}{j}) -> ¬{R}{j} sent2: (Ex): {E}x sent3: ¬(¬{Q}{i} & ¬{P}{i}) -> ¬{O}{h} sent4: (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent5: ¬{L}{f} -> ({K}{f} & ¬{I}{f}) sent6: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬{E}{a} sent7: ({K}{f} & ¬{I}{f}) -> ¬{J}{f} sent8: ({M}{g} & ¬{N}{g}) -> ¬{L}{f} sent9: (x): ¬{H}x -> ({F}{d} & ¬{G}{d}) sent10: ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent11: ({E}{b} & {D}{b}) sent12: (x): ¬{R}x -> ¬(¬{Q}{i} & ¬{P}{i}) sent13: ¬({H}{e} & {J}{e}) -> ¬{H}{e} sent14: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent15: (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent16: ¬{O}{h} -> ({M}{g} & ¬{N}{g}) sent17: ({S}{j} & {T}{j}) sent18: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({A}x & {C}x) sent19: (x): ¬{J}x -> ¬({H}{e} & {J}{e}) sent20: ({F}{d} & ¬{G}{d}) -> ¬{F}{c} sent21: (x): {D}x -> {C}x sent22: (x): {E}x -> {D}{a}
[ "sent15 & sent4 -> int1: the dextrose is idiographic.; sent14 -> int2: if the dextrose is idiographic it is a locomotive.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the dextrose is locomotive.; sent21 -> int4: if the dextrose is apothegmatic then it is catapultic.; sent11 -> int5: the dextrose is apothegmatic.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the dextrose is catapultic.; int3 & int6 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
[ "sent15 & sent4 -> int1: {B}{b}; sent14 -> int2: {B}{b} -> {A}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {A}{b}; sent21 -> int4: {D}{b} -> {C}{b}; sent11 -> int5: {D}{b}; int4 & int5 -> int6: {C}{b}; int3 & int6 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
3
3
17
0
17
the dextrose is cannibalistic and it is a kind of a externalization.
({HD}{b} & {AH}{b})
5
[ "sent2 & sent22 -> int7: the thecodont is apothegmatic.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the dextrose is locomotive and catapultic. ; $context$ = sent1: if the memsahib does canvass oculism and it is pyretic it is not an oscillation. sent2: there is something such that it is shockable. sent3: the polymastigote is not orthographic if the fact that the grind is not a soar and not a Chekhov does not hold. sent4: the thecodont does not oblige or it is not Carthaginian or both. sent5: the thickhead is a kind of a Ana and does not rush devilfish if it does not ambulate. sent6: if there exists something such that it is not a chorus then the thecodont is not shockable. sent7: that the thickhead is a lowland is not true if it is a Ana and does not rush devilfish. sent8: the thickhead does not ambulate if the notepad is a Romulus but it is not a radio. sent9: if something is not staphylococcal then the devilfish choruses but it is not a polypeptide. sent10: the thecodont does oblige or is not a Carthaginian or both. sent11: the dextrose is shockable and it is apothegmatic. sent12: if there exists something such that it is not an oscillation then the fact that the grind is not a soar and it is not a Chekhov does not hold. sent13: if the fact that the chrysoprase is staphylococcal a lowland does not hold it is not staphylococcal. sent14: if something is idiographic then it is locomotive. sent15: if the thecodont does not oblige or it is not a kind of a Carthaginian or both the dextrose is idiographic. sent16: the notepad is a Romulus that is not a radio if the polymastigote is not orthographic. sent17: the memsahib does canvass oculism and is pyretic. sent18: if something is not idiographic the fact that it is locomotive and is catapultic is not true. sent19: if that there is something such that that it is not a lowland is not false is not incorrect that the fact that the chrysoprase is staphylococcal and it is a kind of a lowland is not incorrect does not hold. sent20: if the devilfish choruses but it is not a polypeptide then the discard does not choruses. sent21: something is catapultic if it is apothegmatic. sent22: the thecodont is apothegmatic if something is shockable. ; $proof$ =
sent15 & sent4 -> int1: the dextrose is idiographic.; sent14 -> int2: if the dextrose is idiographic it is a locomotive.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the dextrose is locomotive.; sent21 -> int4: if the dextrose is apothegmatic then it is catapultic.; sent11 -> int5: the dextrose is apothegmatic.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the dextrose is catapultic.; int3 & int6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
DeductionInstance
if the thecodont does not oblige or it is not a kind of a Carthaginian or both the dextrose is idiographic.
[ "the thecodont does not oblige or it is not Carthaginian or both.", "if something is idiographic then it is locomotive.", "something is catapultic if it is apothegmatic.", "the dextrose is shockable and it is apothegmatic." ]
[ "Either the thecodont does not oblige or it is not a kind of Carthaginian.", "If the thecodont doesn't oblige, it is either a Carthaginian or idiographic.", "If the thecodont doesn't oblige or it isn't a kind of Carthaginian, the dextrose is idiographic.", "If the thecodont does not oblige or it is not a kind of Carthaginian, the dextrose is idiographic." ]
If the thecodont does not oblige or it is not a kind of Carthaginian, the dextrose is idiographic.
the dextrose is shockable and it is apothegmatic.
the fact that the lifeblood noses benzodiazepine and is umbelliferous is not correct.
sent1: if the osmium does not rush incision the fact that it is typographic and noses roughage is false. sent2: that the lifeblood is non-umbelliferous and non-off does not hold. sent3: if that something is not umbelliferous and it is not off is wrong it is umbelliferous. sent4: if the photometer is sacerdotal then it is a protactinium. sent5: the osmium does not rush incision and is not insignificant. sent6: if the lifeblood is extragalactic then it does nose benzodiazepine. sent7: there exists something such that it is Modern and it is not a kind of a avaram. sent8: if something is Modern and not a avaram then the lifeblood is extragalactic. sent9: that the Modicon does not nose benzodiazepine if there exists something such that that it is not extragalactic or is off or both does not hold is correct. sent10: that something is not extragalactic and/or it is off is wrong if it is a Sibelius. sent11: the benzodiazepine is a Sibelius if there exists something such that that it is typographic and it noses roughage does not hold.
¬({B}{a} & {C}{a})
sent1: ¬{H}{d} -> ¬({F}{d} & {G}{d}) sent2: ¬(¬{C}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent3: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{D}x) -> {C}x sent4: {IE}{jb} -> {AH}{jb} sent5: (¬{H}{d} & ¬{I}{d}) sent6: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent7: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent8: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent9: (x): ¬(¬{A}x v {D}x) -> ¬{B}{b} sent10: (x): {E}x -> ¬(¬{A}x v {D}x) sent11: (x): ¬({F}x & {G}x) -> {E}{c}
[ "sent7 & sent8 -> int1: the lifeblood is extragalactic.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the lifeblood noses benzodiazepine.; sent3 -> int3: if the fact that the lifeblood is non-umbelliferous and is not off is wrong then it is non-umbelliferous.; int3 & sent2 -> int4: the lifeblood is umbelliferous.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
[ "sent7 & sent8 -> int1: {A}{a}; int1 & sent6 -> int2: {B}{a}; sent3 -> int3: ¬(¬{C}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) -> {C}{a}; int3 & sent2 -> int4: {C}{a}; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
3
3
6
0
6
that the lifeblood noses benzodiazepine and is umbelliferous is not correct.
¬({B}{a} & {C}{a})
9
[ "sent10 -> int5: the fact that the benzodiazepine is not extragalactic or it is off or both does not hold if it is a Sibelius.; sent5 -> int6: the osmium does not rush incision.; sent1 & int6 -> int7: that the osmium is typographic and it does nose roughage is not true.; int7 -> int8: there exists something such that the fact that it is typographic and it noses roughage is wrong.; int8 & sent11 -> int9: the benzodiazepine is a Sibelius.; int5 & int9 -> int10: the fact that the benzodiazepine is not extragalactic and/or it is off is false.; int10 -> int11: there exists something such that that it is not extragalactic or it is off or both is not correct.; int11 & sent9 -> int12: the Modicon does not nose benzodiazepine.; int12 -> int13: there is something such that it does not nose benzodiazepine.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the lifeblood noses benzodiazepine and is umbelliferous is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the osmium does not rush incision the fact that it is typographic and noses roughage is false. sent2: that the lifeblood is non-umbelliferous and non-off does not hold. sent3: if that something is not umbelliferous and it is not off is wrong it is umbelliferous. sent4: if the photometer is sacerdotal then it is a protactinium. sent5: the osmium does not rush incision and is not insignificant. sent6: if the lifeblood is extragalactic then it does nose benzodiazepine. sent7: there exists something such that it is Modern and it is not a kind of a avaram. sent8: if something is Modern and not a avaram then the lifeblood is extragalactic. sent9: that the Modicon does not nose benzodiazepine if there exists something such that that it is not extragalactic or is off or both does not hold is correct. sent10: that something is not extragalactic and/or it is off is wrong if it is a Sibelius. sent11: the benzodiazepine is a Sibelius if there exists something such that that it is typographic and it noses roughage does not hold. ; $proof$ =
sent7 & sent8 -> int1: the lifeblood is extragalactic.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the lifeblood noses benzodiazepine.; sent3 -> int3: if the fact that the lifeblood is non-umbelliferous and is not off is wrong then it is non-umbelliferous.; int3 & sent2 -> int4: the lifeblood is umbelliferous.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
DeductionInstance
there exists something such that it is Modern and it is not a kind of a avaram.
[ "if something is Modern and not a avaram then the lifeblood is extragalactic.", "if the lifeblood is extragalactic then it does nose benzodiazepine.", "if that something is not umbelliferous and it is not off is wrong it is umbelliferous.", "that the lifeblood is non-umbelliferous and non-off does not hold." ]
[ "Modern is not a kind of avaram.", "Modern is not a type of avaram.", "There is something called Modern that is not a kind of avaram.", "Modern isn't a kind of avaram." ]
Modern is not a kind of avaram.
if something is Modern and not a avaram then the lifeblood is extragalactic.
the fact that the lifeblood noses benzodiazepine and is umbelliferous is not correct.
sent1: if the osmium does not rush incision the fact that it is typographic and noses roughage is false. sent2: that the lifeblood is non-umbelliferous and non-off does not hold. sent3: if that something is not umbelliferous and it is not off is wrong it is umbelliferous. sent4: if the photometer is sacerdotal then it is a protactinium. sent5: the osmium does not rush incision and is not insignificant. sent6: if the lifeblood is extragalactic then it does nose benzodiazepine. sent7: there exists something such that it is Modern and it is not a kind of a avaram. sent8: if something is Modern and not a avaram then the lifeblood is extragalactic. sent9: that the Modicon does not nose benzodiazepine if there exists something such that that it is not extragalactic or is off or both does not hold is correct. sent10: that something is not extragalactic and/or it is off is wrong if it is a Sibelius. sent11: the benzodiazepine is a Sibelius if there exists something such that that it is typographic and it noses roughage does not hold.
¬({B}{a} & {C}{a})
sent1: ¬{H}{d} -> ¬({F}{d} & {G}{d}) sent2: ¬(¬{C}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent3: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{D}x) -> {C}x sent4: {IE}{jb} -> {AH}{jb} sent5: (¬{H}{d} & ¬{I}{d}) sent6: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent7: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent8: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent9: (x): ¬(¬{A}x v {D}x) -> ¬{B}{b} sent10: (x): {E}x -> ¬(¬{A}x v {D}x) sent11: (x): ¬({F}x & {G}x) -> {E}{c}
[ "sent7 & sent8 -> int1: the lifeblood is extragalactic.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the lifeblood noses benzodiazepine.; sent3 -> int3: if the fact that the lifeblood is non-umbelliferous and is not off is wrong then it is non-umbelliferous.; int3 & sent2 -> int4: the lifeblood is umbelliferous.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
[ "sent7 & sent8 -> int1: {A}{a}; int1 & sent6 -> int2: {B}{a}; sent3 -> int3: ¬(¬{C}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) -> {C}{a}; int3 & sent2 -> int4: {C}{a}; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
3
3
6
0
6
that the lifeblood noses benzodiazepine and is umbelliferous is not correct.
¬({B}{a} & {C}{a})
9
[ "sent10 -> int5: the fact that the benzodiazepine is not extragalactic or it is off or both does not hold if it is a Sibelius.; sent5 -> int6: the osmium does not rush incision.; sent1 & int6 -> int7: that the osmium is typographic and it does nose roughage is not true.; int7 -> int8: there exists something such that the fact that it is typographic and it noses roughage is wrong.; int8 & sent11 -> int9: the benzodiazepine is a Sibelius.; int5 & int9 -> int10: the fact that the benzodiazepine is not extragalactic and/or it is off is false.; int10 -> int11: there exists something such that that it is not extragalactic or it is off or both is not correct.; int11 & sent9 -> int12: the Modicon does not nose benzodiazepine.; int12 -> int13: there is something such that it does not nose benzodiazepine.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the lifeblood noses benzodiazepine and is umbelliferous is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the osmium does not rush incision the fact that it is typographic and noses roughage is false. sent2: that the lifeblood is non-umbelliferous and non-off does not hold. sent3: if that something is not umbelliferous and it is not off is wrong it is umbelliferous. sent4: if the photometer is sacerdotal then it is a protactinium. sent5: the osmium does not rush incision and is not insignificant. sent6: if the lifeblood is extragalactic then it does nose benzodiazepine. sent7: there exists something such that it is Modern and it is not a kind of a avaram. sent8: if something is Modern and not a avaram then the lifeblood is extragalactic. sent9: that the Modicon does not nose benzodiazepine if there exists something such that that it is not extragalactic or is off or both does not hold is correct. sent10: that something is not extragalactic and/or it is off is wrong if it is a Sibelius. sent11: the benzodiazepine is a Sibelius if there exists something such that that it is typographic and it noses roughage does not hold. ; $proof$ =
sent7 & sent8 -> int1: the lifeblood is extragalactic.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the lifeblood noses benzodiazepine.; sent3 -> int3: if the fact that the lifeblood is non-umbelliferous and is not off is wrong then it is non-umbelliferous.; int3 & sent2 -> int4: the lifeblood is umbelliferous.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
DeductionInstance
there exists something such that it is Modern and it is not a kind of a avaram.
[ "if something is Modern and not a avaram then the lifeblood is extragalactic.", "if the lifeblood is extragalactic then it does nose benzodiazepine.", "if that something is not umbelliferous and it is not off is wrong it is umbelliferous.", "that the lifeblood is non-umbelliferous and non-off does not hold." ]
[ "Modern is not a kind of avaram.", "Modern is not a type of avaram.", "There is something called Modern that is not a kind of avaram.", "Modern isn't a kind of avaram." ]
Modern is not a type of avaram.
if the lifeblood is extragalactic then it does nose benzodiazepine.
the fact that the lifeblood noses benzodiazepine and is umbelliferous is not correct.
sent1: if the osmium does not rush incision the fact that it is typographic and noses roughage is false. sent2: that the lifeblood is non-umbelliferous and non-off does not hold. sent3: if that something is not umbelliferous and it is not off is wrong it is umbelliferous. sent4: if the photometer is sacerdotal then it is a protactinium. sent5: the osmium does not rush incision and is not insignificant. sent6: if the lifeblood is extragalactic then it does nose benzodiazepine. sent7: there exists something such that it is Modern and it is not a kind of a avaram. sent8: if something is Modern and not a avaram then the lifeblood is extragalactic. sent9: that the Modicon does not nose benzodiazepine if there exists something such that that it is not extragalactic or is off or both does not hold is correct. sent10: that something is not extragalactic and/or it is off is wrong if it is a Sibelius. sent11: the benzodiazepine is a Sibelius if there exists something such that that it is typographic and it noses roughage does not hold.
¬({B}{a} & {C}{a})
sent1: ¬{H}{d} -> ¬({F}{d} & {G}{d}) sent2: ¬(¬{C}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent3: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{D}x) -> {C}x sent4: {IE}{jb} -> {AH}{jb} sent5: (¬{H}{d} & ¬{I}{d}) sent6: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent7: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent8: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent9: (x): ¬(¬{A}x v {D}x) -> ¬{B}{b} sent10: (x): {E}x -> ¬(¬{A}x v {D}x) sent11: (x): ¬({F}x & {G}x) -> {E}{c}
[ "sent7 & sent8 -> int1: the lifeblood is extragalactic.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the lifeblood noses benzodiazepine.; sent3 -> int3: if the fact that the lifeblood is non-umbelliferous and is not off is wrong then it is non-umbelliferous.; int3 & sent2 -> int4: the lifeblood is umbelliferous.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
[ "sent7 & sent8 -> int1: {A}{a}; int1 & sent6 -> int2: {B}{a}; sent3 -> int3: ¬(¬{C}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) -> {C}{a}; int3 & sent2 -> int4: {C}{a}; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
3
3
6
0
6
that the lifeblood noses benzodiazepine and is umbelliferous is not correct.
¬({B}{a} & {C}{a})
9
[ "sent10 -> int5: the fact that the benzodiazepine is not extragalactic or it is off or both does not hold if it is a Sibelius.; sent5 -> int6: the osmium does not rush incision.; sent1 & int6 -> int7: that the osmium is typographic and it does nose roughage is not true.; int7 -> int8: there exists something such that the fact that it is typographic and it noses roughage is wrong.; int8 & sent11 -> int9: the benzodiazepine is a Sibelius.; int5 & int9 -> int10: the fact that the benzodiazepine is not extragalactic and/or it is off is false.; int10 -> int11: there exists something such that that it is not extragalactic or it is off or both is not correct.; int11 & sent9 -> int12: the Modicon does not nose benzodiazepine.; int12 -> int13: there is something such that it does not nose benzodiazepine.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the lifeblood noses benzodiazepine and is umbelliferous is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the osmium does not rush incision the fact that it is typographic and noses roughage is false. sent2: that the lifeblood is non-umbelliferous and non-off does not hold. sent3: if that something is not umbelliferous and it is not off is wrong it is umbelliferous. sent4: if the photometer is sacerdotal then it is a protactinium. sent5: the osmium does not rush incision and is not insignificant. sent6: if the lifeblood is extragalactic then it does nose benzodiazepine. sent7: there exists something such that it is Modern and it is not a kind of a avaram. sent8: if something is Modern and not a avaram then the lifeblood is extragalactic. sent9: that the Modicon does not nose benzodiazepine if there exists something such that that it is not extragalactic or is off or both does not hold is correct. sent10: that something is not extragalactic and/or it is off is wrong if it is a Sibelius. sent11: the benzodiazepine is a Sibelius if there exists something such that that it is typographic and it noses roughage does not hold. ; $proof$ =
sent7 & sent8 -> int1: the lifeblood is extragalactic.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the lifeblood noses benzodiazepine.; sent3 -> int3: if the fact that the lifeblood is non-umbelliferous and is not off is wrong then it is non-umbelliferous.; int3 & sent2 -> int4: the lifeblood is umbelliferous.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
DeductionInstance
there exists something such that it is Modern and it is not a kind of a avaram.
[ "if something is Modern and not a avaram then the lifeblood is extragalactic.", "if the lifeblood is extragalactic then it does nose benzodiazepine.", "if that something is not umbelliferous and it is not off is wrong it is umbelliferous.", "that the lifeblood is non-umbelliferous and non-off does not hold." ]
[ "Modern is not a kind of avaram.", "Modern is not a type of avaram.", "There is something called Modern that is not a kind of avaram.", "Modern isn't a kind of avaram." ]
There is something called Modern that is not a kind of avaram.
if that something is not umbelliferous and it is not off is wrong it is umbelliferous.
the fact that the lifeblood noses benzodiazepine and is umbelliferous is not correct.
sent1: if the osmium does not rush incision the fact that it is typographic and noses roughage is false. sent2: that the lifeblood is non-umbelliferous and non-off does not hold. sent3: if that something is not umbelliferous and it is not off is wrong it is umbelliferous. sent4: if the photometer is sacerdotal then it is a protactinium. sent5: the osmium does not rush incision and is not insignificant. sent6: if the lifeblood is extragalactic then it does nose benzodiazepine. sent7: there exists something such that it is Modern and it is not a kind of a avaram. sent8: if something is Modern and not a avaram then the lifeblood is extragalactic. sent9: that the Modicon does not nose benzodiazepine if there exists something such that that it is not extragalactic or is off or both does not hold is correct. sent10: that something is not extragalactic and/or it is off is wrong if it is a Sibelius. sent11: the benzodiazepine is a Sibelius if there exists something such that that it is typographic and it noses roughage does not hold.
¬({B}{a} & {C}{a})
sent1: ¬{H}{d} -> ¬({F}{d} & {G}{d}) sent2: ¬(¬{C}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent3: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{D}x) -> {C}x sent4: {IE}{jb} -> {AH}{jb} sent5: (¬{H}{d} & ¬{I}{d}) sent6: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent7: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent8: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent9: (x): ¬(¬{A}x v {D}x) -> ¬{B}{b} sent10: (x): {E}x -> ¬(¬{A}x v {D}x) sent11: (x): ¬({F}x & {G}x) -> {E}{c}
[ "sent7 & sent8 -> int1: the lifeblood is extragalactic.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the lifeblood noses benzodiazepine.; sent3 -> int3: if the fact that the lifeblood is non-umbelliferous and is not off is wrong then it is non-umbelliferous.; int3 & sent2 -> int4: the lifeblood is umbelliferous.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
[ "sent7 & sent8 -> int1: {A}{a}; int1 & sent6 -> int2: {B}{a}; sent3 -> int3: ¬(¬{C}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) -> {C}{a}; int3 & sent2 -> int4: {C}{a}; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
3
3
6
0
6
that the lifeblood noses benzodiazepine and is umbelliferous is not correct.
¬({B}{a} & {C}{a})
9
[ "sent10 -> int5: the fact that the benzodiazepine is not extragalactic or it is off or both does not hold if it is a Sibelius.; sent5 -> int6: the osmium does not rush incision.; sent1 & int6 -> int7: that the osmium is typographic and it does nose roughage is not true.; int7 -> int8: there exists something such that the fact that it is typographic and it noses roughage is wrong.; int8 & sent11 -> int9: the benzodiazepine is a Sibelius.; int5 & int9 -> int10: the fact that the benzodiazepine is not extragalactic and/or it is off is false.; int10 -> int11: there exists something such that that it is not extragalactic or it is off or both is not correct.; int11 & sent9 -> int12: the Modicon does not nose benzodiazepine.; int12 -> int13: there is something such that it does not nose benzodiazepine.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the lifeblood noses benzodiazepine and is umbelliferous is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the osmium does not rush incision the fact that it is typographic and noses roughage is false. sent2: that the lifeblood is non-umbelliferous and non-off does not hold. sent3: if that something is not umbelliferous and it is not off is wrong it is umbelliferous. sent4: if the photometer is sacerdotal then it is a protactinium. sent5: the osmium does not rush incision and is not insignificant. sent6: if the lifeblood is extragalactic then it does nose benzodiazepine. sent7: there exists something such that it is Modern and it is not a kind of a avaram. sent8: if something is Modern and not a avaram then the lifeblood is extragalactic. sent9: that the Modicon does not nose benzodiazepine if there exists something such that that it is not extragalactic or is off or both does not hold is correct. sent10: that something is not extragalactic and/or it is off is wrong if it is a Sibelius. sent11: the benzodiazepine is a Sibelius if there exists something such that that it is typographic and it noses roughage does not hold. ; $proof$ =
sent7 & sent8 -> int1: the lifeblood is extragalactic.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the lifeblood noses benzodiazepine.; sent3 -> int3: if the fact that the lifeblood is non-umbelliferous and is not off is wrong then it is non-umbelliferous.; int3 & sent2 -> int4: the lifeblood is umbelliferous.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
DeductionInstance
there exists something such that it is Modern and it is not a kind of a avaram.
[ "if something is Modern and not a avaram then the lifeblood is extragalactic.", "if the lifeblood is extragalactic then it does nose benzodiazepine.", "if that something is not umbelliferous and it is not off is wrong it is umbelliferous.", "that the lifeblood is non-umbelliferous and non-off does not hold." ]
[ "Modern is not a kind of avaram.", "Modern is not a type of avaram.", "There is something called Modern that is not a kind of avaram.", "Modern isn't a kind of avaram." ]
Modern isn't a kind of avaram.
that the lifeblood is non-umbelliferous and non-off does not hold.
the bodega is a Cheiranthus.
sent1: if the bodega is a Cheiranthus then it is a kind of a etagere. sent2: a non-inharmonious thing is a Cheiranthus that is a kind of a etagere. sent3: the bodega is inharmonious or is introversive or both. sent4: either the bodega is not inharmonious or it is introversive or both. sent5: if the Heller is inharmonious then it is a kind of a rehearsal. sent6: the bodega is not a etagere if it either is not inharmonious or is introversive or both. sent7: if the landlady is not secondary the midazolam is both a bargello and not lean. sent8: that the landlady is non-ankylotic is not wrong if the astrogator is not a kind of an absinthe and it is not non-ankylotic. sent9: something is not a secondary if the fact that it is not ankylotic is not wrong. sent10: if that the barley does canvass Pahlavi and is not a kind of a isometry is incorrect then the astrogator is not a isometry. sent11: the bodega is not lean. sent12: if the astrogator is not a isometry it is both not an absinthe and not ankylotic. sent13: if the bodega is not inharmonious it is not a etagere. sent14: that the fact that the fact that the barley does canvass Pahlavi and is not a kind of a isometry is true is wrong is correct. sent15: something is not inharmonious if that it is not lean but a bargello is not true. sent16: if the midazolam is not inharmonious then the bodega is a etagere and/or it is introversive.
{A}{a}
sent1: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent2: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({A}x & {B}x) sent3: ({D}{a} v {C}{a}) sent4: (¬{D}{a} v {C}{a}) sent5: {D}{gq} -> {ER}{gq} sent6: (¬{D}{a} v {C}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent7: ¬{G}{c} -> ({E}{b} & ¬{F}{b}) sent8: (¬{J}{d} & ¬{H}{d}) -> ¬{H}{c} sent9: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬{G}x sent10: ¬({L}{e} & ¬{I}{e}) -> ¬{I}{d} sent11: ¬{F}{a} sent12: ¬{I}{d} -> (¬{J}{d} & ¬{H}{d}) sent13: ¬{D}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent14: ¬({L}{e} & ¬{I}{e}) sent15: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & {E}x) -> ¬{D}x sent16: ¬{D}{b} -> ({B}{a} v {C}{a})
[ "void -> assump1: Let's assume that the bodega is a Cheiranthus.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the bodega is a kind of a etagere.; sent6 & sent4 -> int2: the bodega is not a kind of a etagere.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
[ "void -> assump1: {A}{a}; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent6 & sent4 -> int2: ¬{B}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
3
3
13
0
13
the gherkin is introversive.
{C}{dg}
10
[ "sent2 -> int4: the bodega is a kind of a Cheiranthus that is a etagere if it is not inharmonious.; sent9 -> int5: the fact that the landlady is not a secondary is correct if it is not ankylotic.; sent10 & sent14 -> int6: the astrogator is not a isometry.; sent12 & int6 -> int7: the astrogator is not an absinthe and it is not ankylotic.; sent8 & int7 -> int8: the landlady is not ankylotic.; int5 & int8 -> int9: the landlady is not a secondary.; sent7 & int9 -> int10: that the midazolam is both a bargello and not lean is correct.; int10 -> int11: something is a bargello and not lean.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the bodega is a Cheiranthus. ; $context$ = sent1: if the bodega is a Cheiranthus then it is a kind of a etagere. sent2: a non-inharmonious thing is a Cheiranthus that is a kind of a etagere. sent3: the bodega is inharmonious or is introversive or both. sent4: either the bodega is not inharmonious or it is introversive or both. sent5: if the Heller is inharmonious then it is a kind of a rehearsal. sent6: the bodega is not a etagere if it either is not inharmonious or is introversive or both. sent7: if the landlady is not secondary the midazolam is both a bargello and not lean. sent8: that the landlady is non-ankylotic is not wrong if the astrogator is not a kind of an absinthe and it is not non-ankylotic. sent9: something is not a secondary if the fact that it is not ankylotic is not wrong. sent10: if that the barley does canvass Pahlavi and is not a kind of a isometry is incorrect then the astrogator is not a isometry. sent11: the bodega is not lean. sent12: if the astrogator is not a isometry it is both not an absinthe and not ankylotic. sent13: if the bodega is not inharmonious it is not a etagere. sent14: that the fact that the fact that the barley does canvass Pahlavi and is not a kind of a isometry is true is wrong is correct. sent15: something is not inharmonious if that it is not lean but a bargello is not true. sent16: if the midazolam is not inharmonious then the bodega is a etagere and/or it is introversive. ; $proof$ =
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the bodega is a Cheiranthus.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the bodega is a kind of a etagere.; sent6 & sent4 -> int2: the bodega is not a kind of a etagere.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
DeductionInstance
if the bodega is a Cheiranthus then it is a kind of a etagere.
[ "the bodega is not a etagere if it either is not inharmonious or is introversive or both.", "either the bodega is not inharmonious or it is introversive or both." ]
[ "It is a kind of etagere if the bodega is a Cheiranthus.", "The bodega is a kind of etagere if it is a Cheiranthus." ]
It is a kind of etagere if the bodega is a Cheiranthus.
the bodega is not a etagere if it either is not inharmonious or is introversive or both.
the bodega is a Cheiranthus.
sent1: if the bodega is a Cheiranthus then it is a kind of a etagere. sent2: a non-inharmonious thing is a Cheiranthus that is a kind of a etagere. sent3: the bodega is inharmonious or is introversive or both. sent4: either the bodega is not inharmonious or it is introversive or both. sent5: if the Heller is inharmonious then it is a kind of a rehearsal. sent6: the bodega is not a etagere if it either is not inharmonious or is introversive or both. sent7: if the landlady is not secondary the midazolam is both a bargello and not lean. sent8: that the landlady is non-ankylotic is not wrong if the astrogator is not a kind of an absinthe and it is not non-ankylotic. sent9: something is not a secondary if the fact that it is not ankylotic is not wrong. sent10: if that the barley does canvass Pahlavi and is not a kind of a isometry is incorrect then the astrogator is not a isometry. sent11: the bodega is not lean. sent12: if the astrogator is not a isometry it is both not an absinthe and not ankylotic. sent13: if the bodega is not inharmonious it is not a etagere. sent14: that the fact that the fact that the barley does canvass Pahlavi and is not a kind of a isometry is true is wrong is correct. sent15: something is not inharmonious if that it is not lean but a bargello is not true. sent16: if the midazolam is not inharmonious then the bodega is a etagere and/or it is introversive.
{A}{a}
sent1: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent2: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({A}x & {B}x) sent3: ({D}{a} v {C}{a}) sent4: (¬{D}{a} v {C}{a}) sent5: {D}{gq} -> {ER}{gq} sent6: (¬{D}{a} v {C}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent7: ¬{G}{c} -> ({E}{b} & ¬{F}{b}) sent8: (¬{J}{d} & ¬{H}{d}) -> ¬{H}{c} sent9: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬{G}x sent10: ¬({L}{e} & ¬{I}{e}) -> ¬{I}{d} sent11: ¬{F}{a} sent12: ¬{I}{d} -> (¬{J}{d} & ¬{H}{d}) sent13: ¬{D}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent14: ¬({L}{e} & ¬{I}{e}) sent15: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & {E}x) -> ¬{D}x sent16: ¬{D}{b} -> ({B}{a} v {C}{a})
[ "void -> assump1: Let's assume that the bodega is a Cheiranthus.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the bodega is a kind of a etagere.; sent6 & sent4 -> int2: the bodega is not a kind of a etagere.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
[ "void -> assump1: {A}{a}; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent6 & sent4 -> int2: ¬{B}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
3
3
13
0
13
the gherkin is introversive.
{C}{dg}
10
[ "sent2 -> int4: the bodega is a kind of a Cheiranthus that is a etagere if it is not inharmonious.; sent9 -> int5: the fact that the landlady is not a secondary is correct if it is not ankylotic.; sent10 & sent14 -> int6: the astrogator is not a isometry.; sent12 & int6 -> int7: the astrogator is not an absinthe and it is not ankylotic.; sent8 & int7 -> int8: the landlady is not ankylotic.; int5 & int8 -> int9: the landlady is not a secondary.; sent7 & int9 -> int10: that the midazolam is both a bargello and not lean is correct.; int10 -> int11: something is a bargello and not lean.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the bodega is a Cheiranthus. ; $context$ = sent1: if the bodega is a Cheiranthus then it is a kind of a etagere. sent2: a non-inharmonious thing is a Cheiranthus that is a kind of a etagere. sent3: the bodega is inharmonious or is introversive or both. sent4: either the bodega is not inharmonious or it is introversive or both. sent5: if the Heller is inharmonious then it is a kind of a rehearsal. sent6: the bodega is not a etagere if it either is not inharmonious or is introversive or both. sent7: if the landlady is not secondary the midazolam is both a bargello and not lean. sent8: that the landlady is non-ankylotic is not wrong if the astrogator is not a kind of an absinthe and it is not non-ankylotic. sent9: something is not a secondary if the fact that it is not ankylotic is not wrong. sent10: if that the barley does canvass Pahlavi and is not a kind of a isometry is incorrect then the astrogator is not a isometry. sent11: the bodega is not lean. sent12: if the astrogator is not a isometry it is both not an absinthe and not ankylotic. sent13: if the bodega is not inharmonious it is not a etagere. sent14: that the fact that the fact that the barley does canvass Pahlavi and is not a kind of a isometry is true is wrong is correct. sent15: something is not inharmonious if that it is not lean but a bargello is not true. sent16: if the midazolam is not inharmonious then the bodega is a etagere and/or it is introversive. ; $proof$ =
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the bodega is a Cheiranthus.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the bodega is a kind of a etagere.; sent6 & sent4 -> int2: the bodega is not a kind of a etagere.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
DeductionInstance
if the bodega is a Cheiranthus then it is a kind of a etagere.
[ "the bodega is not a etagere if it either is not inharmonious or is introversive or both.", "either the bodega is not inharmonious or it is introversive or both." ]
[ "It is a kind of etagere if the bodega is a Cheiranthus.", "The bodega is a kind of etagere if it is a Cheiranthus." ]
The bodega is a kind of etagere if it is a Cheiranthus.
either the bodega is not inharmonious or it is introversive or both.
that the discordantness does not occur is not incorrect.
sent1: that the rushing main and the non-Hungarianness occurs is incorrect if the nosing fetterbush does not occur. sent2: the conceptualisticness and the Hungarian occurs. sent3: the Hungarianness happens. sent4: that the nosing femtometer does not occur is not incorrect. sent5: if the uplink occurs the FIFO happens. sent6: the regimentalness occurs. sent7: the non-discordantness is triggered by that both the conceptualisticness and the determinableness happens. sent8: the indistinguishableness is prevented by that the icing happens. sent9: the rushing scarf occurs. sent10: the nosing langley and the staphylococcalness occurs. sent11: if the fact that the rushing scarf occurs is true the determinableness occurs. sent12: that the breathlessness does not occur hold. sent13: if the conceptualisticness does not occur then that the determinableness but not the rushing scarf happens is wrong.
¬{D}
sent1: ¬{G} -> ¬({F} & ¬{E}) sent2: ({C} & {E}) sent3: {E} sent4: ¬{DN} sent5: {IJ} -> {JA} sent6: {R} sent7: ({C} & {B}) -> ¬{D} sent8: {GT} -> {AK} sent9: {A} sent10: ({CT} & {HH}) sent11: {A} -> {B} sent12: ¬{AG} sent13: ¬{C} -> ¬({B} & ¬{A})
[ "sent11 & sent9 -> int1: the determinableness occurs.; sent2 -> int2: the conceptualisticness happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the conceptualisticness and the determinableness occurs.; int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
[ "sent11 & sent9 -> int1: {B}; sent2 -> int2: {C}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({C} & {B}); int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
3
3
9
0
9
the discordantness occurs.
{D}
7
[]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = that the discordantness does not occur is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: that the rushing main and the non-Hungarianness occurs is incorrect if the nosing fetterbush does not occur. sent2: the conceptualisticness and the Hungarian occurs. sent3: the Hungarianness happens. sent4: that the nosing femtometer does not occur is not incorrect. sent5: if the uplink occurs the FIFO happens. sent6: the regimentalness occurs. sent7: the non-discordantness is triggered by that both the conceptualisticness and the determinableness happens. sent8: the indistinguishableness is prevented by that the icing happens. sent9: the rushing scarf occurs. sent10: the nosing langley and the staphylococcalness occurs. sent11: if the fact that the rushing scarf occurs is true the determinableness occurs. sent12: that the breathlessness does not occur hold. sent13: if the conceptualisticness does not occur then that the determinableness but not the rushing scarf happens is wrong. ; $proof$ =
sent11 & sent9 -> int1: the determinableness occurs.; sent2 -> int2: the conceptualisticness happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the conceptualisticness and the determinableness occurs.; int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
DeductionInstance
if the fact that the rushing scarf occurs is true the determinableness occurs.
[ "the rushing scarf occurs.", "the conceptualisticness and the Hungarian occurs.", "the non-discordantness is triggered by that both the conceptualisticness and the determinableness happens." ]
[ "The determinableness occurs if the rushing scarf is true.", "The determinableness occurs if the fact that the scarf is rushing is true.", "The determinableness occurs if the fact that the scarf is rushed is true." ]
The determinableness occurs if the rushing scarf is true.
the rushing scarf occurs.
that the discordantness does not occur is not incorrect.
sent1: that the rushing main and the non-Hungarianness occurs is incorrect if the nosing fetterbush does not occur. sent2: the conceptualisticness and the Hungarian occurs. sent3: the Hungarianness happens. sent4: that the nosing femtometer does not occur is not incorrect. sent5: if the uplink occurs the FIFO happens. sent6: the regimentalness occurs. sent7: the non-discordantness is triggered by that both the conceptualisticness and the determinableness happens. sent8: the indistinguishableness is prevented by that the icing happens. sent9: the rushing scarf occurs. sent10: the nosing langley and the staphylococcalness occurs. sent11: if the fact that the rushing scarf occurs is true the determinableness occurs. sent12: that the breathlessness does not occur hold. sent13: if the conceptualisticness does not occur then that the determinableness but not the rushing scarf happens is wrong.
¬{D}
sent1: ¬{G} -> ¬({F} & ¬{E}) sent2: ({C} & {E}) sent3: {E} sent4: ¬{DN} sent5: {IJ} -> {JA} sent6: {R} sent7: ({C} & {B}) -> ¬{D} sent8: {GT} -> {AK} sent9: {A} sent10: ({CT} & {HH}) sent11: {A} -> {B} sent12: ¬{AG} sent13: ¬{C} -> ¬({B} & ¬{A})
[ "sent11 & sent9 -> int1: the determinableness occurs.; sent2 -> int2: the conceptualisticness happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the conceptualisticness and the determinableness occurs.; int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
[ "sent11 & sent9 -> int1: {B}; sent2 -> int2: {C}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({C} & {B}); int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
3
3
9
0
9
the discordantness occurs.
{D}
7
[]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = that the discordantness does not occur is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: that the rushing main and the non-Hungarianness occurs is incorrect if the nosing fetterbush does not occur. sent2: the conceptualisticness and the Hungarian occurs. sent3: the Hungarianness happens. sent4: that the nosing femtometer does not occur is not incorrect. sent5: if the uplink occurs the FIFO happens. sent6: the regimentalness occurs. sent7: the non-discordantness is triggered by that both the conceptualisticness and the determinableness happens. sent8: the indistinguishableness is prevented by that the icing happens. sent9: the rushing scarf occurs. sent10: the nosing langley and the staphylococcalness occurs. sent11: if the fact that the rushing scarf occurs is true the determinableness occurs. sent12: that the breathlessness does not occur hold. sent13: if the conceptualisticness does not occur then that the determinableness but not the rushing scarf happens is wrong. ; $proof$ =
sent11 & sent9 -> int1: the determinableness occurs.; sent2 -> int2: the conceptualisticness happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the conceptualisticness and the determinableness occurs.; int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
DeductionInstance
if the fact that the rushing scarf occurs is true the determinableness occurs.
[ "the rushing scarf occurs.", "the conceptualisticness and the Hungarian occurs.", "the non-discordantness is triggered by that both the conceptualisticness and the determinableness happens." ]
[ "The determinableness occurs if the rushing scarf is true.", "The determinableness occurs if the fact that the scarf is rushing is true.", "The determinableness occurs if the fact that the scarf is rushed is true." ]
The determinableness occurs if the fact that the scarf is rushing is true.
the conceptualisticness and the Hungarian occurs.
that the discordantness does not occur is not incorrect.
sent1: that the rushing main and the non-Hungarianness occurs is incorrect if the nosing fetterbush does not occur. sent2: the conceptualisticness and the Hungarian occurs. sent3: the Hungarianness happens. sent4: that the nosing femtometer does not occur is not incorrect. sent5: if the uplink occurs the FIFO happens. sent6: the regimentalness occurs. sent7: the non-discordantness is triggered by that both the conceptualisticness and the determinableness happens. sent8: the indistinguishableness is prevented by that the icing happens. sent9: the rushing scarf occurs. sent10: the nosing langley and the staphylococcalness occurs. sent11: if the fact that the rushing scarf occurs is true the determinableness occurs. sent12: that the breathlessness does not occur hold. sent13: if the conceptualisticness does not occur then that the determinableness but not the rushing scarf happens is wrong.
¬{D}
sent1: ¬{G} -> ¬({F} & ¬{E}) sent2: ({C} & {E}) sent3: {E} sent4: ¬{DN} sent5: {IJ} -> {JA} sent6: {R} sent7: ({C} & {B}) -> ¬{D} sent8: {GT} -> {AK} sent9: {A} sent10: ({CT} & {HH}) sent11: {A} -> {B} sent12: ¬{AG} sent13: ¬{C} -> ¬({B} & ¬{A})
[ "sent11 & sent9 -> int1: the determinableness occurs.; sent2 -> int2: the conceptualisticness happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the conceptualisticness and the determinableness occurs.; int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
[ "sent11 & sent9 -> int1: {B}; sent2 -> int2: {C}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({C} & {B}); int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
3
3
9
0
9
the discordantness occurs.
{D}
7
[]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = that the discordantness does not occur is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: that the rushing main and the non-Hungarianness occurs is incorrect if the nosing fetterbush does not occur. sent2: the conceptualisticness and the Hungarian occurs. sent3: the Hungarianness happens. sent4: that the nosing femtometer does not occur is not incorrect. sent5: if the uplink occurs the FIFO happens. sent6: the regimentalness occurs. sent7: the non-discordantness is triggered by that both the conceptualisticness and the determinableness happens. sent8: the indistinguishableness is prevented by that the icing happens. sent9: the rushing scarf occurs. sent10: the nosing langley and the staphylococcalness occurs. sent11: if the fact that the rushing scarf occurs is true the determinableness occurs. sent12: that the breathlessness does not occur hold. sent13: if the conceptualisticness does not occur then that the determinableness but not the rushing scarf happens is wrong. ; $proof$ =
sent11 & sent9 -> int1: the determinableness occurs.; sent2 -> int2: the conceptualisticness happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the conceptualisticness and the determinableness occurs.; int3 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
DeductionInstance
if the fact that the rushing scarf occurs is true the determinableness occurs.
[ "the rushing scarf occurs.", "the conceptualisticness and the Hungarian occurs.", "the non-discordantness is triggered by that both the conceptualisticness and the determinableness happens." ]
[ "The determinableness occurs if the rushing scarf is true.", "The determinableness occurs if the fact that the scarf is rushing is true.", "The determinableness occurs if the fact that the scarf is rushed is true." ]
The determinableness occurs if the fact that the scarf is rushed is true.
the non-discordantness is triggered by that both the conceptualisticness and the determinableness happens.
that the internuncio noses Aspergillus hold.
sent1: if the Trinitarian does not rush ichthyolatry and does nose Brassia then the internuncio is not a kickstand. sent2: the Trinitarian is not narrowing. sent3: there exists something such that that it is a breechblock and it garners is incorrect. sent4: if there exists something such that it is not a breechblock then the internuncio does nose bullshot. sent5: something does not nose Aspergillus if that it noses bullshot and it is not a kickstand is right. sent6: that the internuncio noses bullshot is not false if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a breechblock and does garner does not hold. sent7: the Trinitarian does not rush ichthyolatry and does nose Brassia.
{C}{b}
sent1: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent2: ¬{GU}{a} sent3: (Ex): ¬({D}x & {E}x) sent4: (x): ¬{D}x -> {A}{b} sent5: (x): ({A}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{C}x sent6: (x): ¬({D}x & {E}x) -> {A}{b} sent7: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})
[ "sent1 & sent7 -> int1: the internuncio is not a kind of a kickstand.; sent3 & sent6 -> int2: the internuncio noses bullshot.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the internuncio does nose bullshot and is not a kickstand.; sent5 -> int4: if the internuncio does nose bullshot but it is not a kickstand it does not nose Aspergillus.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
[ "sent1 & sent7 -> int1: ¬{B}{b}; sent3 & sent6 -> int2: {A}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}); sent5 -> int4: ({A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> ¬{C}{b}; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
3
3
2
0
2
null
null
null
[]
null
null
$hypothesis$ = that the internuncio noses Aspergillus hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Trinitarian does not rush ichthyolatry and does nose Brassia then the internuncio is not a kickstand. sent2: the Trinitarian is not narrowing. sent3: there exists something such that that it is a breechblock and it garners is incorrect. sent4: if there exists something such that it is not a breechblock then the internuncio does nose bullshot. sent5: something does not nose Aspergillus if that it noses bullshot and it is not a kickstand is right. sent6: that the internuncio noses bullshot is not false if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a breechblock and does garner does not hold. sent7: the Trinitarian does not rush ichthyolatry and does nose Brassia. ; $proof$ =
sent1 & sent7 -> int1: the internuncio is not a kind of a kickstand.; sent3 & sent6 -> int2: the internuncio noses bullshot.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the internuncio does nose bullshot and is not a kickstand.; sent5 -> int4: if the internuncio does nose bullshot but it is not a kickstand it does not nose Aspergillus.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
DeductionInstance
if the Trinitarian does not rush ichthyolatry and does nose Brassia then the internuncio is not a kickstand.
[ "the Trinitarian does not rush ichthyolatry and does nose Brassia.", "there exists something such that that it is a breechblock and it garners is incorrect.", "that the internuncio noses bullshot is not false if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a breechblock and does garner does not hold.", "something does not nose Aspergillus if that it noses bullshot and it is not a kickstand is right." ]
[ "The internuncio is not a kickstand if the Trinitarian does not rush nose Brassia.", "The internuncio is not a kickstand if the Trinitarian does not rush Ichthyolatry and does nose Brassia.", "The internuncio is not a kickstand if the Trinitarian does not rush it.", "The internuncio is not a kickstand if the Trinitarian does not rush nose and ichthyolatry." ]
The internuncio is not a kickstand if the Trinitarian does not rush nose Brassia.
the Trinitarian does not rush ichthyolatry and does nose Brassia.
that the internuncio noses Aspergillus hold.
sent1: if the Trinitarian does not rush ichthyolatry and does nose Brassia then the internuncio is not a kickstand. sent2: the Trinitarian is not narrowing. sent3: there exists something such that that it is a breechblock and it garners is incorrect. sent4: if there exists something such that it is not a breechblock then the internuncio does nose bullshot. sent5: something does not nose Aspergillus if that it noses bullshot and it is not a kickstand is right. sent6: that the internuncio noses bullshot is not false if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a breechblock and does garner does not hold. sent7: the Trinitarian does not rush ichthyolatry and does nose Brassia.
{C}{b}
sent1: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent2: ¬{GU}{a} sent3: (Ex): ¬({D}x & {E}x) sent4: (x): ¬{D}x -> {A}{b} sent5: (x): ({A}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{C}x sent6: (x): ¬({D}x & {E}x) -> {A}{b} sent7: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})
[ "sent1 & sent7 -> int1: the internuncio is not a kind of a kickstand.; sent3 & sent6 -> int2: the internuncio noses bullshot.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the internuncio does nose bullshot and is not a kickstand.; sent5 -> int4: if the internuncio does nose bullshot but it is not a kickstand it does not nose Aspergillus.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
[ "sent1 & sent7 -> int1: ¬{B}{b}; sent3 & sent6 -> int2: {A}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}); sent5 -> int4: ({A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> ¬{C}{b}; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
3
3
2
0
2
null
null
null
[]
null
null
$hypothesis$ = that the internuncio noses Aspergillus hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Trinitarian does not rush ichthyolatry and does nose Brassia then the internuncio is not a kickstand. sent2: the Trinitarian is not narrowing. sent3: there exists something such that that it is a breechblock and it garners is incorrect. sent4: if there exists something such that it is not a breechblock then the internuncio does nose bullshot. sent5: something does not nose Aspergillus if that it noses bullshot and it is not a kickstand is right. sent6: that the internuncio noses bullshot is not false if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a breechblock and does garner does not hold. sent7: the Trinitarian does not rush ichthyolatry and does nose Brassia. ; $proof$ =
sent1 & sent7 -> int1: the internuncio is not a kind of a kickstand.; sent3 & sent6 -> int2: the internuncio noses bullshot.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the internuncio does nose bullshot and is not a kickstand.; sent5 -> int4: if the internuncio does nose bullshot but it is not a kickstand it does not nose Aspergillus.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
DeductionInstance
if the Trinitarian does not rush ichthyolatry and does nose Brassia then the internuncio is not a kickstand.
[ "the Trinitarian does not rush ichthyolatry and does nose Brassia.", "there exists something such that that it is a breechblock and it garners is incorrect.", "that the internuncio noses bullshot is not false if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a breechblock and does garner does not hold.", "something does not nose Aspergillus if that it noses bullshot and it is not a kickstand is right." ]
[ "The internuncio is not a kickstand if the Trinitarian does not rush nose Brassia.", "The internuncio is not a kickstand if the Trinitarian does not rush Ichthyolatry and does nose Brassia.", "The internuncio is not a kickstand if the Trinitarian does not rush it.", "The internuncio is not a kickstand if the Trinitarian does not rush nose and ichthyolatry." ]
The internuncio is not a kickstand if the Trinitarian does not rush Ichthyolatry and does nose Brassia.
there exists something such that that it is a breechblock and it garners is incorrect.
that the internuncio noses Aspergillus hold.
sent1: if the Trinitarian does not rush ichthyolatry and does nose Brassia then the internuncio is not a kickstand. sent2: the Trinitarian is not narrowing. sent3: there exists something such that that it is a breechblock and it garners is incorrect. sent4: if there exists something such that it is not a breechblock then the internuncio does nose bullshot. sent5: something does not nose Aspergillus if that it noses bullshot and it is not a kickstand is right. sent6: that the internuncio noses bullshot is not false if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a breechblock and does garner does not hold. sent7: the Trinitarian does not rush ichthyolatry and does nose Brassia.
{C}{b}
sent1: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent2: ¬{GU}{a} sent3: (Ex): ¬({D}x & {E}x) sent4: (x): ¬{D}x -> {A}{b} sent5: (x): ({A}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{C}x sent6: (x): ¬({D}x & {E}x) -> {A}{b} sent7: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})
[ "sent1 & sent7 -> int1: the internuncio is not a kind of a kickstand.; sent3 & sent6 -> int2: the internuncio noses bullshot.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the internuncio does nose bullshot and is not a kickstand.; sent5 -> int4: if the internuncio does nose bullshot but it is not a kickstand it does not nose Aspergillus.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
[ "sent1 & sent7 -> int1: ¬{B}{b}; sent3 & sent6 -> int2: {A}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}); sent5 -> int4: ({A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> ¬{C}{b}; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
3
3
2
0
2
null
null
null
[]
null
null
$hypothesis$ = that the internuncio noses Aspergillus hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Trinitarian does not rush ichthyolatry and does nose Brassia then the internuncio is not a kickstand. sent2: the Trinitarian is not narrowing. sent3: there exists something such that that it is a breechblock and it garners is incorrect. sent4: if there exists something such that it is not a breechblock then the internuncio does nose bullshot. sent5: something does not nose Aspergillus if that it noses bullshot and it is not a kickstand is right. sent6: that the internuncio noses bullshot is not false if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a breechblock and does garner does not hold. sent7: the Trinitarian does not rush ichthyolatry and does nose Brassia. ; $proof$ =
sent1 & sent7 -> int1: the internuncio is not a kind of a kickstand.; sent3 & sent6 -> int2: the internuncio noses bullshot.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the internuncio does nose bullshot and is not a kickstand.; sent5 -> int4: if the internuncio does nose bullshot but it is not a kickstand it does not nose Aspergillus.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
DeductionInstance
if the Trinitarian does not rush ichthyolatry and does nose Brassia then the internuncio is not a kickstand.
[ "the Trinitarian does not rush ichthyolatry and does nose Brassia.", "there exists something such that that it is a breechblock and it garners is incorrect.", "that the internuncio noses bullshot is not false if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a breechblock and does garner does not hold.", "something does not nose Aspergillus if that it noses bullshot and it is not a kickstand is right." ]
[ "The internuncio is not a kickstand if the Trinitarian does not rush nose Brassia.", "The internuncio is not a kickstand if the Trinitarian does not rush Ichthyolatry and does nose Brassia.", "The internuncio is not a kickstand if the Trinitarian does not rush it.", "The internuncio is not a kickstand if the Trinitarian does not rush nose and ichthyolatry." ]
The internuncio is not a kickstand if the Trinitarian does not rush it.
that the internuncio noses bullshot is not false if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a breechblock and does garner does not hold.
that the internuncio noses Aspergillus hold.
sent1: if the Trinitarian does not rush ichthyolatry and does nose Brassia then the internuncio is not a kickstand. sent2: the Trinitarian is not narrowing. sent3: there exists something such that that it is a breechblock and it garners is incorrect. sent4: if there exists something such that it is not a breechblock then the internuncio does nose bullshot. sent5: something does not nose Aspergillus if that it noses bullshot and it is not a kickstand is right. sent6: that the internuncio noses bullshot is not false if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a breechblock and does garner does not hold. sent7: the Trinitarian does not rush ichthyolatry and does nose Brassia.
{C}{b}
sent1: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent2: ¬{GU}{a} sent3: (Ex): ¬({D}x & {E}x) sent4: (x): ¬{D}x -> {A}{b} sent5: (x): ({A}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{C}x sent6: (x): ¬({D}x & {E}x) -> {A}{b} sent7: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})
[ "sent1 & sent7 -> int1: the internuncio is not a kind of a kickstand.; sent3 & sent6 -> int2: the internuncio noses bullshot.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the internuncio does nose bullshot and is not a kickstand.; sent5 -> int4: if the internuncio does nose bullshot but it is not a kickstand it does not nose Aspergillus.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
[ "sent1 & sent7 -> int1: ¬{B}{b}; sent3 & sent6 -> int2: {A}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}); sent5 -> int4: ({A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> ¬{C}{b}; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
3
3
2
0
2
null
null
null
[]
null
null
$hypothesis$ = that the internuncio noses Aspergillus hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the Trinitarian does not rush ichthyolatry and does nose Brassia then the internuncio is not a kickstand. sent2: the Trinitarian is not narrowing. sent3: there exists something such that that it is a breechblock and it garners is incorrect. sent4: if there exists something such that it is not a breechblock then the internuncio does nose bullshot. sent5: something does not nose Aspergillus if that it noses bullshot and it is not a kickstand is right. sent6: that the internuncio noses bullshot is not false if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a breechblock and does garner does not hold. sent7: the Trinitarian does not rush ichthyolatry and does nose Brassia. ; $proof$ =
sent1 & sent7 -> int1: the internuncio is not a kind of a kickstand.; sent3 & sent6 -> int2: the internuncio noses bullshot.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the internuncio does nose bullshot and is not a kickstand.; sent5 -> int4: if the internuncio does nose bullshot but it is not a kickstand it does not nose Aspergillus.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
DeductionInstance
if the Trinitarian does not rush ichthyolatry and does nose Brassia then the internuncio is not a kickstand.
[ "the Trinitarian does not rush ichthyolatry and does nose Brassia.", "there exists something such that that it is a breechblock and it garners is incorrect.", "that the internuncio noses bullshot is not false if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a breechblock and does garner does not hold.", "something does not nose Aspergillus if that it noses bullshot and it is not a kickstand is right." ]
[ "The internuncio is not a kickstand if the Trinitarian does not rush nose Brassia.", "The internuncio is not a kickstand if the Trinitarian does not rush Ichthyolatry and does nose Brassia.", "The internuncio is not a kickstand if the Trinitarian does not rush it.", "The internuncio is not a kickstand if the Trinitarian does not rush nose and ichthyolatry." ]
The internuncio is not a kickstand if the Trinitarian does not rush nose and ichthyolatry.
something does not nose Aspergillus if that it noses bullshot and it is not a kickstand is right.
the ensemble is a telecommunication but it is not a Chalcis.
sent1: that the abnegator is a Chalcis and is not a telecommunication is not right if the ensemble is a Chalcis. sent2: if something is both not a babyminder and not a cookfire then it is a millenary. sent3: the fact that the ensemble is a telecommunication and a Chalcis is wrong. sent4: the abnegator is a telecommunication that is a kind of a tortoise. sent5: a millenary is not a coiled and is a needle. sent6: the opepe is a telecommunication. sent7: the fact that the ensemble is a kind of a telecommunication and it is a kind of a Chalcis is not right if the abnegator is a kind of a telecommunication. sent8: if the abnegator is a telecommunication the fact that the ensemble is a telecommunication and is not a kind of a Chalcis is not true. sent9: the abnegator is a Chalcis and it is a tortoise. sent10: the ensemble is a kind of a telecommunication but it is not a kind of a Chalcis if the abnegator is not a tortoise. sent11: the abnegator is a tortoise. sent12: that the contrabassoon is a kind of a Chalcis and it noses hundredweight hold.
({A}{b} & ¬{C}{b})
sent1: {C}{b} -> ¬({C}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent2: (x): (¬{G}x & ¬{H}x) -> {F}x sent3: ¬({A}{b} & {C}{b}) sent4: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent5: (x): {F}x -> (¬{D}x & {E}x) sent6: {A}{g} sent7: {A}{a} -> ¬({A}{b} & {C}{b}) sent8: {A}{a} -> ¬({A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent9: ({C}{a} & {B}{a}) sent10: ¬{B}{a} -> ({A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent11: {B}{a} sent12: ({C}{ho} & {ET}{ho})
[ "sent4 -> int1: the abnegator is a telecommunication.; int1 & sent8 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
[ "sent4 -> int1: {A}{a}; int1 & sent8 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
2
2
10
0
10
the ensemble is a telecommunication but it is not a kind of a Chalcis.
({A}{b} & ¬{C}{b})
6
[ "sent5 -> int2: if the guanine is millenary then it is both not a coiled and a needle.; sent2 -> int3: the guanine is a kind of a millenary if it is not a babyminder and is not a kind of a cookfire.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the ensemble is a telecommunication but it is not a Chalcis. ; $context$ = sent1: that the abnegator is a Chalcis and is not a telecommunication is not right if the ensemble is a Chalcis. sent2: if something is both not a babyminder and not a cookfire then it is a millenary. sent3: the fact that the ensemble is a telecommunication and a Chalcis is wrong. sent4: the abnegator is a telecommunication that is a kind of a tortoise. sent5: a millenary is not a coiled and is a needle. sent6: the opepe is a telecommunication. sent7: the fact that the ensemble is a kind of a telecommunication and it is a kind of a Chalcis is not right if the abnegator is a kind of a telecommunication. sent8: if the abnegator is a telecommunication the fact that the ensemble is a telecommunication and is not a kind of a Chalcis is not true. sent9: the abnegator is a Chalcis and it is a tortoise. sent10: the ensemble is a kind of a telecommunication but it is not a kind of a Chalcis if the abnegator is not a tortoise. sent11: the abnegator is a tortoise. sent12: that the contrabassoon is a kind of a Chalcis and it noses hundredweight hold. ; $proof$ =
sent4 -> int1: the abnegator is a telecommunication.; int1 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
DeductionInstance
the abnegator is a telecommunication that is a kind of a tortoise.
[ "if the abnegator is a telecommunication the fact that the ensemble is a telecommunication and is not a kind of a Chalcis is not true." ]
[ "the abnegator is a telecommunication that is a kind of a tortoise." ]
the abnegator is a telecommunication that is a kind of a tortoise.
if the abnegator is a telecommunication the fact that the ensemble is a telecommunication and is not a kind of a Chalcis is not true.
the habitat is non-zygomatic.
sent1: something noses MIDI if it rushes hypercatalectic. sent2: the carbuncle does rush hypercatalectic if there exists something such that the fact that it does not rush hypercatalectic and it does not hibernate is not correct. sent3: if something is a deactivation then it is a Abyssinian. sent4: there exists something such that that it does not rush hypercatalectic and it does not hibernate is wrong. sent5: the sternocleidomastoid is intervertebral. sent6: if the fact that something is intervertebral is true then it does nose MIDI. sent7: the habitat is not zygomatic if the carbuncle is a Abyssinian and noses MIDI.
¬{E}{c}
sent1: (x): {F}x -> {D}x sent2: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{H}x) -> {F}{b} sent3: (x): {B}x -> {C}x sent4: (Ex): ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{H}x) sent5: {A}{a} sent6: (x): {A}x -> {D}x sent7: ({C}{b} & {D}{b}) -> ¬{E}{c}
[ "sent3 -> int1: if the carbuncle is a deactivation the fact that it is a Abyssinian is not false.; sent1 -> int2: if the carbuncle rushes hypercatalectic then it noses MIDI.; sent4 & sent2 -> int3: the carbuncle rushes hypercatalectic.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the carbuncle noses MIDI.;" ]
UNKNOWN
[ "sent3 -> int1: {B}{b} -> {C}{b}; sent1 -> int2: {F}{b} -> {D}{b}; sent4 & sent2 -> int3: {F}{b}; int2 & int3 -> int4: {D}{b};" ]
UNKNOWN
4
null
1
0
1
null
null
null
[]
null
null
$hypothesis$ = the habitat is non-zygomatic. ; $context$ = sent1: something noses MIDI if it rushes hypercatalectic. sent2: the carbuncle does rush hypercatalectic if there exists something such that the fact that it does not rush hypercatalectic and it does not hibernate is not correct. sent3: if something is a deactivation then it is a Abyssinian. sent4: there exists something such that that it does not rush hypercatalectic and it does not hibernate is wrong. sent5: the sternocleidomastoid is intervertebral. sent6: if the fact that something is intervertebral is true then it does nose MIDI. sent7: the habitat is not zygomatic if the carbuncle is a Abyssinian and noses MIDI. ; $proof$ =
__UNKNOWN__
DeductionInstance
if something is a deactivation then it is a Abyssinian.
[ "something noses MIDI if it rushes hypercatalectic.", "there exists something such that that it does not rush hypercatalectic and it does not hibernate is wrong.", "the carbuncle does rush hypercatalectic if there exists something such that the fact that it does not rush hypercatalectic and it does not hibernate is not correct." ]
[ "There is a possibility that something is a deactivation.", "If it is a deactivation then it is a Abyssinian.", "If it is a deactivation, it is a Abyssinian." ]
There is a possibility that something is a deactivation.
something noses MIDI if it rushes hypercatalectic.
the habitat is non-zygomatic.
sent1: something noses MIDI if it rushes hypercatalectic. sent2: the carbuncle does rush hypercatalectic if there exists something such that the fact that it does not rush hypercatalectic and it does not hibernate is not correct. sent3: if something is a deactivation then it is a Abyssinian. sent4: there exists something such that that it does not rush hypercatalectic and it does not hibernate is wrong. sent5: the sternocleidomastoid is intervertebral. sent6: if the fact that something is intervertebral is true then it does nose MIDI. sent7: the habitat is not zygomatic if the carbuncle is a Abyssinian and noses MIDI.
¬{E}{c}
sent1: (x): {F}x -> {D}x sent2: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{H}x) -> {F}{b} sent3: (x): {B}x -> {C}x sent4: (Ex): ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{H}x) sent5: {A}{a} sent6: (x): {A}x -> {D}x sent7: ({C}{b} & {D}{b}) -> ¬{E}{c}
[ "sent3 -> int1: if the carbuncle is a deactivation the fact that it is a Abyssinian is not false.; sent1 -> int2: if the carbuncle rushes hypercatalectic then it noses MIDI.; sent4 & sent2 -> int3: the carbuncle rushes hypercatalectic.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the carbuncle noses MIDI.;" ]
UNKNOWN
[ "sent3 -> int1: {B}{b} -> {C}{b}; sent1 -> int2: {F}{b} -> {D}{b}; sent4 & sent2 -> int3: {F}{b}; int2 & int3 -> int4: {D}{b};" ]
UNKNOWN
4
null
1
0
1
null
null
null
[]
null
null
$hypothesis$ = the habitat is non-zygomatic. ; $context$ = sent1: something noses MIDI if it rushes hypercatalectic. sent2: the carbuncle does rush hypercatalectic if there exists something such that the fact that it does not rush hypercatalectic and it does not hibernate is not correct. sent3: if something is a deactivation then it is a Abyssinian. sent4: there exists something such that that it does not rush hypercatalectic and it does not hibernate is wrong. sent5: the sternocleidomastoid is intervertebral. sent6: if the fact that something is intervertebral is true then it does nose MIDI. sent7: the habitat is not zygomatic if the carbuncle is a Abyssinian and noses MIDI. ; $proof$ =
__UNKNOWN__
DeductionInstance
if something is a deactivation then it is a Abyssinian.
[ "something noses MIDI if it rushes hypercatalectic.", "there exists something such that that it does not rush hypercatalectic and it does not hibernate is wrong.", "the carbuncle does rush hypercatalectic if there exists something such that the fact that it does not rush hypercatalectic and it does not hibernate is not correct." ]
[ "There is a possibility that something is a deactivation.", "If it is a deactivation then it is a Abyssinian.", "If it is a deactivation, it is a Abyssinian." ]
If it is a deactivation then it is a Abyssinian.
there exists something such that that it does not rush hypercatalectic and it does not hibernate is wrong.
the habitat is non-zygomatic.
sent1: something noses MIDI if it rushes hypercatalectic. sent2: the carbuncle does rush hypercatalectic if there exists something such that the fact that it does not rush hypercatalectic and it does not hibernate is not correct. sent3: if something is a deactivation then it is a Abyssinian. sent4: there exists something such that that it does not rush hypercatalectic and it does not hibernate is wrong. sent5: the sternocleidomastoid is intervertebral. sent6: if the fact that something is intervertebral is true then it does nose MIDI. sent7: the habitat is not zygomatic if the carbuncle is a Abyssinian and noses MIDI.
¬{E}{c}
sent1: (x): {F}x -> {D}x sent2: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{H}x) -> {F}{b} sent3: (x): {B}x -> {C}x sent4: (Ex): ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{H}x) sent5: {A}{a} sent6: (x): {A}x -> {D}x sent7: ({C}{b} & {D}{b}) -> ¬{E}{c}
[ "sent3 -> int1: if the carbuncle is a deactivation the fact that it is a Abyssinian is not false.; sent1 -> int2: if the carbuncle rushes hypercatalectic then it noses MIDI.; sent4 & sent2 -> int3: the carbuncle rushes hypercatalectic.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the carbuncle noses MIDI.;" ]
UNKNOWN
[ "sent3 -> int1: {B}{b} -> {C}{b}; sent1 -> int2: {F}{b} -> {D}{b}; sent4 & sent2 -> int3: {F}{b}; int2 & int3 -> int4: {D}{b};" ]
UNKNOWN
4
null
1
0
1
null
null
null
[]
null
null
$hypothesis$ = the habitat is non-zygomatic. ; $context$ = sent1: something noses MIDI if it rushes hypercatalectic. sent2: the carbuncle does rush hypercatalectic if there exists something such that the fact that it does not rush hypercatalectic and it does not hibernate is not correct. sent3: if something is a deactivation then it is a Abyssinian. sent4: there exists something such that that it does not rush hypercatalectic and it does not hibernate is wrong. sent5: the sternocleidomastoid is intervertebral. sent6: if the fact that something is intervertebral is true then it does nose MIDI. sent7: the habitat is not zygomatic if the carbuncle is a Abyssinian and noses MIDI. ; $proof$ =
__UNKNOWN__
DeductionInstance
if something is a deactivation then it is a Abyssinian.
[ "something noses MIDI if it rushes hypercatalectic.", "there exists something such that that it does not rush hypercatalectic and it does not hibernate is wrong.", "the carbuncle does rush hypercatalectic if there exists something such that the fact that it does not rush hypercatalectic and it does not hibernate is not correct." ]
[ "There is a possibility that something is a deactivation.", "If it is a deactivation then it is a Abyssinian.", "If it is a deactivation, it is a Abyssinian." ]
If it is a deactivation, it is a Abyssinian.
the carbuncle does rush hypercatalectic if there exists something such that the fact that it does not rush hypercatalectic and it does not hibernate is not correct.
that the heavy-dutiness does not occur is true.
sent1: the indeterminableness but not the untwining occurs if the fact that the nosing mailbox does not occur is not incorrect. sent2: the falsification occurs. sent3: the indecorum does not occur and the nosing copybook does not occur if the roboticness occurs. sent4: the roboticness happens if the indeterminableness occurs. sent5: the nosing copybook occurs. sent6: that the nosing mailbox happens is prevented by that the bridle happens or the portable or both. sent7: the indecorum occurs if the mistreatment occurs. sent8: that the mistreatment occurs is right. sent9: the heavy-dutiness does not occur if the indecorum occurs and the nosing copybook occurs.
¬{D}
sent1: ¬{H} -> ({F} & ¬{G}) sent2: {CA} sent3: {E} -> (¬{B} & ¬{C}) sent4: {F} -> {E} sent5: {C} sent6: ({J} v {I}) -> ¬{H} sent7: {A} -> {B} sent8: {A} sent9: ({B} & {C}) -> ¬{D}
[ "sent7 & sent8 -> int1: the fact that the indecorum happens is not wrong.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the indecorum and the nosing copybook occurs.; int2 & sent9 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
[ "sent7 & sent8 -> int1: {B}; int1 & sent5 -> int2: ({B} & {C}); int2 & sent9 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
3
3
5
0
5
the heavy-dutiness happens.
{D}
9
[]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = that the heavy-dutiness does not occur is true. ; $context$ = sent1: the indeterminableness but not the untwining occurs if the fact that the nosing mailbox does not occur is not incorrect. sent2: the falsification occurs. sent3: the indecorum does not occur and the nosing copybook does not occur if the roboticness occurs. sent4: the roboticness happens if the indeterminableness occurs. sent5: the nosing copybook occurs. sent6: that the nosing mailbox happens is prevented by that the bridle happens or the portable or both. sent7: the indecorum occurs if the mistreatment occurs. sent8: that the mistreatment occurs is right. sent9: the heavy-dutiness does not occur if the indecorum occurs and the nosing copybook occurs. ; $proof$ =
sent7 & sent8 -> int1: the fact that the indecorum happens is not wrong.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the indecorum and the nosing copybook occurs.; int2 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
DeductionInstance
the indecorum occurs if the mistreatment occurs.
[ "that the mistreatment occurs is right.", "the nosing copybook occurs.", "the heavy-dutiness does not occur if the indecorum occurs and the nosing copybook occurs." ]
[ "If the mistreatment occurs, the indecorum occurs.", "If the mistreatment occurs, the indecorum will occur.", "If the mistreatment occurs the indecorum occurs." ]
If the mistreatment occurs, the indecorum occurs.
that the mistreatment occurs is right.
that the heavy-dutiness does not occur is true.
sent1: the indeterminableness but not the untwining occurs if the fact that the nosing mailbox does not occur is not incorrect. sent2: the falsification occurs. sent3: the indecorum does not occur and the nosing copybook does not occur if the roboticness occurs. sent4: the roboticness happens if the indeterminableness occurs. sent5: the nosing copybook occurs. sent6: that the nosing mailbox happens is prevented by that the bridle happens or the portable or both. sent7: the indecorum occurs if the mistreatment occurs. sent8: that the mistreatment occurs is right. sent9: the heavy-dutiness does not occur if the indecorum occurs and the nosing copybook occurs.
¬{D}
sent1: ¬{H} -> ({F} & ¬{G}) sent2: {CA} sent3: {E} -> (¬{B} & ¬{C}) sent4: {F} -> {E} sent5: {C} sent6: ({J} v {I}) -> ¬{H} sent7: {A} -> {B} sent8: {A} sent9: ({B} & {C}) -> ¬{D}
[ "sent7 & sent8 -> int1: the fact that the indecorum happens is not wrong.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the indecorum and the nosing copybook occurs.; int2 & sent9 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
[ "sent7 & sent8 -> int1: {B}; int1 & sent5 -> int2: ({B} & {C}); int2 & sent9 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
3
3
5
0
5
the heavy-dutiness happens.
{D}
9
[]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = that the heavy-dutiness does not occur is true. ; $context$ = sent1: the indeterminableness but not the untwining occurs if the fact that the nosing mailbox does not occur is not incorrect. sent2: the falsification occurs. sent3: the indecorum does not occur and the nosing copybook does not occur if the roboticness occurs. sent4: the roboticness happens if the indeterminableness occurs. sent5: the nosing copybook occurs. sent6: that the nosing mailbox happens is prevented by that the bridle happens or the portable or both. sent7: the indecorum occurs if the mistreatment occurs. sent8: that the mistreatment occurs is right. sent9: the heavy-dutiness does not occur if the indecorum occurs and the nosing copybook occurs. ; $proof$ =
sent7 & sent8 -> int1: the fact that the indecorum happens is not wrong.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the indecorum and the nosing copybook occurs.; int2 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
DeductionInstance
the indecorum occurs if the mistreatment occurs.
[ "that the mistreatment occurs is right.", "the nosing copybook occurs.", "the heavy-dutiness does not occur if the indecorum occurs and the nosing copybook occurs." ]
[ "If the mistreatment occurs, the indecorum occurs.", "If the mistreatment occurs, the indecorum will occur.", "If the mistreatment occurs the indecorum occurs." ]
If the mistreatment occurs, the indecorum will occur.
the nosing copybook occurs.
that the heavy-dutiness does not occur is true.
sent1: the indeterminableness but not the untwining occurs if the fact that the nosing mailbox does not occur is not incorrect. sent2: the falsification occurs. sent3: the indecorum does not occur and the nosing copybook does not occur if the roboticness occurs. sent4: the roboticness happens if the indeterminableness occurs. sent5: the nosing copybook occurs. sent6: that the nosing mailbox happens is prevented by that the bridle happens or the portable or both. sent7: the indecorum occurs if the mistreatment occurs. sent8: that the mistreatment occurs is right. sent9: the heavy-dutiness does not occur if the indecorum occurs and the nosing copybook occurs.
¬{D}
sent1: ¬{H} -> ({F} & ¬{G}) sent2: {CA} sent3: {E} -> (¬{B} & ¬{C}) sent4: {F} -> {E} sent5: {C} sent6: ({J} v {I}) -> ¬{H} sent7: {A} -> {B} sent8: {A} sent9: ({B} & {C}) -> ¬{D}
[ "sent7 & sent8 -> int1: the fact that the indecorum happens is not wrong.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the indecorum and the nosing copybook occurs.; int2 & sent9 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
[ "sent7 & sent8 -> int1: {B}; int1 & sent5 -> int2: ({B} & {C}); int2 & sent9 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
3
3
5
0
5
the heavy-dutiness happens.
{D}
9
[]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = that the heavy-dutiness does not occur is true. ; $context$ = sent1: the indeterminableness but not the untwining occurs if the fact that the nosing mailbox does not occur is not incorrect. sent2: the falsification occurs. sent3: the indecorum does not occur and the nosing copybook does not occur if the roboticness occurs. sent4: the roboticness happens if the indeterminableness occurs. sent5: the nosing copybook occurs. sent6: that the nosing mailbox happens is prevented by that the bridle happens or the portable or both. sent7: the indecorum occurs if the mistreatment occurs. sent8: that the mistreatment occurs is right. sent9: the heavy-dutiness does not occur if the indecorum occurs and the nosing copybook occurs. ; $proof$ =
sent7 & sent8 -> int1: the fact that the indecorum happens is not wrong.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the indecorum and the nosing copybook occurs.; int2 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
DeductionInstance
the indecorum occurs if the mistreatment occurs.
[ "that the mistreatment occurs is right.", "the nosing copybook occurs.", "the heavy-dutiness does not occur if the indecorum occurs and the nosing copybook occurs." ]
[ "If the mistreatment occurs, the indecorum occurs.", "If the mistreatment occurs, the indecorum will occur.", "If the mistreatment occurs the indecorum occurs." ]
If the mistreatment occurs the indecorum occurs.
the heavy-dutiness does not occur if the indecorum occurs and the nosing copybook occurs.
the panicle does not rush inkwell but it is loud.
sent1: the fact that something does not rush inkwell but it is loud does not hold if it is not alkalotic. sent2: if there exists something such that that it is disproportionate thing that is a requital is wrong then the panicle is loud. sent3: the fact that the panicle is epithelial is right if the explosive is not non-prokaryotic but non-proprioceptive. sent4: there exists something such that that it is a requital and loud is incorrect. sent5: if that something is not biosynthetic and it is not a kind of a worldliness is not right it is biosynthetic. sent6: the explosive is prokaryotic but it is not proprioceptive if the inkwell is biosynthetic. sent7: there is nothing such that it is disproportionate and it is a kind of a requital. sent8: something is non-alkalotic if it is epithelial and/or it is not lacustrine. sent9: The inkwell does not rush panicle. sent10: the dehydroretinol is an eagerness.
(¬{B}{a} & {A}{a})
sent1: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & {A}x) sent2: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent3: ({G}{b} & ¬{F}{b}) -> {E}{a} sent4: (Ex): ¬({AB}x & {A}x) sent5: (x): ¬(¬{H}x & ¬{J}x) -> {H}x sent6: {H}{c} -> ({G}{b} & ¬{F}{b}) sent7: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent8: (x): ({E}x v ¬{D}x) -> ¬{C}x sent9: ¬{AC}{ab} sent10: {I}{d}
[ "sent7 -> int1: that the expositor is disproportionate and is a requital is not true.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that the fact that it is disproportionate thing that is a kind of a requital does not hold.; int2 & sent2 -> int3: the panicle is loud.;" ]
UNKNOWN
[ "sent7 -> int1: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x); int2 & sent2 -> int3: {A}{a};" ]
UNKNOWN
4
null
8
0
8
the fact that the panicle does not rush inkwell and is loud does not hold.
¬(¬{B}{a} & {A}{a})
8
[ "sent1 -> int4: if the panicle is not alkalotic the fact that it does not rush inkwell and it is loud is not true.; sent8 -> int5: the panicle is not alkalotic if it is epithelial and/or is not lacustrine.; sent5 -> int6: if that the inkwell is non-biosynthetic and not a worldliness is not right it is non-biosynthetic.; sent10 -> int7: something is a kind of an eagerness.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the panicle does not rush inkwell but it is loud. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something does not rush inkwell but it is loud does not hold if it is not alkalotic. sent2: if there exists something such that that it is disproportionate thing that is a requital is wrong then the panicle is loud. sent3: the fact that the panicle is epithelial is right if the explosive is not non-prokaryotic but non-proprioceptive. sent4: there exists something such that that it is a requital and loud is incorrect. sent5: if that something is not biosynthetic and it is not a kind of a worldliness is not right it is biosynthetic. sent6: the explosive is prokaryotic but it is not proprioceptive if the inkwell is biosynthetic. sent7: there is nothing such that it is disproportionate and it is a kind of a requital. sent8: something is non-alkalotic if it is epithelial and/or it is not lacustrine. sent9: The inkwell does not rush panicle. sent10: the dehydroretinol is an eagerness. ; $proof$ =
__UNKNOWN__
DeductionInstance
there is nothing such that it is disproportionate and it is a kind of a requital.
[ "if there exists something such that that it is disproportionate thing that is a requital is wrong then the panicle is loud." ]
[ "there is nothing such that it is disproportionate and it is a kind of a requital." ]
there is nothing such that it is disproportionate and it is a kind of a requital.
if there exists something such that that it is disproportionate thing that is a requital is wrong then the panicle is loud.
the shaver is not unrighteous.
sent1: the archeologist is not non-best if the gyrostabilizer seethes. sent2: the fact that something is a theophylline but it is not unrighteous is not right if it does not seethe. sent3: the shaver is not unrighteous if the archeologist is a best and/or does rush Lidocaine. sent4: the gyrostabilizer seethes or is a kind of a spray or both if there exists something such that it is not a theophylline. sent5: if the gyrostabilizer does spray the archeologist is a kind of a best. sent6: if the archeologist rushes Lidocaine then the shaver is not unrighteous. sent7: there is something such that that it is a kind of a theophylline is not incorrect.
¬{F}{c}
sent1: {B}{a} -> {D}{b} sent2: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({A}x & ¬{F}x) sent3: ({D}{b} v {E}{b}) -> ¬{F}{c} sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({B}{a} v {C}{a}) sent5: {C}{a} -> {D}{b} sent6: {E}{b} -> ¬{F}{c} sent7: (Ex): {A}x
[]
UNKNOWN
[]
UNKNOWN
4
null
3
0
3
the shaver is unrighteous.
{F}{c}
5
[ "sent2 -> int1: if the gyrostabilizer does not seethe then that that it is a theophylline and it is not unrighteous is correct is wrong.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the shaver is not unrighteous. ; $context$ = sent1: the archeologist is not non-best if the gyrostabilizer seethes. sent2: the fact that something is a theophylline but it is not unrighteous is not right if it does not seethe. sent3: the shaver is not unrighteous if the archeologist is a best and/or does rush Lidocaine. sent4: the gyrostabilizer seethes or is a kind of a spray or both if there exists something such that it is not a theophylline. sent5: if the gyrostabilizer does spray the archeologist is a kind of a best. sent6: if the archeologist rushes Lidocaine then the shaver is not unrighteous. sent7: there is something such that that it is a kind of a theophylline is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =
__UNKNOWN__
DeductionInstance
if the gyrostabilizer does spray the archeologist is a kind of a best.
[ "if the archeologist rushes Lidocaine then the shaver is not unrighteous." ]
[ "if the gyrostabilizer does spray the archeologist is a kind of a best." ]
if the gyrostabilizer does spray the archeologist is a kind of a best.
if the archeologist rushes Lidocaine then the shaver is not unrighteous.
the jar does not sensitize Pleurosorus.
sent1: the llano either does not nose coverlet or is not a handset or both if it is not a centennial. sent2: the llano noses coverlet. sent3: something is both a Numidian and not a centennial if it is not a moderation. sent4: the caseworm is a kind of a handset. sent5: the jar is not a handset if the llano is a kind of a handset. sent6: the fact that the jar is a kind of a moderation that is not extraordinary is incorrect if the llano pales. sent7: the jar is not a kind of a handset. sent8: the jar does not canvass pannikin. sent9: the DAT sensitizes Pleurosorus. sent10: if something does not nose coverlet then it sensitizes Pleurosorus and it is a kind of a handset. sent11: if something that is Numidian is not centennial then the fact that it does not nose coverlet is not false. sent12: if that the llano is not a Jew's-ear is correct then it pales and it does nose hundredweight. sent13: if the fact that something is a moderation but it is not extraordinary is not right then it is not a moderation. sent14: if the llano is a handset the jar is not a handset and does not sensitize Pleurosorus.
¬{D}{b}
sent1: ¬{C}{a} -> (¬{B}{a} v ¬{A}{a}) sent2: {B}{a} sent3: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({E}x & ¬{C}x) sent4: {A}{ie} sent5: {A}{a} -> ¬{A}{b} sent6: {G}{a} -> ¬({F}{b} & ¬{H}{b}) sent7: ¬{A}{b} sent8: ¬{BU}{b} sent9: {D}{ca} sent10: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({D}x & {A}x) sent11: (x): ({E}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{B}x sent12: ¬{J}{a} -> ({G}{a} & {I}{a}) sent13: (x): ¬({F}x & ¬{H}x) -> ¬{F}x sent14: {A}{a} -> (¬{A}{b} & ¬{D}{b})
[]
UNKNOWN
[]
UNKNOWN
3
null
13
0
13
the jar does sensitize Pleurosorus.
{D}{b}
8
[ "sent10 -> int1: the jar sensitizes Pleurosorus and is a kind of a handset if it does not nose coverlet.; sent11 -> int2: the jar does not nose coverlet if the fact that it is a Numidian and it is not a centennial is correct.; sent3 -> int3: if the jar is not a moderation it is Numidian and is not a centennial.; sent13 -> int4: the jar is not a moderation if the fact that it is a moderation and is not extraordinary does not hold.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the jar does not sensitize Pleurosorus. ; $context$ = sent1: the llano either does not nose coverlet or is not a handset or both if it is not a centennial. sent2: the llano noses coverlet. sent3: something is both a Numidian and not a centennial if it is not a moderation. sent4: the caseworm is a kind of a handset. sent5: the jar is not a handset if the llano is a kind of a handset. sent6: the fact that the jar is a kind of a moderation that is not extraordinary is incorrect if the llano pales. sent7: the jar is not a kind of a handset. sent8: the jar does not canvass pannikin. sent9: the DAT sensitizes Pleurosorus. sent10: if something does not nose coverlet then it sensitizes Pleurosorus and it is a kind of a handset. sent11: if something that is Numidian is not centennial then the fact that it does not nose coverlet is not false. sent12: if that the llano is not a Jew's-ear is correct then it pales and it does nose hundredweight. sent13: if the fact that something is a moderation but it is not extraordinary is not right then it is not a moderation. sent14: if the llano is a handset the jar is not a handset and does not sensitize Pleurosorus. ; $proof$ =
__UNKNOWN__
DeductionInstance
something is both a Numidian and not a centennial if it is not a moderation.
[ "if something that is Numidian is not centennial then the fact that it does not nose coverlet is not false." ]
[ "something is both a Numidian and not a centennial if it is not a moderation." ]
something is both a Numidian and not a centennial if it is not a moderation.
if something that is Numidian is not centennial then the fact that it does not nose coverlet is not false.
the SC is a kind of a mint.
sent1: if that something is not a Nycticorax but a expensiveness is not correct it is not a mint. sent2: if something is thermometric and it is a scroll that it does not nose outside is true. sent3: the recapitulation is not a Nycticorax. sent4: the root is not a Nycticorax. sent5: that the sol is both not non-Levantine and not non-turbinate is incorrect. sent6: if that the SC does not mint but it is a doubloon is false it is not lunar. sent7: the fact that something does not nose trident but it is a kind of a mint does not hold if it does not nose outside. sent8: the fact that the SC is not a Nycticorax and is a kind of a expensiveness is not right. sent9: something does not nose backgammon if it is a polo. sent10: the fact that the outside is not bipedal but it is biaxial is not correct. sent11: the fact that the SC is a honeybee and it is a kind of a Longfellow is false. sent12: the debutante is not a kind of a stipule if that it is not apneic but a expensiveness is not correct. sent13: something is not atrophic if the fact that it does not rush oculism and it is a nitrofurantoin is wrong. sent14: that the SC is non-abyssal thing that is a perjury is false. sent15: if that the SC is not Stravinskyan but it is a mint is not true it is not a depilatory. sent16: something does not inspect if it is not non-abyssal. sent17: the SC is not a DISA.
{B}{aa}
sent1: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent2: (x): ({E}x & {D}x) -> ¬{C}x sent3: ¬{AA}{ce} sent4: ¬{AA}{el} sent5: ¬({DG}{gc} & {GQ}{gc}) sent6: ¬(¬{B}{aa} & {F}{aa}) -> ¬{CI}{aa} sent7: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & {B}x) sent8: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent9: (x): {EK}x -> ¬{JA}x sent10: ¬(¬{M}{bp} & {IA}{bp}) sent11: ¬({ET}{aa} & {GG}{aa}) sent12: ¬(¬{JE}{bu} & {AB}{bu}) -> ¬{FL}{bu} sent13: (x): ¬(¬{IH}x & {BU}x) -> ¬{DE}x sent14: ¬(¬{AQ}{aa} & {J}{aa}) sent15: ¬(¬{DH}{aa} & {B}{aa}) -> ¬{GS}{aa} sent16: (x): {AQ}x -> ¬{BT}x sent17: ¬{FO}{aa}
[ "sent1 -> int1: the SC is not a mint if that it is not a Nycticorax and it is a expensiveness does not hold.; int1 & sent8 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
[ "sent1 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; int1 & sent8 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
2
2
15
0
15
the fact that the trident is not a kind of a Nycticorax is right.
¬{AA}{gj}
5
[ "sent7 -> int2: if the suprematist does not nose outside then the fact that it does not nose trident and it mints is not correct.; sent2 -> int3: the suprematist does not nose outside if it is thermometric and a scroll.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the SC is a kind of a mint. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something is not a Nycticorax but a expensiveness is not correct it is not a mint. sent2: if something is thermometric and it is a scroll that it does not nose outside is true. sent3: the recapitulation is not a Nycticorax. sent4: the root is not a Nycticorax. sent5: that the sol is both not non-Levantine and not non-turbinate is incorrect. sent6: if that the SC does not mint but it is a doubloon is false it is not lunar. sent7: the fact that something does not nose trident but it is a kind of a mint does not hold if it does not nose outside. sent8: the fact that the SC is not a Nycticorax and is a kind of a expensiveness is not right. sent9: something does not nose backgammon if it is a polo. sent10: the fact that the outside is not bipedal but it is biaxial is not correct. sent11: the fact that the SC is a honeybee and it is a kind of a Longfellow is false. sent12: the debutante is not a kind of a stipule if that it is not apneic but a expensiveness is not correct. sent13: something is not atrophic if the fact that it does not rush oculism and it is a nitrofurantoin is wrong. sent14: that the SC is non-abyssal thing that is a perjury is false. sent15: if that the SC is not Stravinskyan but it is a mint is not true it is not a depilatory. sent16: something does not inspect if it is not non-abyssal. sent17: the SC is not a DISA. ; $proof$ =
sent1 -> int1: the SC is not a mint if that it is not a Nycticorax and it is a expensiveness does not hold.; int1 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
DeductionInstance
if that something is not a Nycticorax but a expensiveness is not correct it is not a mint.
[ "the fact that the SC is not a Nycticorax and is a kind of a expensiveness is not right." ]
[ "if that something is not a Nycticorax but a expensiveness is not correct it is not a mint." ]
if that something is not a Nycticorax but a expensiveness is not correct it is not a mint.
the fact that the SC is not a Nycticorax and is a kind of a expensiveness is not right.
the ridge does canvass pe but it is not a kind of a ixodid.
sent1: the fact that something does canvass pe and is not a ixodid is incorrect if it is nontoxic. sent2: there exists something such that that it is nontoxic is true. sent3: the ridge is both unsanitary and nontoxic if the unit does not nose hubcap. sent4: the unit is not sanitary if there is something such that it is not nontoxic. sent5: if the unit is unsanitary the ridge canvasses pe and is not a ixodid.
({D}{b} & ¬{C}{b})
sent1: (x): {A}x -> ¬({D}x & ¬{C}x) sent2: (Ex): {A}x sent3: ¬{E}{a} -> ({B}{b} & {A}{b}) sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> {B}{a} sent5: {B}{a} -> ({D}{b} & ¬{C}{b})
[]
UNKNOWN
[]
UNKNOWN
2
null
3
0
3
that the ridge does canvass pe but it is not a ixodid is wrong.
¬({D}{b} & ¬{C}{b})
6
[ "sent1 -> int1: that the ridge canvasses pe but it is not a ixodid does not hold if the fact that it is nontoxic is not false.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the ridge does canvass pe but it is not a kind of a ixodid. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something does canvass pe and is not a ixodid is incorrect if it is nontoxic. sent2: there exists something such that that it is nontoxic is true. sent3: the ridge is both unsanitary and nontoxic if the unit does not nose hubcap. sent4: the unit is not sanitary if there is something such that it is not nontoxic. sent5: if the unit is unsanitary the ridge canvasses pe and is not a ixodid. ; $proof$ =
__UNKNOWN__
DeductionInstance
there exists something such that that it is nontoxic is true.
[ "the ridge is both unsanitary and nontoxic if the unit does not nose hubcap." ]
[ "there exists something such that that it is nontoxic is true." ]
there exists something such that that it is nontoxic is true.
the ridge is both unsanitary and nontoxic if the unit does not nose hubcap.
the parasympathetic is bracteal and it is abient.
sent1: if a cryptogamic thing does not forage it is not abient. sent2: the sudatorium is not wet. sent3: if that there exists something such that the fact that it is not Moravian and noses rhinophyma is false hold then the parasympathetic is abient. sent4: there is something such that that it is not Moravian and does nose rhinophyma is wrong. sent5: if the parasympathetic is not precocial and it is not Moravian the giblet is not Moravian. sent6: the sudatorium is not a kind of a arsenical if it is non-wet. sent7: the sod is cryptogamic but it does not forage if the giblet is an antifreeze. sent8: the parasympathetic is a pet. sent9: the rusher does sensitize wainscot. sent10: if the parasympathetic is a kind of an antifreeze it is bracteal. sent11: if the fact that the fact that the giblet is not an antifreeze but it forages is not false is not right then the parasympathetic is not cryptogamic. sent12: the giblet forages. sent13: the parasympathetic is an antifreeze if the fact that the giblet is not cryptogamic but it does forage hold. sent14: if a non-bracteal thing does nose rhinophyma then it is a kind of an antifreeze. sent15: the fact that something is bracteal and is abient does not hold if it is not cryptogamic. sent16: if there is something such that it does not nose rhinophyma then the parasympathetic is abient.
({D}{b} & {E}{b})
sent1: (x): ({A}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{E}x sent2: ¬{J}{c} sent3: (x): ¬(¬{G}x & {F}x) -> {E}{b} sent4: (Ex): ¬(¬{G}x & {F}x) sent5: (¬{I}{b} & ¬{G}{b}) -> ¬{G}{a} sent6: ¬{J}{c} -> ¬{H}{c} sent7: {C}{a} -> ({A}{il} & ¬{B}{il}) sent8: {BF}{b} sent9: {GS}{hq} sent10: {C}{b} -> {D}{b} sent11: ¬(¬{C}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{A}{b} sent12: {B}{a} sent13: (¬{A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> {C}{b} sent14: (x): (¬{D}x & {F}x) -> {C}x sent15: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({D}x & {E}x) sent16: (x): ¬{F}x -> {E}{b}
[ "sent4 & sent3 -> int1: the parasympathetic is abient.;" ]
UNKNOWN
[ "sent4 & sent3 -> int1: {E}{b};" ]
UNKNOWN
4
null
11
0
11
the sod is not abient.
¬{E}{il}
8
[ "sent1 -> int2: if the sod is not non-cryptogamic and does not forage then it is not abient.; sent14 -> int3: the giblet is a kind of an antifreeze if it is not bracteal and it noses rhinophyma.; sent6 & sent2 -> int4: the sudatorium is not a arsenical.; int4 -> int5: there is something such that it is not a kind of a arsenical.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the parasympathetic is bracteal and it is abient. ; $context$ = sent1: if a cryptogamic thing does not forage it is not abient. sent2: the sudatorium is not wet. sent3: if that there exists something such that the fact that it is not Moravian and noses rhinophyma is false hold then the parasympathetic is abient. sent4: there is something such that that it is not Moravian and does nose rhinophyma is wrong. sent5: if the parasympathetic is not precocial and it is not Moravian the giblet is not Moravian. sent6: the sudatorium is not a kind of a arsenical if it is non-wet. sent7: the sod is cryptogamic but it does not forage if the giblet is an antifreeze. sent8: the parasympathetic is a pet. sent9: the rusher does sensitize wainscot. sent10: if the parasympathetic is a kind of an antifreeze it is bracteal. sent11: if the fact that the fact that the giblet is not an antifreeze but it forages is not false is not right then the parasympathetic is not cryptogamic. sent12: the giblet forages. sent13: the parasympathetic is an antifreeze if the fact that the giblet is not cryptogamic but it does forage hold. sent14: if a non-bracteal thing does nose rhinophyma then it is a kind of an antifreeze. sent15: the fact that something is bracteal and is abient does not hold if it is not cryptogamic. sent16: if there is something such that it does not nose rhinophyma then the parasympathetic is abient. ; $proof$ =
__UNKNOWN__
DeductionInstance
there is something such that that it is not Moravian and does nose rhinophyma is wrong.
[ "if that there exists something such that the fact that it is not Moravian and noses rhinophyma is false hold then the parasympathetic is abient." ]
[ "there is something such that that it is not Moravian and does nose rhinophyma is wrong." ]
there is something such that that it is not Moravian and does nose rhinophyma is wrong.
if that there exists something such that the fact that it is not Moravian and noses rhinophyma is false hold then the parasympathetic is abient.
that if the canvassing outback occurs then the drizzle occurs is correct.
sent1: the nosing barnacle does not occur and the laziness happens. sent2: if the fact that the canvassing outback occurs hold the monolatry does not occur. sent3: that the drizzle happens is not incorrect if the monolatry does not occur and the rushing algebraist happens. sent4: the blastocoelicness occurs. sent5: the monolatry does not occur and the rushing algebraist occurs if the canvassing outback happens. sent6: the fact that the non-invariableness and the collecting happens is not incorrect. sent7: the colorlessness occurs.
{A} -> {B}
sent1: (¬{AJ} & {JD}) sent2: {A} -> ¬{AA} sent3: (¬{AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent4: {JE} sent5: {A} -> (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent6: (¬{EC} & {GK}) sent7: {D}
[ "void -> assump1: Let's assume that the canvassing outback happens.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the monolatry does not occur but the rushing algebraist happens.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: the drizzle happens.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
[ "void -> assump1: {A}; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: (¬{AA} & {AB}); sent3 & int1 -> int2: {B}; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
3
3
5
0
5
null
null
null
[]
null
null
$hypothesis$ = that if the canvassing outback occurs then the drizzle occurs is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the nosing barnacle does not occur and the laziness happens. sent2: if the fact that the canvassing outback occurs hold the monolatry does not occur. sent3: that the drizzle happens is not incorrect if the monolatry does not occur and the rushing algebraist happens. sent4: the blastocoelicness occurs. sent5: the monolatry does not occur and the rushing algebraist occurs if the canvassing outback happens. sent6: the fact that the non-invariableness and the collecting happens is not incorrect. sent7: the colorlessness occurs. ; $proof$ =
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the canvassing outback happens.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the monolatry does not occur but the rushing algebraist happens.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: the drizzle happens.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
DeductionInstance
the monolatry does not occur and the rushing algebraist occurs if the canvassing outback happens.
[ "that the drizzle happens is not incorrect if the monolatry does not occur and the rushing algebraist happens." ]
[ "the monolatry does not occur and the rushing algebraist occurs if the canvassing outback happens." ]
the monolatry does not occur and the rushing algebraist occurs if the canvassing outback happens.
that the drizzle happens is not incorrect if the monolatry does not occur and the rushing algebraist happens.
the fact that the burglar noses nonalignment hold.
sent1: if the galvanometer does not rush polysaccharide the burglar is not stored-program. sent2: The polysaccharide does not rush galvanometer. sent3: the burglar does nose nonalignment if it is not stored-program.
{C}{b}
sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent2: ¬{AA}{aa} sent3: ¬{B}{b} -> {C}{b}
[]
UNKNOWN
[]
UNKNOWN
2
null
1
0
1
null
null
null
[]
null
null
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the burglar noses nonalignment hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the galvanometer does not rush polysaccharide the burglar is not stored-program. sent2: The polysaccharide does not rush galvanometer. sent3: the burglar does nose nonalignment if it is not stored-program. ; $proof$ =
__UNKNOWN__
DeductionInstance
if the galvanometer does not rush polysaccharide the burglar is not stored-program.
[ "The polysaccharide does not rush galvanometer." ]
[ "if the galvanometer does not rush polysaccharide the burglar is not stored-program." ]
if the galvanometer does not rush polysaccharide the burglar is not stored-program.
The polysaccharide does not rush galvanometer.
the personification is not fernless.
sent1: if something is non-three-dimensional thing that is cardiographic then it is not a kind of a foxhunt. sent2: if there is something such that it does not nose personification the personification does not nose personification and/or is not a kind of a candlesnuffer. sent3: if the fact that the ebb is a stockfish but not psychopharmacological does not hold then it is not a Exmoor. sent4: if something is not a kind of a foxhunt then the fact that it is bilious and it is not fernless does not hold. sent5: the personification is not non-bilious but indiscreet. sent6: if something is indiscreet then the fact that it is fernless is true. sent7: if that something is bilious but it is not fernless does not hold it is indiscreet. sent8: something does not nose personification if it is not a Exmoor. sent9: if something is contrasty it is not three-dimensional but cardiographic. sent10: the personification is bilious. sent11: that that the ebb is a stockfish that is not psychopharmacological is not false is incorrect. sent12: the mirage is contrasty if either the personification does not nose personification or it is not a candlesnuffer or both.
¬{C}{a}
sent1: (x): (¬{E}x & {F}x) -> ¬{D}x sent2: (x): ¬{I}x -> (¬{I}{a} v ¬{H}{a}) sent3: ¬({L}{b} & ¬{K}{b}) -> ¬{J}{b} sent4: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬({A}x & ¬{C}x) sent5: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent6: (x): {B}x -> {C}x sent7: (x): ¬({A}x & ¬{C}x) -> {B}x sent8: (x): ¬{J}x -> ¬{I}x sent9: (x): {G}x -> (¬{E}x & {F}x) sent10: {A}{a} sent11: ¬({L}{b} & ¬{K}{b}) sent12: (¬{I}{a} v ¬{H}{a}) -> {G}{dt}
[ "sent5 -> int1: the personification is indiscreet.; sent6 -> int2: if the personification is indiscreet it is not ferned.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
[ "sent5 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent6 -> int2: {B}{a} -> {C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
2
2
10
0
10
the mirage is indiscreet.
{B}{dt}
9
[ "sent7 -> int3: the mirage is indiscreet if that it is bilious and it is not fernless does not hold.; sent4 -> int4: the fact that the mirage is bilious thing that is not fernless is false if it is not a kind of a foxhunt.; sent1 -> int5: if the mirage is not three-dimensional but cardiographic it does not foxhunt.; sent9 -> int6: if the mirage is contrasty then it is not three-dimensional and it is cardiographic.; sent8 -> int7: if the ebb is not a Exmoor then it does not nose personification.; sent3 & sent11 -> int8: the ebb is not a kind of a Exmoor.; int7 & int8 -> int9: the ebb does not nose personification.; int9 -> int10: there exists something such that it does not nose personification.; int10 & sent2 -> int11: the personification either does not nose personification or is not a candlesnuffer or both.; sent12 & int11 -> int12: that the mirage is contrasty is not incorrect.; int6 & int12 -> int13: the fact that the mirage is non-three-dimensional thing that is cardiographic is correct.; int5 & int13 -> int14: the mirage is not a foxhunt.; int4 & int14 -> int15: that the mirage is bilious but it is not fernless does not hold.; int3 & int15 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
PROVED
$hypothesis$ = the personification is not fernless. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is non-three-dimensional thing that is cardiographic then it is not a kind of a foxhunt. sent2: if there is something such that it does not nose personification the personification does not nose personification and/or is not a kind of a candlesnuffer. sent3: if the fact that the ebb is a stockfish but not psychopharmacological does not hold then it is not a Exmoor. sent4: if something is not a kind of a foxhunt then the fact that it is bilious and it is not fernless does not hold. sent5: the personification is not non-bilious but indiscreet. sent6: if something is indiscreet then the fact that it is fernless is true. sent7: if that something is bilious but it is not fernless does not hold it is indiscreet. sent8: something does not nose personification if it is not a Exmoor. sent9: if something is contrasty it is not three-dimensional but cardiographic. sent10: the personification is bilious. sent11: that that the ebb is a stockfish that is not psychopharmacological is not false is incorrect. sent12: the mirage is contrasty if either the personification does not nose personification or it is not a candlesnuffer or both. ; $proof$ =
sent5 -> int1: the personification is indiscreet.; sent6 -> int2: if the personification is indiscreet it is not ferned.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
DeductionInstance
the personification is not non-bilious but indiscreet.
[ "if something is indiscreet then the fact that it is fernless is true." ]
[ "the personification is not non-bilious but indiscreet." ]
the personification is not non-bilious but indiscreet.
if something is indiscreet then the fact that it is fernless is true.
the weighbridge does sensitize algebraist.
sent1: that something is a kind of non-Ptolemaic thing that is not a kind of a farandole is not right if it does sensitize algebraist. sent2: something that rushes insert is not a kind of a sally and is not a Domitian. sent3: something is not a kind of a sally if the fact that it is a Domitian and a sally is not true. sent4: something does not sensitize algebraist if it is Ptolemaic. sent5: if that something is a sodium and not a sheepwalk is incorrect then it is a sheepwalk. sent6: the counterbalance is not Ptolemaic and/or is not a farandole. sent7: that something is a kind of a Domitian that is a kind of a sally is not right if it is not a sodium. sent8: the counterbalance rushes insert if there exists something such that the fact that it is both not insignificant and not a paloverde is incorrect. sent9: if the adornment does nose globule that the weighbridge sensitizes algebraist is correct. sent10: the bitumen sensitizes algebraist. sent11: if something is not a farandole but it does nose globule it is Ptolemaic. sent12: that the adornment is not insignificant and it is not a kind of a paloverde does not hold. sent13: something is not a farandole but it noses globule if it is a sheepwalk. sent14: if the weighbridge is not a sally then the counterbalance does sensitize algebraist and is not a kind of a sheepwalk. sent15: if there exists something such that the fact that it is non-Ptolemaic thing that is not a farandole is wrong the respirator noses globule. sent16: there exists nothing such that it is a paloverde and does not rush insert. sent17: the fact that the adornment noses globule is true if the counterbalance is not a farandole.
{D}{b}
sent1: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) sent2: (x): {I}x -> (¬{F}x & ¬{H}x) sent3: (x): ¬({H}x & {F}x) -> ¬{F}x sent4: (x): {A}x -> ¬{D}x sent5: (x): ¬({G}x & ¬{E}x) -> {E}x sent6: (¬{A}{a} v ¬{B}{a}) sent7: (x): ¬{G}x -> ¬({H}x & {F}x) sent8: (x): ¬(¬{K}x & ¬{J}x) -> {I}{a} sent9: {C}{c} -> {D}{b} sent10: {D}{dr} sent11: (x): (¬{B}x & {C}x) -> {A}x sent12: ¬(¬{K}{c} & ¬{J}{c}) sent13: (x): {E}x -> (¬{B}x & {C}x) sent14: ¬{F}{b} -> ({D}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) sent15: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) -> {C}{ae} sent16: (x): ¬({J}x & ¬{I}x) sent17: ¬{B}{a} -> {C}{c}
[]
UNKNOWN
[]
UNKNOWN
2
null
14
0
14
the weighbridge does not sensitize algebraist.
¬{D}{b}
10
[ "sent4 -> int1: the weighbridge does not sensitize algebraist if it is Ptolemaic.; sent11 -> int2: that the weighbridge is Ptolemaic is true if it is not a farandole and does nose globule.; sent13 -> int3: if the fact that the weighbridge is a sheepwalk is not incorrect it is not a farandole and it noses globule.; sent5 -> int4: the weighbridge is a sheepwalk if the fact that it is a sodium and it is not a kind of a sheepwalk is incorrect.; sent2 -> int5: if the counterbalance rushes insert it is not a kind of a sally and is not a kind of a Domitian.; sent12 -> int6: there exists something such that the fact that it is both not insignificant and not a paloverde does not hold.; int6 & sent8 -> int7: the counterbalance does rush insert.; int5 & int7 -> int8: the counterbalance is both not a sally and not a Domitian.; int8 -> int9: the counterbalance is not a sally.; int9 -> int10: there is something such that it is not a sally.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the weighbridge does sensitize algebraist. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is a kind of non-Ptolemaic thing that is not a kind of a farandole is not right if it does sensitize algebraist. sent2: something that rushes insert is not a kind of a sally and is not a Domitian. sent3: something is not a kind of a sally if the fact that it is a Domitian and a sally is not true. sent4: something does not sensitize algebraist if it is Ptolemaic. sent5: if that something is a sodium and not a sheepwalk is incorrect then it is a sheepwalk. sent6: the counterbalance is not Ptolemaic and/or is not a farandole. sent7: that something is a kind of a Domitian that is a kind of a sally is not right if it is not a sodium. sent8: the counterbalance rushes insert if there exists something such that the fact that it is both not insignificant and not a paloverde is incorrect. sent9: if the adornment does nose globule that the weighbridge sensitizes algebraist is correct. sent10: the bitumen sensitizes algebraist. sent11: if something is not a farandole but it does nose globule it is Ptolemaic. sent12: that the adornment is not insignificant and it is not a kind of a paloverde does not hold. sent13: something is not a farandole but it noses globule if it is a sheepwalk. sent14: if the weighbridge is not a sally then the counterbalance does sensitize algebraist and is not a kind of a sheepwalk. sent15: if there exists something such that the fact that it is non-Ptolemaic thing that is not a farandole is wrong the respirator noses globule. sent16: there exists nothing such that it is a paloverde and does not rush insert. sent17: the fact that the adornment noses globule is true if the counterbalance is not a farandole. ; $proof$ =
__UNKNOWN__
DeductionInstance
the counterbalance is not Ptolemaic and/or is not a farandole.
[ "something is not a kind of a sally if the fact that it is a Domitian and a sally is not true." ]
[ "the counterbalance is not Ptolemaic and/or is not a farandole." ]
the counterbalance is not Ptolemaic and/or is not a farandole.
something is not a kind of a sally if the fact that it is a Domitian and a sally is not true.
both the nosing mace and the canvassing bully happens.
sent1: the canvassing ashram is prevented by that the sensitizing Serinus does not occur and the progestationalness does not occur. sent2: the progestationalness and the canvassing bully occurs. sent3: the nosing mace happens and the canvassing ashram occurs. sent4: if the canvassing ashram does not occur that the nosing mace happens and the canvassing bully happens does not hold.
({A} & {C})
sent1: (¬{E} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{B} sent2: ({D} & {C}) sent3: ({A} & {B}) sent4: ¬{B} -> ¬({A} & {C})
[ "sent3 -> int1: the nosing mace occurs.; sent2 -> int2: the canvassing bully happens.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
[ "sent3 -> int1: {A}; sent2 -> int2: {C}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
2
2
2
0
2
the fact that the nosing mace and the canvassing bully happens is wrong.
¬({A} & {C})
5
[]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = both the nosing mace and the canvassing bully happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the canvassing ashram is prevented by that the sensitizing Serinus does not occur and the progestationalness does not occur. sent2: the progestationalness and the canvassing bully occurs. sent3: the nosing mace happens and the canvassing ashram occurs. sent4: if the canvassing ashram does not occur that the nosing mace happens and the canvassing bully happens does not hold. ; $proof$ =
sent3 -> int1: the nosing mace occurs.; sent2 -> int2: the canvassing bully happens.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
DeductionInstance
the nosing mace happens and the canvassing ashram occurs.
[ "the progestationalness and the canvassing bully occurs." ]
[ "the nosing mace happens and the canvassing ashram occurs." ]
the nosing mace happens and the canvassing ashram occurs.
the progestationalness and the canvassing bully occurs.
the cardinalfish is a avaram.
sent1: if something is not an expectation it does not canvass Bubo and canvasses antiferromagnetism. sent2: if that the photometer noses reuptake or it is fluvial or both is false the congee is not an expectation. sent3: if the cardinalfish is anticlimactic thing that does not nose Perdicidae it is non-pediatrics. sent4: if something does nose Perdicidae but it is not a kind of a carinate the fact that it does not canvass Bubo hold. sent5: if the cardinalfish does nose Perdicidae and is a kind of a carinate it does not canvass Bubo. sent6: the cardinalfish does nose airs but it does not rush electroscope. sent7: everything is not a carinate. sent8: something does not canvass Bubo if it does nose Perdicidae and it is a kind of a carinate. sent9: the cardinalfish is not a carinate. sent10: everything does nose Perdicidae and is not a carinate.
{B}{aa}
sent1: (x): ¬{D}x -> (¬{A}x & {C}x) sent2: ¬({E}{b} v {F}{b}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent3: ({AN}{aa} & ¬{AA}{aa}) -> ¬{CK}{aa} sent4: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}x sent5: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent6: ({M}{aa} & ¬{JJ}{aa}) sent7: (x): ¬{AB}x sent8: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}x sent9: ¬{AB}{aa} sent10: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x)
[ "sent10 -> int1: the cardinalfish noses Perdicidae but it is not a kind of a carinate.; sent4 -> int2: the cardinalfish does not canvass Bubo if it noses Perdicidae and it is not a carinate.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the cardinalfish does not canvass Bubo.;" ]
UNKNOWN
[ "sent10 -> int1: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); sent4 -> int2: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬{A}{aa};" ]
UNKNOWN
3
null
8
0
8
the cardinalfish is not a kind of a avaram.
¬{B}{aa}
6
[ "sent1 -> int4: if the congee is not an expectation it does not canvass Bubo and does canvass antiferromagnetism.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the cardinalfish is a avaram. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not an expectation it does not canvass Bubo and canvasses antiferromagnetism. sent2: if that the photometer noses reuptake or it is fluvial or both is false the congee is not an expectation. sent3: if the cardinalfish is anticlimactic thing that does not nose Perdicidae it is non-pediatrics. sent4: if something does nose Perdicidae but it is not a kind of a carinate the fact that it does not canvass Bubo hold. sent5: if the cardinalfish does nose Perdicidae and is a kind of a carinate it does not canvass Bubo. sent6: the cardinalfish does nose airs but it does not rush electroscope. sent7: everything is not a carinate. sent8: something does not canvass Bubo if it does nose Perdicidae and it is a kind of a carinate. sent9: the cardinalfish is not a carinate. sent10: everything does nose Perdicidae and is not a carinate. ; $proof$ =
__UNKNOWN__
DeductionInstance
everything does nose Perdicidae and is not a carinate.
[ "if something does nose Perdicidae but it is not a kind of a carinate the fact that it does not canvass Bubo hold." ]
[ "everything does nose Perdicidae and is not a carinate." ]
everything does nose Perdicidae and is not a carinate.
if something does nose Perdicidae but it is not a kind of a carinate the fact that it does not canvass Bubo hold.
the pulsating does not occur.
sent1: the pulsating does not occur if the immersion does not occur and the sensitizing romper does not occur. sent2: if the canvassing impedance does not occur then the immersion happens and the canvassing fetterbush occurs. sent3: if not the dunging but the sensitizing Martial occurs the invertebrateness occurs. sent4: the immersion does not occur. sent5: the canvassing impedance does not occur if the fact that that the non-altruisticness and the canvassing impedance happens is correct is wrong. sent6: the rushing businesswoman does not occur and the macromolecularness does not occur. sent7: if the decimating happens the noncrystallineness occurs. sent8: that the ateleioticness occurs and the emaciating occurs is caused by that the watch does not occur. sent9: if the noncrystallineness happens then the immersion does not occur. sent10: the dunging does not occur and the sensitizing Martial occurs. sent11: that the immersion does not occur and the sensitizing romper does not occur is brought about by that the noncrystallineness happens. sent12: the rushing Topeka does not occur. sent13: if the fact that the immersion happens is correct then both the non-noncrystallineness and the sensitizing romper occurs. sent14: the puerperalness occurs and/or the rushing misfortune does not occur if the invertebrateness occurs. sent15: if the immersion occurs and the sensitizing romper does not occur then that the pulsating does not occur hold. sent16: the fact that both the non-altruisticness and the canvassing impedance happens is false if that the ateleioticness occurs hold.
¬{E}
sent1: (¬{D} & ¬{C}) -> ¬{E} sent2: ¬{G} -> ({D} & {F}) sent3: (¬{P} & {O}) -> {N} sent4: ¬{D} sent5: ¬(¬{I} & {G}) -> ¬{G} sent6: (¬{S} & ¬{HH}) sent7: {A} -> {B} sent8: ¬{K} -> ({H} & {J}) sent9: {B} -> ¬{D} sent10: (¬{P} & {O}) sent11: {B} -> (¬{D} & ¬{C}) sent12: ¬{FH} sent13: {D} -> (¬{B} & {C}) sent14: {N} -> ({L} v ¬{M}) sent15: ({D} & ¬{C}) -> ¬{E} sent16: {H} -> ¬(¬{I} & {G})
[]
UNKNOWN
[]
UNKNOWN
3
null
13
0
13
the pulsating happens.
{E}
13
[ "sent3 & sent10 -> int1: that the invertebrate happens hold.; sent14 & int1 -> int2: the puerperalness happens and/or the rushing misfortune does not occur.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the pulsating does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the pulsating does not occur if the immersion does not occur and the sensitizing romper does not occur. sent2: if the canvassing impedance does not occur then the immersion happens and the canvassing fetterbush occurs. sent3: if not the dunging but the sensitizing Martial occurs the invertebrateness occurs. sent4: the immersion does not occur. sent5: the canvassing impedance does not occur if the fact that that the non-altruisticness and the canvassing impedance happens is correct is wrong. sent6: the rushing businesswoman does not occur and the macromolecularness does not occur. sent7: if the decimating happens the noncrystallineness occurs. sent8: that the ateleioticness occurs and the emaciating occurs is caused by that the watch does not occur. sent9: if the noncrystallineness happens then the immersion does not occur. sent10: the dunging does not occur and the sensitizing Martial occurs. sent11: that the immersion does not occur and the sensitizing romper does not occur is brought about by that the noncrystallineness happens. sent12: the rushing Topeka does not occur. sent13: if the fact that the immersion happens is correct then both the non-noncrystallineness and the sensitizing romper occurs. sent14: the puerperalness occurs and/or the rushing misfortune does not occur if the invertebrateness occurs. sent15: if the immersion occurs and the sensitizing romper does not occur then that the pulsating does not occur hold. sent16: the fact that both the non-altruisticness and the canvassing impedance happens is false if that the ateleioticness occurs hold. ; $proof$ =
__UNKNOWN__
DeductionInstance
that the ateleioticness occurs and the emaciating occurs is caused by that the watch does not occur.
[ "the rushing businesswoman does not occur and the macromolecularness does not occur." ]
[ "that the ateleioticness occurs and the emaciating occurs is caused by that the watch does not occur." ]
that the ateleioticness occurs and the emaciating occurs is caused by that the watch does not occur.
the rushing businesswoman does not occur and the macromolecularness does not occur.
the superoxide is non-apophatic.
sent1: if the updraft is not a pseudohermaphroditism and it is not a kind of a Ojibwa then it is a discipline. sent2: if the updraft is a discipline then the superoxide is apophatic. sent3: the fact that something is not rosaceous but it is a discipline is not right if it is a clarification. sent4: the updraft is both not a pseudohermaphroditism and not a Ojibwa.
¬{A}{b}
sent1: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent2: {B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent3: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & {B}x) sent4: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})
[ "sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the updraft is a discipline.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
[ "sent1 & sent4 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
2
2
1
0
1
the superoxide is not apophatic.
¬{A}{b}
8
[ "sent3 -> int2: that the manganate is non-rosaceous but it is a kind of a discipline does not hold if it is a kind of a clarification.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the superoxide is non-apophatic. ; $context$ = sent1: if the updraft is not a pseudohermaphroditism and it is not a kind of a Ojibwa then it is a discipline. sent2: if the updraft is a discipline then the superoxide is apophatic. sent3: the fact that something is not rosaceous but it is a discipline is not right if it is a clarification. sent4: the updraft is both not a pseudohermaphroditism and not a Ojibwa. ; $proof$ =
sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the updraft is a discipline.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
DeductionInstance
if the updraft is not a pseudohermaphroditism and it is not a kind of a Ojibwa then it is a discipline.
[ "the updraft is both not a pseudohermaphroditism and not a Ojibwa.", "if the updraft is a discipline then the superoxide is apophatic." ]
[ "If the updraft is not a kind of Ojibwa then it is not a discipline.", "If the updraft is not a kind of Ojibwa then it is a discipline." ]
If the updraft is not a kind of Ojibwa then it is not a discipline.
the updraft is both not a pseudohermaphroditism and not a Ojibwa.
the superoxide is non-apophatic.
sent1: if the updraft is not a pseudohermaphroditism and it is not a kind of a Ojibwa then it is a discipline. sent2: if the updraft is a discipline then the superoxide is apophatic. sent3: the fact that something is not rosaceous but it is a discipline is not right if it is a clarification. sent4: the updraft is both not a pseudohermaphroditism and not a Ojibwa.
¬{A}{b}
sent1: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent2: {B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent3: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & {B}x) sent4: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})
[ "sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the updraft is a discipline.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
[ "sent1 & sent4 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
2
2
1
0
1
the superoxide is not apophatic.
¬{A}{b}
8
[ "sent3 -> int2: that the manganate is non-rosaceous but it is a kind of a discipline does not hold if it is a kind of a clarification.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the superoxide is non-apophatic. ; $context$ = sent1: if the updraft is not a pseudohermaphroditism and it is not a kind of a Ojibwa then it is a discipline. sent2: if the updraft is a discipline then the superoxide is apophatic. sent3: the fact that something is not rosaceous but it is a discipline is not right if it is a clarification. sent4: the updraft is both not a pseudohermaphroditism and not a Ojibwa. ; $proof$ =
sent1 & sent4 -> int1: the updraft is a discipline.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
DeductionInstance
if the updraft is not a pseudohermaphroditism and it is not a kind of a Ojibwa then it is a discipline.
[ "the updraft is both not a pseudohermaphroditism and not a Ojibwa.", "if the updraft is a discipline then the superoxide is apophatic." ]
[ "If the updraft is not a kind of Ojibwa then it is not a discipline.", "If the updraft is not a kind of Ojibwa then it is a discipline." ]
If the updraft is not a kind of Ojibwa then it is a discipline.
if the updraft is a discipline then the superoxide is apophatic.
the silks does not sign and is not biologistic.
sent1: the tourtiere signs if the silks is not congruent. sent2: something is not congruent. sent3: if something is rounded then it is non-electromechanical thing that does not rush imposture. sent4: the appeaser is not a Scincidae. sent5: the tomtate is not congruent. sent6: if that something is a kind of a scratchpad but it is not a scaliness is incorrect then it does not sensitize silks. sent7: something is both not a signed and non-biologistic if that it convoys is true. sent8: there is something such that it does not nose trident. sent9: the fact that the silks is a scratchpad and is not a scaliness is incorrect if it does not nose maximum. sent10: the cocuswood is biologistic. sent11: if something does not sensitize silks it rushes catafalque and is not biologistic. sent12: the tourtiere is biologistic if the silks does rush catafalque and is not biologistic. sent13: something is not biologistic if it does convoy. sent14: if there exists something such that it does not nose trident then the tourtiere is not congruent. sent15: the silks is not biologistic if it is a kind of a convoy. sent16: something noses trident. sent17: the silks is not biologistic. sent18: the trident is congruent thing that is not a convoy. sent19: if the fact that the tourtiere is incongruent and/or a convoy is incorrect then the titmouse does not nose trident. sent20: something does not canvass blitz. sent21: if something is biologistic it is not congruent and is not a signed. sent22: if something does not nose trident it does not canvass incivility and is not a kind of a signed.
(¬{E}{b} & ¬{D}{b})
sent1: ¬{B}{b} -> {E}{a} sent2: (Ex): ¬{B}x sent3: (x): {GL}x -> (¬{JJ}x & ¬{GD}x) sent4: ¬{DG}{ga} sent5: ¬{B}{ep} sent6: (x): ¬({H}x & ¬{I}x) -> ¬{F}x sent7: (x): {C}x -> (¬{E}x & ¬{D}x) sent8: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent9: ¬{J}{b} -> ¬({H}{b} & ¬{I}{b}) sent10: {D}{jg} sent11: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({G}x & ¬{D}x) sent12: ({G}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) -> {D}{a} sent13: (x): {C}x -> ¬{D}x sent14: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{B}{a} sent15: {C}{b} -> ¬{D}{b} sent16: (Ex): {A}x sent17: ¬{D}{b} sent18: ({B}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) sent19: ¬(¬{B}{a} v {C}{a}) -> ¬{A}{eg} sent20: (Ex): ¬{JK}x sent21: (x): {D}x -> (¬{B}x & ¬{E}x) sent22: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{CK}x & ¬{E}x)
[ "sent8 & sent14 -> int1: that the tourtiere is not congruent is right.; sent7 -> int2: if the silks is a kind of a convoy then it is not a signed and it is not biologistic.;" ]
UNKNOWN
[ "sent8 & sent14 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; sent7 -> int2: {C}{b} -> (¬{E}{b} & ¬{D}{b});" ]
UNKNOWN
3
null
19
0
19
the titmouse does not canvass incivility and it does not sign.
(¬{CK}{eg} & ¬{E}{eg})
7
[ "sent22 -> int3: if the titmouse does not nose trident it does not canvass incivility and does not sign.; sent11 -> int4: if the silks does not sensitize silks then it does rush catafalque and is not biologistic.; sent6 -> int5: if that the silks is a kind of a scratchpad and is not a kind of a scaliness is wrong then it does not sensitize silks.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the silks does not sign and is not biologistic. ; $context$ = sent1: the tourtiere signs if the silks is not congruent. sent2: something is not congruent. sent3: if something is rounded then it is non-electromechanical thing that does not rush imposture. sent4: the appeaser is not a Scincidae. sent5: the tomtate is not congruent. sent6: if that something is a kind of a scratchpad but it is not a scaliness is incorrect then it does not sensitize silks. sent7: something is both not a signed and non-biologistic if that it convoys is true. sent8: there is something such that it does not nose trident. sent9: the fact that the silks is a scratchpad and is not a scaliness is incorrect if it does not nose maximum. sent10: the cocuswood is biologistic. sent11: if something does not sensitize silks it rushes catafalque and is not biologistic. sent12: the tourtiere is biologistic if the silks does rush catafalque and is not biologistic. sent13: something is not biologistic if it does convoy. sent14: if there exists something such that it does not nose trident then the tourtiere is not congruent. sent15: the silks is not biologistic if it is a kind of a convoy. sent16: something noses trident. sent17: the silks is not biologistic. sent18: the trident is congruent thing that is not a convoy. sent19: if the fact that the tourtiere is incongruent and/or a convoy is incorrect then the titmouse does not nose trident. sent20: something does not canvass blitz. sent21: if something is biologistic it is not congruent and is not a signed. sent22: if something does not nose trident it does not canvass incivility and is not a kind of a signed. ; $proof$ =
__UNKNOWN__
DeductionInstance
there is something such that it does not nose trident.
[ "if there exists something such that it does not nose trident then the tourtiere is not congruent.", "something is both not a signed and non-biologistic if that it convoys is true." ]
[ "There is something that does not nose trident.", "It doesn't nose trident." ]
There is something that does not nose trident.
if there exists something such that it does not nose trident then the tourtiere is not congruent.
the silks does not sign and is not biologistic.
sent1: the tourtiere signs if the silks is not congruent. sent2: something is not congruent. sent3: if something is rounded then it is non-electromechanical thing that does not rush imposture. sent4: the appeaser is not a Scincidae. sent5: the tomtate is not congruent. sent6: if that something is a kind of a scratchpad but it is not a scaliness is incorrect then it does not sensitize silks. sent7: something is both not a signed and non-biologistic if that it convoys is true. sent8: there is something such that it does not nose trident. sent9: the fact that the silks is a scratchpad and is not a scaliness is incorrect if it does not nose maximum. sent10: the cocuswood is biologistic. sent11: if something does not sensitize silks it rushes catafalque and is not biologistic. sent12: the tourtiere is biologistic if the silks does rush catafalque and is not biologistic. sent13: something is not biologistic if it does convoy. sent14: if there exists something such that it does not nose trident then the tourtiere is not congruent. sent15: the silks is not biologistic if it is a kind of a convoy. sent16: something noses trident. sent17: the silks is not biologistic. sent18: the trident is congruent thing that is not a convoy. sent19: if the fact that the tourtiere is incongruent and/or a convoy is incorrect then the titmouse does not nose trident. sent20: something does not canvass blitz. sent21: if something is biologistic it is not congruent and is not a signed. sent22: if something does not nose trident it does not canvass incivility and is not a kind of a signed.
(¬{E}{b} & ¬{D}{b})
sent1: ¬{B}{b} -> {E}{a} sent2: (Ex): ¬{B}x sent3: (x): {GL}x -> (¬{JJ}x & ¬{GD}x) sent4: ¬{DG}{ga} sent5: ¬{B}{ep} sent6: (x): ¬({H}x & ¬{I}x) -> ¬{F}x sent7: (x): {C}x -> (¬{E}x & ¬{D}x) sent8: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent9: ¬{J}{b} -> ¬({H}{b} & ¬{I}{b}) sent10: {D}{jg} sent11: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({G}x & ¬{D}x) sent12: ({G}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) -> {D}{a} sent13: (x): {C}x -> ¬{D}x sent14: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{B}{a} sent15: {C}{b} -> ¬{D}{b} sent16: (Ex): {A}x sent17: ¬{D}{b} sent18: ({B}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) sent19: ¬(¬{B}{a} v {C}{a}) -> ¬{A}{eg} sent20: (Ex): ¬{JK}x sent21: (x): {D}x -> (¬{B}x & ¬{E}x) sent22: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{CK}x & ¬{E}x)
[ "sent8 & sent14 -> int1: that the tourtiere is not congruent is right.; sent7 -> int2: if the silks is a kind of a convoy then it is not a signed and it is not biologistic.;" ]
UNKNOWN
[ "sent8 & sent14 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; sent7 -> int2: {C}{b} -> (¬{E}{b} & ¬{D}{b});" ]
UNKNOWN
3
null
19
0
19
the titmouse does not canvass incivility and it does not sign.
(¬{CK}{eg} & ¬{E}{eg})
7
[ "sent22 -> int3: if the titmouse does not nose trident it does not canvass incivility and does not sign.; sent11 -> int4: if the silks does not sensitize silks then it does rush catafalque and is not biologistic.; sent6 -> int5: if that the silks is a kind of a scratchpad and is not a kind of a scaliness is wrong then it does not sensitize silks.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the silks does not sign and is not biologistic. ; $context$ = sent1: the tourtiere signs if the silks is not congruent. sent2: something is not congruent. sent3: if something is rounded then it is non-electromechanical thing that does not rush imposture. sent4: the appeaser is not a Scincidae. sent5: the tomtate is not congruent. sent6: if that something is a kind of a scratchpad but it is not a scaliness is incorrect then it does not sensitize silks. sent7: something is both not a signed and non-biologistic if that it convoys is true. sent8: there is something such that it does not nose trident. sent9: the fact that the silks is a scratchpad and is not a scaliness is incorrect if it does not nose maximum. sent10: the cocuswood is biologistic. sent11: if something does not sensitize silks it rushes catafalque and is not biologistic. sent12: the tourtiere is biologistic if the silks does rush catafalque and is not biologistic. sent13: something is not biologistic if it does convoy. sent14: if there exists something such that it does not nose trident then the tourtiere is not congruent. sent15: the silks is not biologistic if it is a kind of a convoy. sent16: something noses trident. sent17: the silks is not biologistic. sent18: the trident is congruent thing that is not a convoy. sent19: if the fact that the tourtiere is incongruent and/or a convoy is incorrect then the titmouse does not nose trident. sent20: something does not canvass blitz. sent21: if something is biologistic it is not congruent and is not a signed. sent22: if something does not nose trident it does not canvass incivility and is not a kind of a signed. ; $proof$ =
__UNKNOWN__
DeductionInstance
there is something such that it does not nose trident.
[ "if there exists something such that it does not nose trident then the tourtiere is not congruent.", "something is both not a signed and non-biologistic if that it convoys is true." ]
[ "There is something that does not nose trident.", "It doesn't nose trident." ]
It doesn't nose trident.
something is both not a signed and non-biologistic if that it convoys is true.
the lionfish is a Housatonic but it does not rush guar.
sent1: something is an exclusion and it is a seigniory if it is not ordinal. sent2: the alpenstock is ordinal and is nonslippery if it does not rush slovenliness. sent3: if something does not rush bookkeeper it is a Platycerium and it is not semiterrestrial. sent4: if something is a kind of a seigniory then that it is a Housatonic and it does not rush guar is wrong. sent5: something is not a ordinal if it is nonslippery thing that does rush slovenliness. sent6: something does predate if it does not canvass equator and is not a marshal. sent7: the alpenstock does not rush slovenliness. sent8: the Elizabethan is not a seigniory. sent9: something is nonslippery if it does not canvass alpenstock. sent10: if the floorboard does predate the bookkeeper does not predate. sent11: the lionfish is not an exclusion but it is ordinal. sent12: the alpenstock is not an exclusion if it is a ordinal. sent13: that the lionfish does not canvass alpenstock is true if a Platycerium is not semiterrestrial. sent14: the lionfish is a Housatonic if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a seigniory. sent15: the floorboard does not canvass equator and is not a marshal if it is a Linz. sent16: if that the bookkeeper does not predate is not incorrect then the hurdler is a classical that does not nose unfamiliarity. sent17: the lionfish does not rush guar if it is not an exclusion and it is a ordinal. sent18: the trolleybus does not rush bookkeeper. sent19: if the hurdler is a classical but it does not nose unfamiliarity the lionfish rushes slovenliness.
({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a})
sent1: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({D}x & {A}x) sent2: ¬{G}{cb} -> ({E}{cb} & {F}{cb}) sent3: (x): ¬{P}x -> ({N}x & ¬{O}x) sent4: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x) sent5: (x): ({F}x & {G}x) -> ¬{E}x sent6: (x): (¬{K}x & ¬{L}x) -> {J}x sent7: ¬{G}{cb} sent8: ¬{A}{aa} sent9: (x): ¬{M}x -> {F}x sent10: {J}{d} -> ¬{J}{c} sent11: (¬{D}{a} & {E}{a}) sent12: {E}{cb} -> ¬{D}{cb} sent13: (x): ({N}x & ¬{O}x) -> ¬{M}{a} sent14: (x): ¬{A}x -> {B}{a} sent15: {Q}{d} -> (¬{K}{d} & ¬{L}{d}) sent16: ¬{J}{c} -> ({I}{b} & ¬{H}{b}) sent17: (¬{D}{a} & {E}{a}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent18: ¬{P}{e} sent19: ({I}{b} & ¬{H}{b}) -> {G}{a}
[ "sent8 -> int1: something is not a kind of a seigniory.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the lionfish is a kind of a Housatonic.; sent17 & sent11 -> int3: the lionfish does not rush guar.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
[ "sent8 -> int1: (Ex): ¬{A}x; int1 & sent14 -> int2: {B}{a}; sent17 & sent11 -> int3: ¬{C}{a}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
3
3
15
0
15
that the lionfish is a Housatonic but it does not rush guar is not correct.
¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a})
10
[ "sent4 -> int4: if the lionfish is a seigniory the fact that it is a Housatonic and does not rush guar is wrong.; sent1 -> int5: the lionfish is an exclusion that is a kind of a seigniory if it is not ordinal.; sent5 -> int6: if the lionfish is nonslippery and it does rush slovenliness then it is not ordinal.; sent9 -> int7: if the lionfish does not canvass alpenstock then it is nonslippery.; sent3 -> int8: the trolleybus is a kind of a Platycerium but it is not semiterrestrial if it does not rush bookkeeper.; int8 & sent18 -> int9: the trolleybus is both a Platycerium and not semiterrestrial.; int9 -> int10: something is both a Platycerium and not semiterrestrial.; int10 & sent13 -> int11: the lionfish does not canvass alpenstock.; int7 & int11 -> int12: the lionfish is nonslippery.; sent6 -> int13: that the floorboard predates is right if it does not canvass equator and it is not a kind of a marshal.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the lionfish is a Housatonic but it does not rush guar. ; $context$ = sent1: something is an exclusion and it is a seigniory if it is not ordinal. sent2: the alpenstock is ordinal and is nonslippery if it does not rush slovenliness. sent3: if something does not rush bookkeeper it is a Platycerium and it is not semiterrestrial. sent4: if something is a kind of a seigniory then that it is a Housatonic and it does not rush guar is wrong. sent5: something is not a ordinal if it is nonslippery thing that does rush slovenliness. sent6: something does predate if it does not canvass equator and is not a marshal. sent7: the alpenstock does not rush slovenliness. sent8: the Elizabethan is not a seigniory. sent9: something is nonslippery if it does not canvass alpenstock. sent10: if the floorboard does predate the bookkeeper does not predate. sent11: the lionfish is not an exclusion but it is ordinal. sent12: the alpenstock is not an exclusion if it is a ordinal. sent13: that the lionfish does not canvass alpenstock is true if a Platycerium is not semiterrestrial. sent14: the lionfish is a Housatonic if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a seigniory. sent15: the floorboard does not canvass equator and is not a marshal if it is a Linz. sent16: if that the bookkeeper does not predate is not incorrect then the hurdler is a classical that does not nose unfamiliarity. sent17: the lionfish does not rush guar if it is not an exclusion and it is a ordinal. sent18: the trolleybus does not rush bookkeeper. sent19: if the hurdler is a classical but it does not nose unfamiliarity the lionfish rushes slovenliness. ; $proof$ =
sent8 -> int1: something is not a kind of a seigniory.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the lionfish is a kind of a Housatonic.; sent17 & sent11 -> int3: the lionfish does not rush guar.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
DeductionInstance
the Elizabethan is not a seigniory.
[ "the lionfish is a Housatonic if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a seigniory.", "the lionfish does not rush guar if it is not an exclusion and it is a ordinal.", "the lionfish is not an exclusion but it is ordinal." ]
[ "The Elizabethan isn't a seigniory.", "The Elizabethan is not a seigniory.", "The Elizabethan isn't aseigniory." ]
The Elizabethan isn't a seigniory.
the lionfish is a Housatonic if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a seigniory.
the lionfish is a Housatonic but it does not rush guar.
sent1: something is an exclusion and it is a seigniory if it is not ordinal. sent2: the alpenstock is ordinal and is nonslippery if it does not rush slovenliness. sent3: if something does not rush bookkeeper it is a Platycerium and it is not semiterrestrial. sent4: if something is a kind of a seigniory then that it is a Housatonic and it does not rush guar is wrong. sent5: something is not a ordinal if it is nonslippery thing that does rush slovenliness. sent6: something does predate if it does not canvass equator and is not a marshal. sent7: the alpenstock does not rush slovenliness. sent8: the Elizabethan is not a seigniory. sent9: something is nonslippery if it does not canvass alpenstock. sent10: if the floorboard does predate the bookkeeper does not predate. sent11: the lionfish is not an exclusion but it is ordinal. sent12: the alpenstock is not an exclusion if it is a ordinal. sent13: that the lionfish does not canvass alpenstock is true if a Platycerium is not semiterrestrial. sent14: the lionfish is a Housatonic if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a seigniory. sent15: the floorboard does not canvass equator and is not a marshal if it is a Linz. sent16: if that the bookkeeper does not predate is not incorrect then the hurdler is a classical that does not nose unfamiliarity. sent17: the lionfish does not rush guar if it is not an exclusion and it is a ordinal. sent18: the trolleybus does not rush bookkeeper. sent19: if the hurdler is a classical but it does not nose unfamiliarity the lionfish rushes slovenliness.
({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a})
sent1: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({D}x & {A}x) sent2: ¬{G}{cb} -> ({E}{cb} & {F}{cb}) sent3: (x): ¬{P}x -> ({N}x & ¬{O}x) sent4: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x) sent5: (x): ({F}x & {G}x) -> ¬{E}x sent6: (x): (¬{K}x & ¬{L}x) -> {J}x sent7: ¬{G}{cb} sent8: ¬{A}{aa} sent9: (x): ¬{M}x -> {F}x sent10: {J}{d} -> ¬{J}{c} sent11: (¬{D}{a} & {E}{a}) sent12: {E}{cb} -> ¬{D}{cb} sent13: (x): ({N}x & ¬{O}x) -> ¬{M}{a} sent14: (x): ¬{A}x -> {B}{a} sent15: {Q}{d} -> (¬{K}{d} & ¬{L}{d}) sent16: ¬{J}{c} -> ({I}{b} & ¬{H}{b}) sent17: (¬{D}{a} & {E}{a}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent18: ¬{P}{e} sent19: ({I}{b} & ¬{H}{b}) -> {G}{a}
[ "sent8 -> int1: something is not a kind of a seigniory.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the lionfish is a kind of a Housatonic.; sent17 & sent11 -> int3: the lionfish does not rush guar.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
[ "sent8 -> int1: (Ex): ¬{A}x; int1 & sent14 -> int2: {B}{a}; sent17 & sent11 -> int3: ¬{C}{a}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
3
3
15
0
15
that the lionfish is a Housatonic but it does not rush guar is not correct.
¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a})
10
[ "sent4 -> int4: if the lionfish is a seigniory the fact that it is a Housatonic and does not rush guar is wrong.; sent1 -> int5: the lionfish is an exclusion that is a kind of a seigniory if it is not ordinal.; sent5 -> int6: if the lionfish is nonslippery and it does rush slovenliness then it is not ordinal.; sent9 -> int7: if the lionfish does not canvass alpenstock then it is nonslippery.; sent3 -> int8: the trolleybus is a kind of a Platycerium but it is not semiterrestrial if it does not rush bookkeeper.; int8 & sent18 -> int9: the trolleybus is both a Platycerium and not semiterrestrial.; int9 -> int10: something is both a Platycerium and not semiterrestrial.; int10 & sent13 -> int11: the lionfish does not canvass alpenstock.; int7 & int11 -> int12: the lionfish is nonslippery.; sent6 -> int13: that the floorboard predates is right if it does not canvass equator and it is not a kind of a marshal.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the lionfish is a Housatonic but it does not rush guar. ; $context$ = sent1: something is an exclusion and it is a seigniory if it is not ordinal. sent2: the alpenstock is ordinal and is nonslippery if it does not rush slovenliness. sent3: if something does not rush bookkeeper it is a Platycerium and it is not semiterrestrial. sent4: if something is a kind of a seigniory then that it is a Housatonic and it does not rush guar is wrong. sent5: something is not a ordinal if it is nonslippery thing that does rush slovenliness. sent6: something does predate if it does not canvass equator and is not a marshal. sent7: the alpenstock does not rush slovenliness. sent8: the Elizabethan is not a seigniory. sent9: something is nonslippery if it does not canvass alpenstock. sent10: if the floorboard does predate the bookkeeper does not predate. sent11: the lionfish is not an exclusion but it is ordinal. sent12: the alpenstock is not an exclusion if it is a ordinal. sent13: that the lionfish does not canvass alpenstock is true if a Platycerium is not semiterrestrial. sent14: the lionfish is a Housatonic if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a seigniory. sent15: the floorboard does not canvass equator and is not a marshal if it is a Linz. sent16: if that the bookkeeper does not predate is not incorrect then the hurdler is a classical that does not nose unfamiliarity. sent17: the lionfish does not rush guar if it is not an exclusion and it is a ordinal. sent18: the trolleybus does not rush bookkeeper. sent19: if the hurdler is a classical but it does not nose unfamiliarity the lionfish rushes slovenliness. ; $proof$ =
sent8 -> int1: something is not a kind of a seigniory.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the lionfish is a kind of a Housatonic.; sent17 & sent11 -> int3: the lionfish does not rush guar.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
DeductionInstance
the Elizabethan is not a seigniory.
[ "the lionfish is a Housatonic if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a seigniory.", "the lionfish does not rush guar if it is not an exclusion and it is a ordinal.", "the lionfish is not an exclusion but it is ordinal." ]
[ "The Elizabethan isn't a seigniory.", "The Elizabethan is not a seigniory.", "The Elizabethan isn't aseigniory." ]
The Elizabethan is not a seigniory.
the lionfish does not rush guar if it is not an exclusion and it is a ordinal.
the lionfish is a Housatonic but it does not rush guar.
sent1: something is an exclusion and it is a seigniory if it is not ordinal. sent2: the alpenstock is ordinal and is nonslippery if it does not rush slovenliness. sent3: if something does not rush bookkeeper it is a Platycerium and it is not semiterrestrial. sent4: if something is a kind of a seigniory then that it is a Housatonic and it does not rush guar is wrong. sent5: something is not a ordinal if it is nonslippery thing that does rush slovenliness. sent6: something does predate if it does not canvass equator and is not a marshal. sent7: the alpenstock does not rush slovenliness. sent8: the Elizabethan is not a seigniory. sent9: something is nonslippery if it does not canvass alpenstock. sent10: if the floorboard does predate the bookkeeper does not predate. sent11: the lionfish is not an exclusion but it is ordinal. sent12: the alpenstock is not an exclusion if it is a ordinal. sent13: that the lionfish does not canvass alpenstock is true if a Platycerium is not semiterrestrial. sent14: the lionfish is a Housatonic if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a seigniory. sent15: the floorboard does not canvass equator and is not a marshal if it is a Linz. sent16: if that the bookkeeper does not predate is not incorrect then the hurdler is a classical that does not nose unfamiliarity. sent17: the lionfish does not rush guar if it is not an exclusion and it is a ordinal. sent18: the trolleybus does not rush bookkeeper. sent19: if the hurdler is a classical but it does not nose unfamiliarity the lionfish rushes slovenliness.
({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a})
sent1: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({D}x & {A}x) sent2: ¬{G}{cb} -> ({E}{cb} & {F}{cb}) sent3: (x): ¬{P}x -> ({N}x & ¬{O}x) sent4: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x) sent5: (x): ({F}x & {G}x) -> ¬{E}x sent6: (x): (¬{K}x & ¬{L}x) -> {J}x sent7: ¬{G}{cb} sent8: ¬{A}{aa} sent9: (x): ¬{M}x -> {F}x sent10: {J}{d} -> ¬{J}{c} sent11: (¬{D}{a} & {E}{a}) sent12: {E}{cb} -> ¬{D}{cb} sent13: (x): ({N}x & ¬{O}x) -> ¬{M}{a} sent14: (x): ¬{A}x -> {B}{a} sent15: {Q}{d} -> (¬{K}{d} & ¬{L}{d}) sent16: ¬{J}{c} -> ({I}{b} & ¬{H}{b}) sent17: (¬{D}{a} & {E}{a}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent18: ¬{P}{e} sent19: ({I}{b} & ¬{H}{b}) -> {G}{a}
[ "sent8 -> int1: something is not a kind of a seigniory.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the lionfish is a kind of a Housatonic.; sent17 & sent11 -> int3: the lionfish does not rush guar.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
[ "sent8 -> int1: (Ex): ¬{A}x; int1 & sent14 -> int2: {B}{a}; sent17 & sent11 -> int3: ¬{C}{a}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
3
3
15
0
15
that the lionfish is a Housatonic but it does not rush guar is not correct.
¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a})
10
[ "sent4 -> int4: if the lionfish is a seigniory the fact that it is a Housatonic and does not rush guar is wrong.; sent1 -> int5: the lionfish is an exclusion that is a kind of a seigniory if it is not ordinal.; sent5 -> int6: if the lionfish is nonslippery and it does rush slovenliness then it is not ordinal.; sent9 -> int7: if the lionfish does not canvass alpenstock then it is nonslippery.; sent3 -> int8: the trolleybus is a kind of a Platycerium but it is not semiterrestrial if it does not rush bookkeeper.; int8 & sent18 -> int9: the trolleybus is both a Platycerium and not semiterrestrial.; int9 -> int10: something is both a Platycerium and not semiterrestrial.; int10 & sent13 -> int11: the lionfish does not canvass alpenstock.; int7 & int11 -> int12: the lionfish is nonslippery.; sent6 -> int13: that the floorboard predates is right if it does not canvass equator and it is not a kind of a marshal.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the lionfish is a Housatonic but it does not rush guar. ; $context$ = sent1: something is an exclusion and it is a seigniory if it is not ordinal. sent2: the alpenstock is ordinal and is nonslippery if it does not rush slovenliness. sent3: if something does not rush bookkeeper it is a Platycerium and it is not semiterrestrial. sent4: if something is a kind of a seigniory then that it is a Housatonic and it does not rush guar is wrong. sent5: something is not a ordinal if it is nonslippery thing that does rush slovenliness. sent6: something does predate if it does not canvass equator and is not a marshal. sent7: the alpenstock does not rush slovenliness. sent8: the Elizabethan is not a seigniory. sent9: something is nonslippery if it does not canvass alpenstock. sent10: if the floorboard does predate the bookkeeper does not predate. sent11: the lionfish is not an exclusion but it is ordinal. sent12: the alpenstock is not an exclusion if it is a ordinal. sent13: that the lionfish does not canvass alpenstock is true if a Platycerium is not semiterrestrial. sent14: the lionfish is a Housatonic if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a seigniory. sent15: the floorboard does not canvass equator and is not a marshal if it is a Linz. sent16: if that the bookkeeper does not predate is not incorrect then the hurdler is a classical that does not nose unfamiliarity. sent17: the lionfish does not rush guar if it is not an exclusion and it is a ordinal. sent18: the trolleybus does not rush bookkeeper. sent19: if the hurdler is a classical but it does not nose unfamiliarity the lionfish rushes slovenliness. ; $proof$ =
sent8 -> int1: something is not a kind of a seigniory.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the lionfish is a kind of a Housatonic.; sent17 & sent11 -> int3: the lionfish does not rush guar.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
DeductionInstance
the Elizabethan is not a seigniory.
[ "the lionfish is a Housatonic if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a seigniory.", "the lionfish does not rush guar if it is not an exclusion and it is a ordinal.", "the lionfish is not an exclusion but it is ordinal." ]
[ "The Elizabethan isn't a seigniory.", "The Elizabethan is not a seigniory.", "The Elizabethan isn't aseigniory." ]
The Elizabethan isn't aseigniory.
the lionfish is not an exclusion but it is ordinal.
the canvassing scheme occurs.
sent1: the unbrokenness occurs. sent2: the tribalization does not occur. sent3: the rushing jaguar does not occur. sent4: the rushing silverwork happens. sent5: if the tonalness happens then the geomorphologicness does not occur. sent6: both the nosing teratology and the innocentness happens if the tonalness does not occur. sent7: the nosing teratology occurs and the tonalness happens.
{E}
sent1: {IO} sent2: ¬{JJ} sent3: ¬{D} sent4: {GK} sent5: {B} -> ¬{C} sent6: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {BS}) sent7: ({A} & {B})
[ "sent7 -> int1: the tonalness occurs.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: that the geomorphologicness does not occur is not wrong.;" ]
UNKNOWN
[ "sent7 -> int1: {B}; int1 & sent5 -> int2: ¬{C};" ]
UNKNOWN
4
null
5
0
5
the innocentness and the oppositeness happens.
({BS} & {IR})
5
[]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the canvassing scheme occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the unbrokenness occurs. sent2: the tribalization does not occur. sent3: the rushing jaguar does not occur. sent4: the rushing silverwork happens. sent5: if the tonalness happens then the geomorphologicness does not occur. sent6: both the nosing teratology and the innocentness happens if the tonalness does not occur. sent7: the nosing teratology occurs and the tonalness happens. ; $proof$ =
__UNKNOWN__
DeductionInstance
the nosing teratology occurs and the tonalness happens.
[ "if the tonalness happens then the geomorphologicness does not occur." ]
[ "the nosing teratology occurs and the tonalness happens." ]
the nosing teratology occurs and the tonalness happens.
if the tonalness happens then the geomorphologicness does not occur.
there exists something such that it is nidicolous.
sent1: there exists something such that that it does lap and it is a baron does not hold. sent2: if something is not a kind of an incidental it is hateful and is nidicolous. sent3: something is not hateful. sent4: if something is not hateful the antidiuretic is nidicolous. sent5: if something is not a arpent then it is not an incidental. sent6: the fact that something that is hateful is not a Aras is right. sent7: if there exists something such that that it is a lap and it is a baron does not hold the scrimshaw is not a kind of a lap. sent8: if the scrimshaw does not lap and it is not anaclinal then the antidiuretic is not a arpent.
(Ex): {B}x
sent1: (Ex): ¬({E}x & {G}x) sent2: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({A}x & {B}x) sent3: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> {B}{a} sent5: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬{C}x sent6: (x): {A}x -> ¬{EB}x sent7: (x): ¬({E}x & {G}x) -> ¬{E}{b} sent8: (¬{E}{b} & ¬{F}{b}) -> ¬{D}{a}
[ "sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the antidiuretic is nidicolous.; int1 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
[ "sent3 & sent4 -> int1: {B}{a}; int1 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
2
2
6
0
6
there exists something such that it is not a kind of a Aras.
(Ex): ¬{EB}x
8
[ "sent6 -> int2: the antidiuretic is not a kind of a Aras if the fact that it is not non-hateful is true.; sent2 -> int3: if the antidiuretic is non-incidental then that it is both hateful and nidicolous hold.; sent5 -> int4: if the antidiuretic is not a arpent then it is not an incidental.; sent1 & sent7 -> int5: the scrimshaw does not lap.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that it is nidicolous. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that that it does lap and it is a baron does not hold. sent2: if something is not a kind of an incidental it is hateful and is nidicolous. sent3: something is not hateful. sent4: if something is not hateful the antidiuretic is nidicolous. sent5: if something is not a arpent then it is not an incidental. sent6: the fact that something that is hateful is not a Aras is right. sent7: if there exists something such that that it is a lap and it is a baron does not hold the scrimshaw is not a kind of a lap. sent8: if the scrimshaw does not lap and it is not anaclinal then the antidiuretic is not a arpent. ; $proof$ =
sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the antidiuretic is nidicolous.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
DeductionInstance
something is not hateful.
[ "if something is not hateful the antidiuretic is nidicolous." ]
[ "something is not hateful." ]
something is not hateful.
if something is not hateful the antidiuretic is nidicolous.
the tarragon is diatonic.
sent1: if something does not rush boisterousness it is not a kind of a Fossa and enters. sent2: the doghouse is not a ossicle if it is not a kind of a Fossa and does not rush boisterousness. sent3: if something is not a horsetail and enhances then it does not rush boisterousness. sent4: if the doghouse is a kind of a ossicle then the addax does not cachinnate and it is migratory. sent5: something does not obscure and cachinnates if it is not nonmigratory. sent6: the fact that the siamese does not obscure if the fact that the addax does not obscure and cachinnates is right is not incorrect. sent7: the tarragon does not obscure. sent8: the tarragon does not obscure but it is diatonic if the addax does not cachinnate. sent9: that the submitter is not a horsetail but it does enhance hold if it is not Mishnaic. sent10: the submitter is not Mishnaic. sent11: if the addax does not cachinnate the tarragon does not obscure.
{AB}{b}
sent1: (x): ¬{F}x -> (¬{E}x & {D}x) sent2: (¬{E}{c} & ¬{F}{c}) -> ¬{C}{c} sent3: (x): (¬{G}x & {H}x) -> ¬{F}x sent4: {C}{c} -> (¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent5: (x): ¬{B}x -> (¬{AA}x & {A}x) sent6: (¬{AA}{a} & {A}{a}) -> ¬{AA}{eo} sent7: ¬{AA}{b} sent8: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent9: ¬{I}{d} -> (¬{G}{d} & {H}{d}) sent10: ¬{I}{d} sent11: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{AA}{b}
[]
UNKNOWN
[]
UNKNOWN
2
null
10
0
10
the siamese does not obscure.
¬{AA}{eo}
7
[ "sent5 -> int1: that the addax does not obscure but it does cachinnate if the addax is not nonmigratory is correct.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the tarragon is diatonic. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not rush boisterousness it is not a kind of a Fossa and enters. sent2: the doghouse is not a ossicle if it is not a kind of a Fossa and does not rush boisterousness. sent3: if something is not a horsetail and enhances then it does not rush boisterousness. sent4: if the doghouse is a kind of a ossicle then the addax does not cachinnate and it is migratory. sent5: something does not obscure and cachinnates if it is not nonmigratory. sent6: the fact that the siamese does not obscure if the fact that the addax does not obscure and cachinnates is right is not incorrect. sent7: the tarragon does not obscure. sent8: the tarragon does not obscure but it is diatonic if the addax does not cachinnate. sent9: that the submitter is not a horsetail but it does enhance hold if it is not Mishnaic. sent10: the submitter is not Mishnaic. sent11: if the addax does not cachinnate the tarragon does not obscure. ; $proof$ =
__UNKNOWN__
DeductionInstance
the fact that the siamese does not obscure if the fact that the addax does not obscure and cachinnates is right is not incorrect.
[ "something does not obscure and cachinnates if it is not nonmigratory." ]
[ "the fact that the siamese does not obscure if the fact that the addax does not obscure and cachinnates is right is not incorrect." ]
the fact that the siamese does not obscure if the fact that the addax does not obscure and cachinnates is right is not incorrect.
something does not obscure and cachinnates if it is not nonmigratory.
the moorcock is not a Typhlopidae and not non-Sumatran.
sent1: something is not a kind of a Laricariidae and is immoderate if it does not canvass Pictor. sent2: if the novice is not a kind of a Sumatran then the fact that the moorcock is not a Typhlopidae but it is a Sumatran is wrong. sent3: the figwort is not a Calais if the inventor is not a Laricariidae but it is immoderate. sent4: if the figwort is not a Calais then the novice does not rush zloty and is oleophilic. sent5: the fact that the novice is not a party and is a Perisoreus is not correct. sent6: that the moorcock is not a party is true if the fact that it is both not a Perisoreus and not Sumatran is false. sent7: that the moorcock is a Typhlopidae and is a kind of a Sumatran is false. sent8: the fact that the moorcock is both not a Typhlopidae and a party is not true. sent9: the fact that the novice is not a kind of a party and it is not a Perisoreus is not right. sent10: if the moorcock is not a Typhlopidae that the novice is a kind of non-Sumatran thing that is a Typhlopidae is false. sent11: if the novice is not Sumatran then that the moorcock is a kind of a Typhlopidae that is a kind of a Sumatran is not true. sent12: the novice is not a Sumatran if the fact that it is not a party and not a Perisoreus is not right. sent13: something is not a Typhlopidae and is Sumatran if it does not rush toadstool. sent14: if the novice is a Perisoreus it is not Sumatran.
(¬{C}{b} & {B}{b})
sent1: (x): ¬{I}x -> (¬{G}x & {H}x) sent2: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬(¬{C}{b} & {B}{b}) sent3: (¬{G}{d} & {H}{d}) -> ¬{F}{c} sent4: ¬{F}{c} -> (¬{E}{a} & {D}{a}) sent5: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent6: ¬(¬{AB}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> ¬{AA}{b} sent7: ¬({C}{b} & {B}{b}) sent8: ¬(¬{C}{b} & {AA}{b}) sent9: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent10: ¬{C}{b} -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent11: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬({C}{b} & {B}{b}) sent12: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent13: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{C}x & {B}x) sent14: {AB}{a} -> ¬{B}{a}
[ "sent12 & sent9 -> int1: the novice is not a Sumatran.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
[ "sent12 & sent9 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
2
2
11
0
11
the moorcock is not a kind of a Typhlopidae and is a Sumatran.
(¬{C}{b} & {B}{b})
7
[ "sent13 -> int2: the moorcock is not a kind of a Typhlopidae but it is Sumatran if it does not rush toadstool.; sent1 -> int3: if that the inventor does not canvass Pictor is not wrong then it is not a Laricariidae and is not non-immoderate.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the moorcock is not a Typhlopidae and not non-Sumatran. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not a kind of a Laricariidae and is immoderate if it does not canvass Pictor. sent2: if the novice is not a kind of a Sumatran then the fact that the moorcock is not a Typhlopidae but it is a Sumatran is wrong. sent3: the figwort is not a Calais if the inventor is not a Laricariidae but it is immoderate. sent4: if the figwort is not a Calais then the novice does not rush zloty and is oleophilic. sent5: the fact that the novice is not a party and is a Perisoreus is not correct. sent6: that the moorcock is not a party is true if the fact that it is both not a Perisoreus and not Sumatran is false. sent7: that the moorcock is a Typhlopidae and is a kind of a Sumatran is false. sent8: the fact that the moorcock is both not a Typhlopidae and a party is not true. sent9: the fact that the novice is not a kind of a party and it is not a Perisoreus is not right. sent10: if the moorcock is not a Typhlopidae that the novice is a kind of non-Sumatran thing that is a Typhlopidae is false. sent11: if the novice is not Sumatran then that the moorcock is a kind of a Typhlopidae that is a kind of a Sumatran is not true. sent12: the novice is not a Sumatran if the fact that it is not a party and not a Perisoreus is not right. sent13: something is not a Typhlopidae and is Sumatran if it does not rush toadstool. sent14: if the novice is a Perisoreus it is not Sumatran. ; $proof$ =
sent12 & sent9 -> int1: the novice is not a Sumatran.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
DeductionInstance
the novice is not a Sumatran if the fact that it is not a party and not a Perisoreus is not right.
[ "the fact that the novice is not a kind of a party and it is not a Perisoreus is not right.", "if the novice is not a kind of a Sumatran then the fact that the moorcock is not a Typhlopidae but it is a Sumatran is wrong." ]
[ "The novice is not a Sumatran if it is not a party and not a perisoreus.", "The novice is not a Sumatran if it is not a party and not a Perisoreus." ]
The novice is not a Sumatran if it is not a party and not a perisoreus.
the fact that the novice is not a kind of a party and it is not a Perisoreus is not right.
the moorcock is not a Typhlopidae and not non-Sumatran.
sent1: something is not a kind of a Laricariidae and is immoderate if it does not canvass Pictor. sent2: if the novice is not a kind of a Sumatran then the fact that the moorcock is not a Typhlopidae but it is a Sumatran is wrong. sent3: the figwort is not a Calais if the inventor is not a Laricariidae but it is immoderate. sent4: if the figwort is not a Calais then the novice does not rush zloty and is oleophilic. sent5: the fact that the novice is not a party and is a Perisoreus is not correct. sent6: that the moorcock is not a party is true if the fact that it is both not a Perisoreus and not Sumatran is false. sent7: that the moorcock is a Typhlopidae and is a kind of a Sumatran is false. sent8: the fact that the moorcock is both not a Typhlopidae and a party is not true. sent9: the fact that the novice is not a kind of a party and it is not a Perisoreus is not right. sent10: if the moorcock is not a Typhlopidae that the novice is a kind of non-Sumatran thing that is a Typhlopidae is false. sent11: if the novice is not Sumatran then that the moorcock is a kind of a Typhlopidae that is a kind of a Sumatran is not true. sent12: the novice is not a Sumatran if the fact that it is not a party and not a Perisoreus is not right. sent13: something is not a Typhlopidae and is Sumatran if it does not rush toadstool. sent14: if the novice is a Perisoreus it is not Sumatran.
(¬{C}{b} & {B}{b})
sent1: (x): ¬{I}x -> (¬{G}x & {H}x) sent2: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬(¬{C}{b} & {B}{b}) sent3: (¬{G}{d} & {H}{d}) -> ¬{F}{c} sent4: ¬{F}{c} -> (¬{E}{a} & {D}{a}) sent5: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent6: ¬(¬{AB}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> ¬{AA}{b} sent7: ¬({C}{b} & {B}{b}) sent8: ¬(¬{C}{b} & {AA}{b}) sent9: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent10: ¬{C}{b} -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent11: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬({C}{b} & {B}{b}) sent12: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent13: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{C}x & {B}x) sent14: {AB}{a} -> ¬{B}{a}
[ "sent12 & sent9 -> int1: the novice is not a Sumatran.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
[ "sent12 & sent9 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
2
2
11
0
11
the moorcock is not a kind of a Typhlopidae and is a Sumatran.
(¬{C}{b} & {B}{b})
7
[ "sent13 -> int2: the moorcock is not a kind of a Typhlopidae but it is Sumatran if it does not rush toadstool.; sent1 -> int3: if that the inventor does not canvass Pictor is not wrong then it is not a Laricariidae and is not non-immoderate.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the moorcock is not a Typhlopidae and not non-Sumatran. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not a kind of a Laricariidae and is immoderate if it does not canvass Pictor. sent2: if the novice is not a kind of a Sumatran then the fact that the moorcock is not a Typhlopidae but it is a Sumatran is wrong. sent3: the figwort is not a Calais if the inventor is not a Laricariidae but it is immoderate. sent4: if the figwort is not a Calais then the novice does not rush zloty and is oleophilic. sent5: the fact that the novice is not a party and is a Perisoreus is not correct. sent6: that the moorcock is not a party is true if the fact that it is both not a Perisoreus and not Sumatran is false. sent7: that the moorcock is a Typhlopidae and is a kind of a Sumatran is false. sent8: the fact that the moorcock is both not a Typhlopidae and a party is not true. sent9: the fact that the novice is not a kind of a party and it is not a Perisoreus is not right. sent10: if the moorcock is not a Typhlopidae that the novice is a kind of non-Sumatran thing that is a Typhlopidae is false. sent11: if the novice is not Sumatran then that the moorcock is a kind of a Typhlopidae that is a kind of a Sumatran is not true. sent12: the novice is not a Sumatran if the fact that it is not a party and not a Perisoreus is not right. sent13: something is not a Typhlopidae and is Sumatran if it does not rush toadstool. sent14: if the novice is a Perisoreus it is not Sumatran. ; $proof$ =
sent12 & sent9 -> int1: the novice is not a Sumatran.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
DeductionInstance
the novice is not a Sumatran if the fact that it is not a party and not a Perisoreus is not right.
[ "the fact that the novice is not a kind of a party and it is not a Perisoreus is not right.", "if the novice is not a kind of a Sumatran then the fact that the moorcock is not a Typhlopidae but it is a Sumatran is wrong." ]
[ "The novice is not a Sumatran if it is not a party and not a perisoreus.", "The novice is not a Sumatran if it is not a party and not a Perisoreus." ]
The novice is not a Sumatran if it is not a party and not a Perisoreus.
if the novice is not a kind of a Sumatran then the fact that the moorcock is not a Typhlopidae but it is a Sumatran is wrong.
the midst does outride but it is not technophilic.
sent1: if the friend does not bleep then the midst outrides and is not technophilic. sent2: the friend does not bleep. sent3: if something bleeps the fact that the dam outrides but it is not a Atlas is not false.
({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b})
sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent2: ¬{A}{a} sent3: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}{jj} & ¬{BL}{jj})
[ "sent1 & sent2 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
[ "sent1 & sent2 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
1
1
1
0
1
the dam does outride but it is not a kind of a Atlas.
({AA}{jj} & ¬{BL}{jj})
8
[]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the midst does outride but it is not technophilic. ; $context$ = sent1: if the friend does not bleep then the midst outrides and is not technophilic. sent2: the friend does not bleep. sent3: if something bleeps the fact that the dam outrides but it is not a Atlas is not false. ; $proof$ =
sent1 & sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
DeductionInstance
if the friend does not bleep then the midst outrides and is not technophilic.
[ "the friend does not bleep." ]
[ "if the friend does not bleep then the midst outrides and is not technophilic." ]
if the friend does not bleep then the midst outrides and is not technophilic.
the friend does not bleep.
the terrine is not a kind of a Herrenvolk.
sent1: that the terrine is a kind of a Samoyedic that does lionize linecut is not true. sent2: something is not a kind of a Lethe if it does guggle blob. sent3: something is not a kind of a Samoyedic if the fact that it is both not a Herrenvolk and a Samoyedic does not hold. sent4: the Neopolitan does not lionize linecut if the fact that it does not guggle Neopolitan and is grateful is false. sent5: if the fact that the terrine is not a Samoyedic and lionizes linecut does not hold it is not a kind of a Herrenvolk. sent6: if the terrine is a Samoyedic then it is not a Herrenvolk. sent7: if the fact that the terrine does not avow lipogram but it is doctrinal is not correct it is not a kind of a Handel. sent8: the fact that the whinstone is not a Samoyedic but it is a moralism is not true. sent9: the lecturer is not a kind of a Emerson if the fact that it does not divest and it does avow autogamy is false. sent10: the fact that the terrine does not avow octogenarian but it is a kind of a Herrenvolk does not hold. sent11: the fact that the terrine does not avow geneticism and is a Samoyedic does not hold. sent12: that the terrine is not a armet but a Lethe is incorrect. sent13: something is either a Emerson or binocular or both if it is not a Lethe. sent14: that the terrine is not a Samoyedic but it lionizes linecut is false. sent15: if something does bellow then it guggles blob.
¬{B}{a}
sent1: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent2: (x): {E}x -> ¬{D}x sent3: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & {AA}x) -> ¬{AA}x sent4: ¬(¬{FU}{fq} & {GB}{fq}) -> ¬{AB}{fq} sent5: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent6: {AA}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} sent7: ¬(¬{CF}{a} & {GC}{a}) -> ¬{EU}{a} sent8: ¬(¬{AA}{il} & {GQ}{il}) sent9: ¬(¬{IB}{fc} & {EI}{fc}) -> ¬{A}{fc} sent10: ¬(¬{JF}{a} & {B}{a}) sent11: ¬(¬{DC}{a} & {AA}{a}) sent12: ¬(¬{EH}{a} & {D}{a}) sent13: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({A}x v {C}x) sent14: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent15: (x): {F}x -> {E}x
[ "sent5 & sent14 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
[ "sent5 & sent14 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
1
1
13
0
13
the drake is not a Samoyedic.
¬{AA}{gb}
4
[ "sent3 -> int1: the drake is not a Samoyedic if the fact that it is not a Herrenvolk and it is a Samoyedic is incorrect.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the terrine is not a kind of a Herrenvolk. ; $context$ = sent1: that the terrine is a kind of a Samoyedic that does lionize linecut is not true. sent2: something is not a kind of a Lethe if it does guggle blob. sent3: something is not a kind of a Samoyedic if the fact that it is both not a Herrenvolk and a Samoyedic does not hold. sent4: the Neopolitan does not lionize linecut if the fact that it does not guggle Neopolitan and is grateful is false. sent5: if the fact that the terrine is not a Samoyedic and lionizes linecut does not hold it is not a kind of a Herrenvolk. sent6: if the terrine is a Samoyedic then it is not a Herrenvolk. sent7: if the fact that the terrine does not avow lipogram but it is doctrinal is not correct it is not a kind of a Handel. sent8: the fact that the whinstone is not a Samoyedic but it is a moralism is not true. sent9: the lecturer is not a kind of a Emerson if the fact that it does not divest and it does avow autogamy is false. sent10: the fact that the terrine does not avow octogenarian but it is a kind of a Herrenvolk does not hold. sent11: the fact that the terrine does not avow geneticism and is a Samoyedic does not hold. sent12: that the terrine is not a armet but a Lethe is incorrect. sent13: something is either a Emerson or binocular or both if it is not a Lethe. sent14: that the terrine is not a Samoyedic but it lionizes linecut is false. sent15: if something does bellow then it guggles blob. ; $proof$ =
sent5 & sent14 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
DeductionInstance
if the fact that the terrine is not a Samoyedic and lionizes linecut does not hold it is not a kind of a Herrenvolk.
[ "that the terrine is not a Samoyedic but it lionizes linecut is false." ]
[ "if the fact that the terrine is not a Samoyedic and lionizes linecut does not hold it is not a kind of a Herrenvolk." ]
if the fact that the terrine is not a Samoyedic and lionizes linecut does not hold it is not a kind of a Herrenvolk.
that the terrine is not a Samoyedic but it lionizes linecut is false.
the fact that the fact that the blogger does avow self-defense and is not nonastringent is not incorrect is incorrect.
sent1: the horseshoe does not avow self-defense. sent2: the blogger is not nonastringent. sent3: the knotgrass is a nyala but it is not a Chalcis. sent4: the yawn is gastronomic but it does not scotch. sent5: the blogger does not grapple hansom. sent6: the blogger is a Ukrainian but it is not nonastringent. sent7: the blogger scotches and is not nonastringent. sent8: the blogger is not nonastringent if that the horseshoe does not scotch hold. sent9: if the blogger does not scotch the horseshoe is not nonastringent. sent10: the horseshoe does not scotch. sent11: the horseshoe guggles Montana but it is not a kind of a Romanian. sent12: if the blogger does not scotch that the horseshoe avows self-defense is not true. sent13: the horseshoe incorporates and is not nonastringent. sent14: the blogger does avow self-defense but it is not nonastringent if the horseshoe does not scotch. sent15: the horseshoe is not nonastringent. sent16: if the horseshoe does not avow self-defense then the blogger scotches but it is not nonastringent. sent17: the horseshoe is not ratlike.
¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b})
sent1: ¬{AA}{a} sent2: ¬{AB}{b} sent3: ({GF}{bj} & ¬{DC}{bj}) sent4: ({AE}{hu} & ¬{A}{hu}) sent5: ¬{G}{b} sent6: ({AK}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent7: ({A}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent8: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{AB}{b} sent9: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬{AB}{a} sent10: ¬{A}{a} sent11: ({FU}{a} & ¬{GJ}{a}) sent12: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬{AA}{a} sent13: ({F}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent14: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent15: ¬{AB}{a} sent16: ¬{AA}{a} -> ({A}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent17: ¬{DM}{a}
[ "sent14 & sent10 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
[ "sent14 & sent10 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
1
1
15
0
15
null
null
null
[]
null
null
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the fact that the blogger does avow self-defense and is not nonastringent is not incorrect is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the horseshoe does not avow self-defense. sent2: the blogger is not nonastringent. sent3: the knotgrass is a nyala but it is not a Chalcis. sent4: the yawn is gastronomic but it does not scotch. sent5: the blogger does not grapple hansom. sent6: the blogger is a Ukrainian but it is not nonastringent. sent7: the blogger scotches and is not nonastringent. sent8: the blogger is not nonastringent if that the horseshoe does not scotch hold. sent9: if the blogger does not scotch the horseshoe is not nonastringent. sent10: the horseshoe does not scotch. sent11: the horseshoe guggles Montana but it is not a kind of a Romanian. sent12: if the blogger does not scotch that the horseshoe avows self-defense is not true. sent13: the horseshoe incorporates and is not nonastringent. sent14: the blogger does avow self-defense but it is not nonastringent if the horseshoe does not scotch. sent15: the horseshoe is not nonastringent. sent16: if the horseshoe does not avow self-defense then the blogger scotches but it is not nonastringent. sent17: the horseshoe is not ratlike. ; $proof$ =
sent14 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
DeductionInstance
the blogger does avow self-defense but it is not nonastringent if the horseshoe does not scotch.
[ "the horseshoe does not scotch." ]
[ "the blogger does avow self-defense but it is not nonastringent if the horseshoe does not scotch." ]
the blogger does avow self-defense but it is not nonastringent if the horseshoe does not scotch.
the horseshoe does not scotch.
the fact that the adenoid does guggle topspin and it is a fortune is incorrect.
sent1: something is semiautobiographical but it does not guggle topspin if it does not avow zayin. sent2: the councilwoman does not avow zayin if the fact that it is not a mystic and it does not default is false. sent3: if there is something such that the fact that it is a Brosmius is true the calmness is not acetonic. sent4: the councilwoman is not a kind of a Brosmius. sent5: if that the councilwoman is non-acetonic hold then the adenoid is a fortune. sent6: the councilwoman is a kind of non-acetonic thing that is not a Brosmius. sent7: the adenoid does guggle topspin and it is a fortune if the councilwoman is not acetonic. sent8: the adenoid is a fortune. sent9: something is a fortune and it is a kind of a Brosmius if it does not guggle topspin.
¬({D}{b} & {C}{b})
sent1: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({E}x & ¬{D}x) sent2: ¬(¬{G}{a} & ¬{H}{a}) -> ¬{F}{a} sent3: (x): {B}x -> ¬{A}{cn} sent4: ¬{B}{a} sent5: ¬{A}{a} -> {C}{b} sent6: (¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent7: ¬{A}{a} -> ({D}{b} & {C}{b}) sent8: {C}{b} sent9: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({C}x & {B}x)
[ "sent6 -> int1: the councilwoman is not acetonic.; int1 & sent7 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
[ "sent6 -> int1: ¬{A}{a}; int1 & sent7 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
2
2
7
0
7
the calmness is not acetonic.
¬{A}{cn}
7
[ "sent9 -> int2: if the councilwoman does not guggle topspin it is a fortune and is a Brosmius.; sent1 -> int3: the councilwoman is semiautobiographical but it does not guggle topspin if it does not avow zayin.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the adenoid does guggle topspin and it is a fortune is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: something is semiautobiographical but it does not guggle topspin if it does not avow zayin. sent2: the councilwoman does not avow zayin if the fact that it is not a mystic and it does not default is false. sent3: if there is something such that the fact that it is a Brosmius is true the calmness is not acetonic. sent4: the councilwoman is not a kind of a Brosmius. sent5: if that the councilwoman is non-acetonic hold then the adenoid is a fortune. sent6: the councilwoman is a kind of non-acetonic thing that is not a Brosmius. sent7: the adenoid does guggle topspin and it is a fortune if the councilwoman is not acetonic. sent8: the adenoid is a fortune. sent9: something is a fortune and it is a kind of a Brosmius if it does not guggle topspin. ; $proof$ =
sent6 -> int1: the councilwoman is not acetonic.; int1 & sent7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
DeductionInstance
the councilwoman is a kind of non-acetonic thing that is not a Brosmius.
[ "the adenoid does guggle topspin and it is a fortune if the councilwoman is not acetonic." ]
[ "the councilwoman is a kind of non-acetonic thing that is not a Brosmius." ]
the councilwoman is a kind of non-acetonic thing that is not a Brosmius.
the adenoid does guggle topspin and it is a fortune if the councilwoman is not acetonic.
the grappling producer does not occur.
sent1: the grappling producer does not occur if the dispensableness does not occur. sent2: both the bathing and the TAT occurs. sent3: both the wangle and the guggling framer occurs.
¬{E}
sent1: ¬{D} -> ¬{E} sent2: ({A} & {B}) sent3: ({F} & {C})
[ "sent2 -> int1: that the TAT occurs is not incorrect.; sent3 -> int2: the guggling framer occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the guggling framer and the TAT occurs.;" ]
UNKNOWN
[ "sent2 -> int1: {B}; sent3 -> int2: {C}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({C} & {B});" ]
UNKNOWN
4
null
0
0
0
null
null
null
[]
null
null
$hypothesis$ = the grappling producer does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the grappling producer does not occur if the dispensableness does not occur. sent2: both the bathing and the TAT occurs. sent3: both the wangle and the guggling framer occurs. ; $proof$ =
__UNKNOWN__
DeductionInstance
both the bathing and the TAT occurs.
[ "both the wangle and the guggling framer occurs." ]
[ "both the bathing and the TAT occurs." ]
both the bathing and the TAT occurs.
both the wangle and the guggling framer occurs.
the belay occurs or the nonabsorbentness does not occur or both.
sent1: if the lionizing application does not occur then the fact that the belay occurs is right. sent2: the belay happens and/or the nonabsorbentness happens. sent3: the onset occurs. sent4: that the belay occurs is not false if the fact that the shinny does not occur but the lionizing application happens is not right. sent5: the lionizing application happens.
({C} v ¬{D})
sent1: ¬{B} -> {C} sent2: ({C} v {D}) sent3: {HF} sent4: ¬(¬{A} & {B}) -> {C} sent5: {B}
[ "void -> assump1: Let's assume that the shinny does not occur and the lionizing application occurs.; assump1 -> int1: the shinny does not occur.;" ]
UNKNOWN
[ "void -> assump1: (¬{A} & {B}); assump1 -> int1: ¬{A};" ]
UNKNOWN
4
null
4
0
4
that either the belay occurs or the nonabsorbentness does not occur or both is not true.
¬({C} v ¬{D})
0
[ " -> hypothesis;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the belay occurs or the nonabsorbentness does not occur or both. ; $context$ = sent1: if the lionizing application does not occur then the fact that the belay occurs is right. sent2: the belay happens and/or the nonabsorbentness happens. sent3: the onset occurs. sent4: that the belay occurs is not false if the fact that the shinny does not occur but the lionizing application happens is not right. sent5: the lionizing application happens. ; $proof$ =
__UNKNOWN__
DeductionInstance
[ "" ]
[ "" ]
the monoclonal does diet.
sent1: the cocksfoot is not quartzose if there is something such that the fact that it does not guggle appro and/or it is not non-transcultural is incorrect. sent2: the monoclonal is a cacophony. sent3: the monoclonal is a slaveholder and is invasive. sent4: the depository is not a kind of a Calvinist if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a Calvinist and it grapples cuneiform does not hold. sent5: something is Calvinist if it is quartzose and it does not grapple cuneiform. sent6: if something is not quartzose that it is a Calvinist and it grapples cuneiform is false. sent7: something is agranulocytic if it is seminal. sent8: the monoclonal is a endocardium and it is a slaveholder. sent9: if something is invasive it is a diet. sent10: something is quartzose but it does not grapple cuneiform if it does guggle appro. sent11: the testcross does not avow excogitator. sent12: that the testcross is regimentals is not incorrect. sent13: if the depository is Calvinist that the monoclonal is not a slaveholder or not invasive or both is not right. sent14: that something is not invasive but it is a kind of a slaveholder does not hold if that it is not a kind of a Calvinist hold. sent15: the abbe does not grapple eclipse if something that is regimentals does not avow excogitator. sent16: the monoclonal is a pock. sent17: the monoclonal is a slaveholder. sent18: the flatwork is a slaveholder. sent19: something is a slaveholder if it is invasive. sent20: if there exists something such that it does not grapple eclipse then that the conifer does not guggle appro and/or it is transcultural does not hold. sent21: the pollen does diet.
{C}{a}
sent1: (x): ¬(¬{G}x v {H}x) -> ¬{F}{c} sent2: {DQ}{a} sent3: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent4: (x): ¬({D}x & {E}x) -> ¬{D}{b} sent5: (x): ({F}x & ¬{E}x) -> {D}x sent6: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬({D}x & {E}x) sent7: (x): {P}x -> {N}x sent8: ({GA}{a} & {A}{a}) sent9: (x): {B}x -> {C}x sent10: (x): {G}x -> ({F}x & ¬{E}x) sent11: ¬{K}{f} sent12: {J}{f} sent13: {D}{b} -> ¬(¬{A}{a} v ¬{B}{a}) sent14: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & {A}x) sent15: (x): ({J}x & ¬{K}x) -> ¬{I}{e} sent16: {IL}{a} sent17: {A}{a} sent18: {A}{ah} sent19: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent20: (x): ¬{I}x -> ¬(¬{G}{d} v {H}{d}) sent21: {C}{g}
[ "sent3 -> int1: the monoclonal is invasive.; sent9 -> int2: the monoclonal is a kind of a diet if it is invasive.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
[ "sent3 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent9 -> int2: {B}{a} -> {C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
2
2
19
0
19
the monoclonal is not a diet.
¬{C}{a}
13
[ "sent14 -> int3: that the depository is not invasive and is a slaveholder is not correct if it is not a kind of a Calvinist.; sent6 -> int4: if the cocksfoot is not quartzose the fact that it is a kind of a Calvinist and grapples cuneiform is false.; sent12 & sent11 -> int5: the testcross is a kind of regimentals thing that does not avow excogitator.; int5 -> int6: there is something such that it is not non-regimentals and it does not avow excogitator.; int6 & sent15 -> int7: the abbe does not grapple eclipse.; int7 -> int8: there exists something such that the fact that it does not grapple eclipse is not incorrect.; int8 & sent20 -> int9: the fact that the conifer either does not guggle appro or is transcultural or both does not hold.; int9 -> int10: there exists something such that that it does not guggle appro and/or it is transcultural is wrong.; int10 & sent1 -> int11: the cocksfoot is not quartzose.; int4 & int11 -> int12: that the cocksfoot is Calvinist and does grapple cuneiform is not true.; int12 -> int13: there is something such that that it is Calvinist and it does grapple cuneiform does not hold.; int13 & sent4 -> int14: the depository is not Calvinist.; int3 & int14 -> int15: the fact that the depository is not invasive but it is a slaveholder is wrong.; int15 -> int16: there is something such that the fact that it is not invasive and it is a slaveholder is not correct.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the monoclonal does diet. ; $context$ = sent1: the cocksfoot is not quartzose if there is something such that the fact that it does not guggle appro and/or it is not non-transcultural is incorrect. sent2: the monoclonal is a cacophony. sent3: the monoclonal is a slaveholder and is invasive. sent4: the depository is not a kind of a Calvinist if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a Calvinist and it grapples cuneiform does not hold. sent5: something is Calvinist if it is quartzose and it does not grapple cuneiform. sent6: if something is not quartzose that it is a Calvinist and it grapples cuneiform is false. sent7: something is agranulocytic if it is seminal. sent8: the monoclonal is a endocardium and it is a slaveholder. sent9: if something is invasive it is a diet. sent10: something is quartzose but it does not grapple cuneiform if it does guggle appro. sent11: the testcross does not avow excogitator. sent12: that the testcross is regimentals is not incorrect. sent13: if the depository is Calvinist that the monoclonal is not a slaveholder or not invasive or both is not right. sent14: that something is not invasive but it is a kind of a slaveholder does not hold if that it is not a kind of a Calvinist hold. sent15: the abbe does not grapple eclipse if something that is regimentals does not avow excogitator. sent16: the monoclonal is a pock. sent17: the monoclonal is a slaveholder. sent18: the flatwork is a slaveholder. sent19: something is a slaveholder if it is invasive. sent20: if there exists something such that it does not grapple eclipse then that the conifer does not guggle appro and/or it is transcultural does not hold. sent21: the pollen does diet. ; $proof$ =
sent3 -> int1: the monoclonal is invasive.; sent9 -> int2: the monoclonal is a kind of a diet if it is invasive.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
DeductionInstance
the monoclonal is a slaveholder and is invasive.
[ "if something is invasive it is a diet." ]
[ "the monoclonal is a slaveholder and is invasive." ]
the monoclonal is a slaveholder and is invasive.
if something is invasive it is a diet.
if the mucosalness occurs the storage occurs.
sent1: if the emplacement occurs the lionizing accommodation happens. sent2: the toying occurs if the reshipping happens. sent3: the grappling adenosine happens. sent4: if that the narcoterrorism occurs and/or the grappling cuneiform does not occur is incorrect the storage occurs. sent5: if that the narcoterrorism does not occur and/or the grappling cuneiform does not occur is wrong then the storage happens. sent6: if the fact that either the paraphrasing does not occur or the awnlessness does not occur or both does not hold then the prodigy happens. sent7: if the mucosalness occurs then the narcoterrorism occurs. sent8: if that the sharing does not occur is incorrect then the nontechnicalness occurs. sent9: that the self-discovery does not occur or the solid does not occur or both is not correct. sent10: the narcoterrorism happens. sent11: the insistence happens. sent12: the thwack happens if that the nontechnicalness does not occur or the emplacement does not occur or both is false.
{A} -> {B}
sent1: {IN} -> {BF} sent2: {HL} -> {IS} sent3: {EC} sent4: ¬({AA} v ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent5: ¬(¬{AA} v ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent6: ¬(¬{EQ} v ¬{CQ}) -> {BP} sent7: {A} -> {AA} sent8: {FH} -> {EL} sent9: ¬(¬{DL} v ¬{GL}) sent10: {AA} sent11: {F} sent12: ¬(¬{EL} v ¬{IN}) -> {G}
[]
UNKNOWN
[]
UNKNOWN
3
null
11
0
11
null
null
null
[]
null
null
$hypothesis$ = if the mucosalness occurs the storage occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the emplacement occurs the lionizing accommodation happens. sent2: the toying occurs if the reshipping happens. sent3: the grappling adenosine happens. sent4: if that the narcoterrorism occurs and/or the grappling cuneiform does not occur is incorrect the storage occurs. sent5: if that the narcoterrorism does not occur and/or the grappling cuneiform does not occur is wrong then the storage happens. sent6: if the fact that either the paraphrasing does not occur or the awnlessness does not occur or both does not hold then the prodigy happens. sent7: if the mucosalness occurs then the narcoterrorism occurs. sent8: if that the sharing does not occur is incorrect then the nontechnicalness occurs. sent9: that the self-discovery does not occur or the solid does not occur or both is not correct. sent10: the narcoterrorism happens. sent11: the insistence happens. sent12: the thwack happens if that the nontechnicalness does not occur or the emplacement does not occur or both is false. ; $proof$ =
__UNKNOWN__
DeductionInstance
the narcoterrorism happens.
[ "the thwack happens if that the nontechnicalness does not occur or the emplacement does not occur or both is false." ]
[ "the narcoterrorism happens." ]
the narcoterrorism happens.
the thwack happens if that the nontechnicalness does not occur or the emplacement does not occur or both is false.
the diastrophism is not a Tamus or does not wake or both.
sent1: something does not wake and does avow spike if it is a pomelo. sent2: if the spike is not uncooperative it is not Donnean and does guggle Sambucus. sent3: either the diastrophism is a Tamus or it is not evidentiary or both. sent4: if there exists something such that that it is a pomelo is true then the diastrophism is not a Tamus. sent5: if there is something such that it does avow spike or is a pomelo or both the diastrophism is not a Tamus. sent6: the supervisor is unpredictable if the fact that it is algorithmic is not false. sent7: the fact that the Reoviridae is not a kind of a ICAO and is uncooperative is false if there exists something such that it is unpredictable. sent8: the fact that the diastrophism is not a Tamus and/or it is not a kind of a waking is false if the buddy does not avow spike. sent9: the buddy does not avow spike if the fact that the chimneypot does avow spike and is not a pomelo does not hold. sent10: the diastrophism is not bilious if the fact that it is bilious thing that does not avow washroom is wrong. sent11: the supervisor is algorithmic. sent12: if either something is a Tamus or it is nosohusial or both then the diastrophism does not gripe. sent13: if the fact that the spike is not Donnean and does guggle Sambucus hold the meadowlark does not guggle Sambucus. sent14: the spike is not uncooperative if the fact that the Reoviridae is not a ICAO but uncooperative is incorrect. sent15: the buddy does avow washroom. sent16: there exists something such that it does avow spike and/or it is a pomelo. sent17: the chimneypot is non-bilious if the diemaker does avow washroom and/or does grapple navel. sent18: if something is not bilious then that it avows spike and it is not a pomelo does not hold. sent19: if something does avow washroom then that the diastrophism is bilious and does not avow washroom is not correct. sent20: the automation is not a pomelo and/or it guggles xenon. sent21: something is a kind of a Lange that avows washroom if it does not guggle Sambucus.
(¬{C}{a} v ¬{D}{a})
sent1: (x): {B}x -> (¬{D}x & {A}x) sent2: ¬{J}{f} -> (¬{K}{f} & {I}{f}) sent3: ({C}{a} v ¬{JF}{a}) sent4: (x): {B}x -> ¬{C}{a} sent5: (x): ({A}x v {B}x) -> ¬{C}{a} sent6: {N}{h} -> {M}{h} sent7: (x): {M}x -> ¬(¬{L}{g} & {J}{g}) sent8: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬(¬{C}{a} v ¬{D}{a}) sent9: ¬({A}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) -> ¬{A}{b} sent10: ¬({E}{a} & ¬{F}{a}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent11: {N}{h} sent12: (x): ({C}x v {DS}x) -> ¬{JC}{a} sent13: (¬{K}{f} & {I}{f}) -> ¬{I}{e} sent14: ¬(¬{L}{g} & {J}{g}) -> ¬{J}{f} sent15: {F}{b} sent16: (Ex): ({A}x v {B}x) sent17: ({F}{d} v {G}{d}) -> ¬{E}{c} sent18: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬({A}x & ¬{B}x) sent19: (x): {F}x -> ¬({E}{a} & ¬{F}{a}) sent20: (¬{B}{gb} v {HG}{gb}) sent21: (x): ¬{I}x -> ({H}x & {F}x)
[ "sent16 & sent5 -> int1: the diastrophism is not a Tamus.; int1 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
[ "sent16 & sent5 -> int1: ¬{C}{a}; int1 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
2
2
19
0
19
that the diastrophism is not a Tamus and/or is not a waking is not right.
¬(¬{C}{a} v ¬{D}{a})
14
[ "sent18 -> int2: if the chimneypot is not bilious the fact that it avows spike and it is not a kind of a pomelo is incorrect.; sent21 -> int3: if the meadowlark does not guggle Sambucus it is a kind of a Lange that does avow washroom.; sent6 & sent11 -> int4: the supervisor is unpredictable.; int4 -> int5: there is something such that it is unpredictable.; int5 & sent7 -> int6: that the Reoviridae is not a ICAO but uncooperative is not correct.; sent14 & int6 -> int7: the spike is not uncooperative.; sent2 & int7 -> int8: the spike is not Donnean but it does guggle Sambucus.; sent13 & int8 -> int9: the meadowlark does not guggle Sambucus.; int3 & int9 -> int10: that the meadowlark is a kind of a Lange and does avow washroom is correct.; int10 -> int11: the meadowlark avows washroom.; int11 -> int12: something does avow washroom.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the diastrophism is not a Tamus or does not wake or both. ; $context$ = sent1: something does not wake and does avow spike if it is a pomelo. sent2: if the spike is not uncooperative it is not Donnean and does guggle Sambucus. sent3: either the diastrophism is a Tamus or it is not evidentiary or both. sent4: if there exists something such that that it is a pomelo is true then the diastrophism is not a Tamus. sent5: if there is something such that it does avow spike or is a pomelo or both the diastrophism is not a Tamus. sent6: the supervisor is unpredictable if the fact that it is algorithmic is not false. sent7: the fact that the Reoviridae is not a kind of a ICAO and is uncooperative is false if there exists something such that it is unpredictable. sent8: the fact that the diastrophism is not a Tamus and/or it is not a kind of a waking is false if the buddy does not avow spike. sent9: the buddy does not avow spike if the fact that the chimneypot does avow spike and is not a pomelo does not hold. sent10: the diastrophism is not bilious if the fact that it is bilious thing that does not avow washroom is wrong. sent11: the supervisor is algorithmic. sent12: if either something is a Tamus or it is nosohusial or both then the diastrophism does not gripe. sent13: if the fact that the spike is not Donnean and does guggle Sambucus hold the meadowlark does not guggle Sambucus. sent14: the spike is not uncooperative if the fact that the Reoviridae is not a ICAO but uncooperative is incorrect. sent15: the buddy does avow washroom. sent16: there exists something such that it does avow spike and/or it is a pomelo. sent17: the chimneypot is non-bilious if the diemaker does avow washroom and/or does grapple navel. sent18: if something is not bilious then that it avows spike and it is not a pomelo does not hold. sent19: if something does avow washroom then that the diastrophism is bilious and does not avow washroom is not correct. sent20: the automation is not a pomelo and/or it guggles xenon. sent21: something is a kind of a Lange that avows washroom if it does not guggle Sambucus. ; $proof$ =
sent16 & sent5 -> int1: the diastrophism is not a Tamus.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
DeductionInstance
there exists something such that it does avow spike and/or it is a pomelo.
[ "if there is something such that it does avow spike or is a pomelo or both the diastrophism is not a Tamus." ]
[ "there exists something such that it does avow spike and/or it is a pomelo." ]
there exists something such that it does avow spike and/or it is a pomelo.
if there is something such that it does avow spike or is a pomelo or both the diastrophism is not a Tamus.
the lionizing Calvinist happens and the gathering happens.
sent1: the gather does not occur if that both the incursion and the gather happens is not correct. sent2: the incursion occurs. sent3: the tailspin happens. sent4: both the incursion and the lionizing Calvinist happens. sent5: that the lionizing Calvinist and the gathering happens does not hold if the tailspin does not occur. sent6: the gathering occurs if the tailspin occurs.
({C} & {B})
sent1: ¬({D} & {B}) -> ¬{B} sent2: {D} sent3: {A} sent4: ({D} & {C}) sent5: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} & {B}) sent6: {A} -> {B}
[ "sent6 & sent3 -> int1: the gather happens.; sent4 -> int2: the lionizing Calvinist happens.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
[ "sent6 & sent3 -> int1: {B}; sent4 -> int2: {C}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
2
2
3
0
3
the sarcasticness happens.
{J}
6
[]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the lionizing Calvinist happens and the gathering happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the gather does not occur if that both the incursion and the gather happens is not correct. sent2: the incursion occurs. sent3: the tailspin happens. sent4: both the incursion and the lionizing Calvinist happens. sent5: that the lionizing Calvinist and the gathering happens does not hold if the tailspin does not occur. sent6: the gathering occurs if the tailspin occurs. ; $proof$ =
sent6 & sent3 -> int1: the gather happens.; sent4 -> int2: the lionizing Calvinist happens.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
DeductionInstance
the gathering occurs if the tailspin occurs.
[ "the tailspin happens.", "both the incursion and the lionizing Calvinist happens." ]
[ "If the tailspin occurs, the gathering occurs.", "If the tailspin happens, the gathering occurs." ]
If the tailspin occurs, the gathering occurs.
the tailspin happens.
the lionizing Calvinist happens and the gathering happens.
sent1: the gather does not occur if that both the incursion and the gather happens is not correct. sent2: the incursion occurs. sent3: the tailspin happens. sent4: both the incursion and the lionizing Calvinist happens. sent5: that the lionizing Calvinist and the gathering happens does not hold if the tailspin does not occur. sent6: the gathering occurs if the tailspin occurs.
({C} & {B})
sent1: ¬({D} & {B}) -> ¬{B} sent2: {D} sent3: {A} sent4: ({D} & {C}) sent5: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} & {B}) sent6: {A} -> {B}
[ "sent6 & sent3 -> int1: the gather happens.; sent4 -> int2: the lionizing Calvinist happens.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
[ "sent6 & sent3 -> int1: {B}; sent4 -> int2: {C}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
2
2
3
0
3
the sarcasticness happens.
{J}
6
[]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the lionizing Calvinist happens and the gathering happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the gather does not occur if that both the incursion and the gather happens is not correct. sent2: the incursion occurs. sent3: the tailspin happens. sent4: both the incursion and the lionizing Calvinist happens. sent5: that the lionizing Calvinist and the gathering happens does not hold if the tailspin does not occur. sent6: the gathering occurs if the tailspin occurs. ; $proof$ =
sent6 & sent3 -> int1: the gather happens.; sent4 -> int2: the lionizing Calvinist happens.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
DeductionInstance
the gathering occurs if the tailspin occurs.
[ "the tailspin happens.", "both the incursion and the lionizing Calvinist happens." ]
[ "If the tailspin occurs, the gathering occurs.", "If the tailspin happens, the gathering occurs." ]
If the tailspin happens, the gathering occurs.
both the incursion and the lionizing Calvinist happens.
the doctorfish does not guggle burgomaster.
sent1: the researcher is not hydrographic. sent2: if the researcher does not purport then the doctorfish does guggle burgomaster but it is not hydrographic. sent3: the researcher is a kind of a polluter and does saturate if the model does not ruin. sent4: that the doctorfish does not guggle burgomaster is not wrong if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of Shavian thing that grapples chlordiazepoxide is incorrect. sent5: that the etodolac is a kind of a polluter is right if that it does saturate is true. sent6: if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a Arrhenius and it does grapple dove does not hold the fact that the stickler is non-Shavian is not incorrect. sent7: the testator is not punctual. sent8: something guggles burgomaster if it is hydrographic. sent9: the etodolac saturates if the chlordiazepoxide does ruin. sent10: the model is not a ruin if the etodolac is punctual and not a ruin. sent11: the doctorfish does not oxidize. sent12: if that the doctorfish is not a kind of a Shavian is right that that it is a kind of hydrographic thing that guggles burgomaster hold is not right. sent13: that the researcher is not a currentness is not wrong if there is something such that the fact that it is a tube and hydrographic does not hold. sent14: if something is ateleiotic then it does not purport and grapples dove. sent15: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not ateleiotic and does grapple dove is not right then the fact that the model does not purport is correct. sent16: there exists something such that it is a kind of Shavian thing that does grapple chlordiazepoxide. sent17: if there is something such that it is hydrographic the fact that the researcher is some and postwar does not hold. sent18: if something is a polluter then the fact that it is not ateleiotic and it does grapple dove does not hold. sent19: the doctorfish does not guggle burgomaster if there exists something such that it does not grapple chlordiazepoxide. sent20: if something is a kind of a polluter then it is ateleiotic. sent21: that the researcher does grapple chlordiazepoxide and is a Shavian is not correct if it does not guggle burgomaster. sent22: the chlordiazepoxide is punctual and it is a kind of a ruin.
¬{B}{b}
sent1: ¬{A}{a} sent2: ¬{C}{a} -> ({B}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent3: ¬{H}{c} -> ({F}{a} & {G}{a}) sent4: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}{b} sent5: {G}{d} -> {F}{d} sent6: (x): ¬({ER}x & {D}x) -> ¬{AA}{k} sent7: ¬{I}{cn} sent8: (x): {A}x -> {B}x sent9: {H}{e} -> {G}{d} sent10: ({I}{d} & ¬{H}{d}) -> ¬{H}{c} sent11: ¬{EP}{b} sent12: ¬{AA}{b} -> ¬({A}{b} & {B}{b}) sent13: (x): ¬({GH}x & {A}x) -> ¬{GL}{a} sent14: (x): {E}x -> (¬{C}x & {D}x) sent15: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & {D}x) -> ¬{C}{c} sent16: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent17: (x): {A}x -> ¬({AP}{a} & {FG}{a}) sent18: (x): {F}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & {D}x) sent19: (x): ¬{AB}x -> ¬{B}{b} sent20: (x): {F}x -> {E}x sent21: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬({AB}{a} & {AA}{a}) sent22: ({I}{e} & {H}{e})
[]
UNKNOWN
[]
UNKNOWN
3
null
20
0
20
the doctorfish does guggle burgomaster.
{B}{b}
8
[ "sent14 -> int1: the researcher does not purport but it does grapple dove if it is ateleiotic.; sent20 -> int2: the researcher is ateleiotic if it is a polluter.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the doctorfish does not guggle burgomaster. ; $context$ = sent1: the researcher is not hydrographic. sent2: if the researcher does not purport then the doctorfish does guggle burgomaster but it is not hydrographic. sent3: the researcher is a kind of a polluter and does saturate if the model does not ruin. sent4: that the doctorfish does not guggle burgomaster is not wrong if there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of Shavian thing that grapples chlordiazepoxide is incorrect. sent5: that the etodolac is a kind of a polluter is right if that it does saturate is true. sent6: if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a Arrhenius and it does grapple dove does not hold the fact that the stickler is non-Shavian is not incorrect. sent7: the testator is not punctual. sent8: something guggles burgomaster if it is hydrographic. sent9: the etodolac saturates if the chlordiazepoxide does ruin. sent10: the model is not a ruin if the etodolac is punctual and not a ruin. sent11: the doctorfish does not oxidize. sent12: if that the doctorfish is not a kind of a Shavian is right that that it is a kind of hydrographic thing that guggles burgomaster hold is not right. sent13: that the researcher is not a currentness is not wrong if there is something such that the fact that it is a tube and hydrographic does not hold. sent14: if something is ateleiotic then it does not purport and grapples dove. sent15: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not ateleiotic and does grapple dove is not right then the fact that the model does not purport is correct. sent16: there exists something such that it is a kind of Shavian thing that does grapple chlordiazepoxide. sent17: if there is something such that it is hydrographic the fact that the researcher is some and postwar does not hold. sent18: if something is a polluter then the fact that it is not ateleiotic and it does grapple dove does not hold. sent19: the doctorfish does not guggle burgomaster if there exists something such that it does not grapple chlordiazepoxide. sent20: if something is a kind of a polluter then it is ateleiotic. sent21: that the researcher does grapple chlordiazepoxide and is a Shavian is not correct if it does not guggle burgomaster. sent22: the chlordiazepoxide is punctual and it is a kind of a ruin. ; $proof$ =
__UNKNOWN__
DeductionInstance
the doctorfish does not oxidize.
[ "if the researcher does not purport then the doctorfish does guggle burgomaster but it is not hydrographic." ]
[ "the doctorfish does not oxidize." ]
the doctorfish does not oxidize.
if the researcher does not purport then the doctorfish does guggle burgomaster but it is not hydrographic.
the sgraffito is a kind of a debarkation.
sent1: the fact that the fact that the sgraffito is not a kind of a custodian and is a convincingness is not right is not incorrect if it is not a Yuan. sent2: that the sgraffito does not produce is correct if that it is not aggressive and avows millionaire is not right. sent3: the fact that the deoxyadenosine is not a pestilence and pant-hoots is incorrect. sent4: the fact that the sgraffito is not unintelligent and is a pestilence is not right. sent5: that the gallium is not an alehouse but it is a kind of a pestilence is not true. sent6: if the sgraffito is unintelligent it is not a Yuan. sent7: that the elision is not a custodian and it is not a kind of a Yuan is not right if something is a convincingness. sent8: that the sgraffito is a custodian and a convincingness is not right. sent9: if the sgraffito is not a Yuan the fact that it is a kind of a custodian and is a kind of a convincingness is wrong. sent10: if there exists something such that the fact that that it is not a process-server and does not grapple third is right is incorrect the lecturer does grapple third. sent11: the fact that the beast is not a convincingness but it is courteous is not right. sent12: if there is something such that it grapples third then the millionaire is not osmotic but it is a convincingness. sent13: that the sgraffito is both unintelligent and a pestilence is not true. sent14: something is not a Yuan if the fact that it is intelligent a pestilence is wrong. sent15: if something is unintelligent then it is not a Yuan. sent16: the sgraffito is a kind of a debarkation if it is a kind of a custodian. sent17: that the Neopolitan is not a process-server and does not grapple third is false. sent18: if that something is not a kind of a convincingness but it is unintelligent is false it is not a debarkation.
{D}{aa}
sent1: ¬{B}{aa} -> ¬(¬{A}{aa} & {C}{aa}) sent2: ¬(¬{HC}{aa} & {CN}{aa}) -> ¬{AT}{aa} sent3: ¬(¬{AB}{dr} & {AF}{dr}) sent4: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent5: ¬(¬{BL}{hc} & {AB}{hc}) sent6: {AA}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent7: (x): {C}x -> ¬(¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent8: ¬({A}{aa} & {C}{aa}) sent9: ¬{B}{aa} -> ¬({A}{aa} & {C}{aa}) sent10: (x): ¬(¬{H}x & ¬{F}x) -> {F}{c} sent11: ¬(¬{C}{ik} & {JI}{ik}) sent12: (x): {F}x -> (¬{E}{b} & {C}{b}) sent13: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent14: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent15: (x): {AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent16: {A}{aa} -> {D}{aa} sent17: ¬(¬{H}{d} & ¬{F}{d}) sent18: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & {AA}x) -> ¬{D}x
[ "sent14 -> int1: the sgraffito is not a Yuan if that it is not unintelligent and it is a pestilence does not hold.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the sgraffito is not a kind of a Yuan.; int2 & sent1 -> int3: the fact that the sgraffito is not a custodian and is a convincingness is incorrect.;" ]
UNKNOWN
[ "sent14 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; int1 & sent4 -> int2: ¬{B}{aa}; int2 & sent1 -> int3: ¬(¬{A}{aa} & {C}{aa});" ]
UNKNOWN
4
null
15
0
15
the sgraffito is not a debarkation.
¬{D}{aa}
9
[ "sent17 -> int4: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a process-server and does not grapple third does not hold.; int4 & sent10 -> int5: the lecturer does grapple third.; int5 -> int6: there is something such that that it grapples third is correct.; int6 & sent12 -> int7: the millionaire is not osmotic but a convincingness.; int7 -> int8: that the millionaire is a convincingness hold.; int8 -> int9: there exists something such that it is a convincingness.; int9 & sent7 -> int10: that the elision is not a custodian and is not a kind of a Yuan is not correct.; int10 -> int11: there is something such that that it is not a custodian and it is not a Yuan is not right.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the sgraffito is a kind of a debarkation. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the fact that the sgraffito is not a kind of a custodian and is a convincingness is not right is not incorrect if it is not a Yuan. sent2: that the sgraffito does not produce is correct if that it is not aggressive and avows millionaire is not right. sent3: the fact that the deoxyadenosine is not a pestilence and pant-hoots is incorrect. sent4: the fact that the sgraffito is not unintelligent and is a pestilence is not right. sent5: that the gallium is not an alehouse but it is a kind of a pestilence is not true. sent6: if the sgraffito is unintelligent it is not a Yuan. sent7: that the elision is not a custodian and it is not a kind of a Yuan is not right if something is a convincingness. sent8: that the sgraffito is a custodian and a convincingness is not right. sent9: if the sgraffito is not a Yuan the fact that it is a kind of a custodian and is a kind of a convincingness is wrong. sent10: if there exists something such that the fact that that it is not a process-server and does not grapple third is right is incorrect the lecturer does grapple third. sent11: the fact that the beast is not a convincingness but it is courteous is not right. sent12: if there is something such that it grapples third then the millionaire is not osmotic but it is a convincingness. sent13: that the sgraffito is both unintelligent and a pestilence is not true. sent14: something is not a Yuan if the fact that it is intelligent a pestilence is wrong. sent15: if something is unintelligent then it is not a Yuan. sent16: the sgraffito is a kind of a debarkation if it is a kind of a custodian. sent17: that the Neopolitan is not a process-server and does not grapple third is false. sent18: if that something is not a kind of a convincingness but it is unintelligent is false it is not a debarkation. ; $proof$ =
__UNKNOWN__
DeductionInstance
something is not a Yuan if the fact that it is intelligent a pestilence is wrong.
[ "the fact that the sgraffito is not unintelligent and is a pestilence is not right.", "the fact that the fact that the sgraffito is not a kind of a custodian and is a convincingness is not right is not incorrect if it is not a Yuan." ]
[ "If a pestilence is wrong, something is not a Yuan.", "If the fact that it is intelligent is wrong, then something is not a Yuan." ]
If a pestilence is wrong, something is not a Yuan.
the fact that the sgraffito is not unintelligent and is a pestilence is not right.
the sgraffito is a kind of a debarkation.
sent1: the fact that the fact that the sgraffito is not a kind of a custodian and is a convincingness is not right is not incorrect if it is not a Yuan. sent2: that the sgraffito does not produce is correct if that it is not aggressive and avows millionaire is not right. sent3: the fact that the deoxyadenosine is not a pestilence and pant-hoots is incorrect. sent4: the fact that the sgraffito is not unintelligent and is a pestilence is not right. sent5: that the gallium is not an alehouse but it is a kind of a pestilence is not true. sent6: if the sgraffito is unintelligent it is not a Yuan. sent7: that the elision is not a custodian and it is not a kind of a Yuan is not right if something is a convincingness. sent8: that the sgraffito is a custodian and a convincingness is not right. sent9: if the sgraffito is not a Yuan the fact that it is a kind of a custodian and is a kind of a convincingness is wrong. sent10: if there exists something such that the fact that that it is not a process-server and does not grapple third is right is incorrect the lecturer does grapple third. sent11: the fact that the beast is not a convincingness but it is courteous is not right. sent12: if there is something such that it grapples third then the millionaire is not osmotic but it is a convincingness. sent13: that the sgraffito is both unintelligent and a pestilence is not true. sent14: something is not a Yuan if the fact that it is intelligent a pestilence is wrong. sent15: if something is unintelligent then it is not a Yuan. sent16: the sgraffito is a kind of a debarkation if it is a kind of a custodian. sent17: that the Neopolitan is not a process-server and does not grapple third is false. sent18: if that something is not a kind of a convincingness but it is unintelligent is false it is not a debarkation.
{D}{aa}
sent1: ¬{B}{aa} -> ¬(¬{A}{aa} & {C}{aa}) sent2: ¬(¬{HC}{aa} & {CN}{aa}) -> ¬{AT}{aa} sent3: ¬(¬{AB}{dr} & {AF}{dr}) sent4: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent5: ¬(¬{BL}{hc} & {AB}{hc}) sent6: {AA}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent7: (x): {C}x -> ¬(¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent8: ¬({A}{aa} & {C}{aa}) sent9: ¬{B}{aa} -> ¬({A}{aa} & {C}{aa}) sent10: (x): ¬(¬{H}x & ¬{F}x) -> {F}{c} sent11: ¬(¬{C}{ik} & {JI}{ik}) sent12: (x): {F}x -> (¬{E}{b} & {C}{b}) sent13: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent14: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent15: (x): {AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent16: {A}{aa} -> {D}{aa} sent17: ¬(¬{H}{d} & ¬{F}{d}) sent18: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & {AA}x) -> ¬{D}x
[ "sent14 -> int1: the sgraffito is not a Yuan if that it is not unintelligent and it is a pestilence does not hold.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the sgraffito is not a kind of a Yuan.; int2 & sent1 -> int3: the fact that the sgraffito is not a custodian and is a convincingness is incorrect.;" ]
UNKNOWN
[ "sent14 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; int1 & sent4 -> int2: ¬{B}{aa}; int2 & sent1 -> int3: ¬(¬{A}{aa} & {C}{aa});" ]
UNKNOWN
4
null
15
0
15
the sgraffito is not a debarkation.
¬{D}{aa}
9
[ "sent17 -> int4: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a process-server and does not grapple third does not hold.; int4 & sent10 -> int5: the lecturer does grapple third.; int5 -> int6: there is something such that that it grapples third is correct.; int6 & sent12 -> int7: the millionaire is not osmotic but a convincingness.; int7 -> int8: that the millionaire is a convincingness hold.; int8 -> int9: there exists something such that it is a convincingness.; int9 & sent7 -> int10: that the elision is not a custodian and is not a kind of a Yuan is not correct.; int10 -> int11: there is something such that that it is not a custodian and it is not a Yuan is not right.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the sgraffito is a kind of a debarkation. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the fact that the sgraffito is not a kind of a custodian and is a convincingness is not right is not incorrect if it is not a Yuan. sent2: that the sgraffito does not produce is correct if that it is not aggressive and avows millionaire is not right. sent3: the fact that the deoxyadenosine is not a pestilence and pant-hoots is incorrect. sent4: the fact that the sgraffito is not unintelligent and is a pestilence is not right. sent5: that the gallium is not an alehouse but it is a kind of a pestilence is not true. sent6: if the sgraffito is unintelligent it is not a Yuan. sent7: that the elision is not a custodian and it is not a kind of a Yuan is not right if something is a convincingness. sent8: that the sgraffito is a custodian and a convincingness is not right. sent9: if the sgraffito is not a Yuan the fact that it is a kind of a custodian and is a kind of a convincingness is wrong. sent10: if there exists something such that the fact that that it is not a process-server and does not grapple third is right is incorrect the lecturer does grapple third. sent11: the fact that the beast is not a convincingness but it is courteous is not right. sent12: if there is something such that it grapples third then the millionaire is not osmotic but it is a convincingness. sent13: that the sgraffito is both unintelligent and a pestilence is not true. sent14: something is not a Yuan if the fact that it is intelligent a pestilence is wrong. sent15: if something is unintelligent then it is not a Yuan. sent16: the sgraffito is a kind of a debarkation if it is a kind of a custodian. sent17: that the Neopolitan is not a process-server and does not grapple third is false. sent18: if that something is not a kind of a convincingness but it is unintelligent is false it is not a debarkation. ; $proof$ =
__UNKNOWN__
DeductionInstance
something is not a Yuan if the fact that it is intelligent a pestilence is wrong.
[ "the fact that the sgraffito is not unintelligent and is a pestilence is not right.", "the fact that the fact that the sgraffito is not a kind of a custodian and is a convincingness is not right is not incorrect if it is not a Yuan." ]
[ "If a pestilence is wrong, something is not a Yuan.", "If the fact that it is intelligent is wrong, then something is not a Yuan." ]
If the fact that it is intelligent is wrong, then something is not a Yuan.
the fact that the fact that the sgraffito is not a kind of a custodian and is a convincingness is not right is not incorrect if it is not a Yuan.
the grappling Bond does not occur.
sent1: that the kowtow happens and the zymoidness happens yields that the grappling Bond does not occur. sent2: the zymoidness happens. sent3: the non-zymoidness brings about that the grappling Bond happens and the kowtow occurs.
¬{C}
sent1: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent2: {B} sent3: ¬{B} -> ({C} & {A})
[]
UNKNOWN
[]
UNKNOWN
2
null
1
0
1
that the grappling Bond happens is true.
{C}
6
[]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the grappling Bond does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the kowtow happens and the zymoidness happens yields that the grappling Bond does not occur. sent2: the zymoidness happens. sent3: the non-zymoidness brings about that the grappling Bond happens and the kowtow occurs. ; $proof$ =
__UNKNOWN__
DeductionInstance
the zymoidness happens.
[ "that the kowtow happens and the zymoidness happens yields that the grappling Bond does not occur." ]
[ "the zymoidness happens." ]
the zymoidness happens.
that the kowtow happens and the zymoidness happens yields that the grappling Bond does not occur.
the spokesman does not symmetrize.
sent1: the spokesman is a keratoacanthoma if something is not a goldstone. sent2: if that something does not avow smiler is correct the fact that it is a kind of inferential a myxosporidian is not correct. sent3: if the fact that the contrarian is a kind of a colloquy is not incorrect then that it does tighten and is not a keratoacanthoma is incorrect. sent4: something is not a goldstone. sent5: something that is not a kind of a myxosporidian tightens and is a colloquy. sent6: the irredentist is not a goldstone and does not grapple persona if the reprobate is a keratoacanthoma. sent7: something does symmetrize if it does grapple persona. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a goldstone is not false. sent9: if something does tighten then it does symmetrize. sent10: if something is not a kind of a goldstone then the spokesman does grapple persona and is a keratoacanthoma. sent11: the spokesman is a goldstone if the irredentist is not a kind of a goldstone and does not grapple persona. sent12: the fact that the prior is a kind of a goldstone if that the spokesman is a goldstone is right hold. sent13: if the contrarian grapples persona the reprobate does grapples persona. sent14: the spokesman is a keratoacanthoma. sent15: if that something is inferential a myxosporidian is not true it is not a myxosporidian. sent16: the spokesman is a kind of a crush. sent17: if the reprobate grapples persona the irredentist is a kind of a goldstone. sent18: the Eden grapples persona and it tightens. sent19: something is a kind of a keratoacanthoma if it symmetrizes.
¬{D}{a}
sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> {C}{a} sent2: (x): ¬{I}x -> ¬({H}x & {G}x) sent3: {F}{d} -> ¬({E}{d} & ¬{C}{d}) sent4: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent5: (x): ¬{G}x -> ({E}x & {F}x) sent6: {C}{c} -> (¬{A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent7: (x): {B}x -> {D}x sent8: (Ex): {A}x sent9: (x): {E}x -> {D}x sent10: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent11: (¬{A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> {A}{a} sent12: {A}{a} -> {A}{ci} sent13: {B}{d} -> {B}{c} sent14: {C}{a} sent15: (x): ¬({H}x & {G}x) -> ¬{G}x sent16: {DL}{a} sent17: {B}{c} -> {A}{b} sent18: ({B}{gi} & {E}{gi}) sent19: (x): {D}x -> {C}x
[ "sent4 & sent10 -> int1: the spokesman grapples persona and is a keratoacanthoma.; int1 -> int2: that the spokesman does grapple persona is right.; sent7 -> int3: if the spokesman does grapple persona then it symmetrizes.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
[ "sent4 & sent10 -> int1: ({B}{a} & {C}{a}); int1 -> int2: {B}{a}; sent7 -> int3: {B}{a} -> {D}{a}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
3
3
16
0
16
the spokesman does not symmetrize.
¬{D}{a}
8
[]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the spokesman does not symmetrize. ; $context$ = sent1: the spokesman is a keratoacanthoma if something is not a goldstone. sent2: if that something does not avow smiler is correct the fact that it is a kind of inferential a myxosporidian is not correct. sent3: if the fact that the contrarian is a kind of a colloquy is not incorrect then that it does tighten and is not a keratoacanthoma is incorrect. sent4: something is not a goldstone. sent5: something that is not a kind of a myxosporidian tightens and is a colloquy. sent6: the irredentist is not a goldstone and does not grapple persona if the reprobate is a keratoacanthoma. sent7: something does symmetrize if it does grapple persona. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a goldstone is not false. sent9: if something does tighten then it does symmetrize. sent10: if something is not a kind of a goldstone then the spokesman does grapple persona and is a keratoacanthoma. sent11: the spokesman is a goldstone if the irredentist is not a kind of a goldstone and does not grapple persona. sent12: the fact that the prior is a kind of a goldstone if that the spokesman is a goldstone is right hold. sent13: if the contrarian grapples persona the reprobate does grapples persona. sent14: the spokesman is a keratoacanthoma. sent15: if that something is inferential a myxosporidian is not true it is not a myxosporidian. sent16: the spokesman is a kind of a crush. sent17: if the reprobate grapples persona the irredentist is a kind of a goldstone. sent18: the Eden grapples persona and it tightens. sent19: something is a kind of a keratoacanthoma if it symmetrizes. ; $proof$ =
sent4 & sent10 -> int1: the spokesman grapples persona and is a keratoacanthoma.; int1 -> int2: that the spokesman does grapple persona is right.; sent7 -> int3: if the spokesman does grapple persona then it symmetrizes.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
DeductionInstance
something is not a goldstone.
[ "if something is not a kind of a goldstone then the spokesman does grapple persona and is a keratoacanthoma.", "something does symmetrize if it does grapple persona." ]
[ "Something isn't a goldstone.", "Something is not a goldstone." ]
Something isn't a goldstone.
if something is not a kind of a goldstone then the spokesman does grapple persona and is a keratoacanthoma.
the spokesman does not symmetrize.
sent1: the spokesman is a keratoacanthoma if something is not a goldstone. sent2: if that something does not avow smiler is correct the fact that it is a kind of inferential a myxosporidian is not correct. sent3: if the fact that the contrarian is a kind of a colloquy is not incorrect then that it does tighten and is not a keratoacanthoma is incorrect. sent4: something is not a goldstone. sent5: something that is not a kind of a myxosporidian tightens and is a colloquy. sent6: the irredentist is not a goldstone and does not grapple persona if the reprobate is a keratoacanthoma. sent7: something does symmetrize if it does grapple persona. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a goldstone is not false. sent9: if something does tighten then it does symmetrize. sent10: if something is not a kind of a goldstone then the spokesman does grapple persona and is a keratoacanthoma. sent11: the spokesman is a goldstone if the irredentist is not a kind of a goldstone and does not grapple persona. sent12: the fact that the prior is a kind of a goldstone if that the spokesman is a goldstone is right hold. sent13: if the contrarian grapples persona the reprobate does grapples persona. sent14: the spokesman is a keratoacanthoma. sent15: if that something is inferential a myxosporidian is not true it is not a myxosporidian. sent16: the spokesman is a kind of a crush. sent17: if the reprobate grapples persona the irredentist is a kind of a goldstone. sent18: the Eden grapples persona and it tightens. sent19: something is a kind of a keratoacanthoma if it symmetrizes.
¬{D}{a}
sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> {C}{a} sent2: (x): ¬{I}x -> ¬({H}x & {G}x) sent3: {F}{d} -> ¬({E}{d} & ¬{C}{d}) sent4: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent5: (x): ¬{G}x -> ({E}x & {F}x) sent6: {C}{c} -> (¬{A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent7: (x): {B}x -> {D}x sent8: (Ex): {A}x sent9: (x): {E}x -> {D}x sent10: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent11: (¬{A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> {A}{a} sent12: {A}{a} -> {A}{ci} sent13: {B}{d} -> {B}{c} sent14: {C}{a} sent15: (x): ¬({H}x & {G}x) -> ¬{G}x sent16: {DL}{a} sent17: {B}{c} -> {A}{b} sent18: ({B}{gi} & {E}{gi}) sent19: (x): {D}x -> {C}x
[ "sent4 & sent10 -> int1: the spokesman grapples persona and is a keratoacanthoma.; int1 -> int2: that the spokesman does grapple persona is right.; sent7 -> int3: if the spokesman does grapple persona then it symmetrizes.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
[ "sent4 & sent10 -> int1: ({B}{a} & {C}{a}); int1 -> int2: {B}{a}; sent7 -> int3: {B}{a} -> {D}{a}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
3
3
16
0
16
the spokesman does not symmetrize.
¬{D}{a}
8
[]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the spokesman does not symmetrize. ; $context$ = sent1: the spokesman is a keratoacanthoma if something is not a goldstone. sent2: if that something does not avow smiler is correct the fact that it is a kind of inferential a myxosporidian is not correct. sent3: if the fact that the contrarian is a kind of a colloquy is not incorrect then that it does tighten and is not a keratoacanthoma is incorrect. sent4: something is not a goldstone. sent5: something that is not a kind of a myxosporidian tightens and is a colloquy. sent6: the irredentist is not a goldstone and does not grapple persona if the reprobate is a keratoacanthoma. sent7: something does symmetrize if it does grapple persona. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a goldstone is not false. sent9: if something does tighten then it does symmetrize. sent10: if something is not a kind of a goldstone then the spokesman does grapple persona and is a keratoacanthoma. sent11: the spokesman is a goldstone if the irredentist is not a kind of a goldstone and does not grapple persona. sent12: the fact that the prior is a kind of a goldstone if that the spokesman is a goldstone is right hold. sent13: if the contrarian grapples persona the reprobate does grapples persona. sent14: the spokesman is a keratoacanthoma. sent15: if that something is inferential a myxosporidian is not true it is not a myxosporidian. sent16: the spokesman is a kind of a crush. sent17: if the reprobate grapples persona the irredentist is a kind of a goldstone. sent18: the Eden grapples persona and it tightens. sent19: something is a kind of a keratoacanthoma if it symmetrizes. ; $proof$ =
sent4 & sent10 -> int1: the spokesman grapples persona and is a keratoacanthoma.; int1 -> int2: that the spokesman does grapple persona is right.; sent7 -> int3: if the spokesman does grapple persona then it symmetrizes.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
DeductionInstance
something is not a goldstone.
[ "if something is not a kind of a goldstone then the spokesman does grapple persona and is a keratoacanthoma.", "something does symmetrize if it does grapple persona." ]
[ "Something isn't a goldstone.", "Something is not a goldstone." ]
Something is not a goldstone.
something does symmetrize if it does grapple persona.
the turf does not avail.
sent1: the turf unionizes. sent2: something does sublime and/or it is a chill. sent3: the turf is a selfishness if the Yakut sublimes. sent4: the Yakut does sublime and is a chill if that it does not avail is true. sent5: the turf is not a kind of an avail if it is tangible and does unionize. sent6: if something does chill the turf is tangible. sent7: if there is something such that it sublimes and/or it does chill then the turf is tangible.
¬{E}{a}
sent1: {D}{a} sent2: (Ex): ({A}x v {B}x) sent3: {A}{b} -> {R}{a} sent4: ¬{E}{b} -> ({A}{b} & {B}{b}) sent5: ({C}{a} & {D}{a}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent6: (x): {B}x -> {C}{a} sent7: (x): ({A}x v {B}x) -> {C}{a}
[ "sent2 & sent7 -> int1: the fact that the turf is tangible hold.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the turf is not intangible and unionizes.; int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
[ "sent2 & sent7 -> int1: {C}{a}; int1 & sent1 -> int2: ({C}{a} & {D}{a}); int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
3
3
3
0
3
the turf is a selfishness and it is vitreous.
({R}{a} & {AU}{a})
4
[]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the turf does not avail. ; $context$ = sent1: the turf unionizes. sent2: something does sublime and/or it is a chill. sent3: the turf is a selfishness if the Yakut sublimes. sent4: the Yakut does sublime and is a chill if that it does not avail is true. sent5: the turf is not a kind of an avail if it is tangible and does unionize. sent6: if something does chill the turf is tangible. sent7: if there is something such that it sublimes and/or it does chill then the turf is tangible. ; $proof$ =
sent2 & sent7 -> int1: the fact that the turf is tangible hold.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the turf is not intangible and unionizes.; int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
DeductionInstance
something does sublime and/or it is a chill.
[ "if there is something such that it sublimes and/or it does chill then the turf is tangible.", "the turf unionizes.", "the turf is not a kind of an avail if it is tangible and does unionize." ]
[ "It is either a chill or a sublime thing.", "Whatever it is, it is a chill.", "It is a chill or it is something else." ]
It is either a chill or a sublime thing.
if there is something such that it sublimes and/or it does chill then the turf is tangible.
the turf does not avail.
sent1: the turf unionizes. sent2: something does sublime and/or it is a chill. sent3: the turf is a selfishness if the Yakut sublimes. sent4: the Yakut does sublime and is a chill if that it does not avail is true. sent5: the turf is not a kind of an avail if it is tangible and does unionize. sent6: if something does chill the turf is tangible. sent7: if there is something such that it sublimes and/or it does chill then the turf is tangible.
¬{E}{a}
sent1: {D}{a} sent2: (Ex): ({A}x v {B}x) sent3: {A}{b} -> {R}{a} sent4: ¬{E}{b} -> ({A}{b} & {B}{b}) sent5: ({C}{a} & {D}{a}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent6: (x): {B}x -> {C}{a} sent7: (x): ({A}x v {B}x) -> {C}{a}
[ "sent2 & sent7 -> int1: the fact that the turf is tangible hold.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the turf is not intangible and unionizes.; int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
[ "sent2 & sent7 -> int1: {C}{a}; int1 & sent1 -> int2: ({C}{a} & {D}{a}); int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
3
3
3
0
3
the turf is a selfishness and it is vitreous.
({R}{a} & {AU}{a})
4
[]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the turf does not avail. ; $context$ = sent1: the turf unionizes. sent2: something does sublime and/or it is a chill. sent3: the turf is a selfishness if the Yakut sublimes. sent4: the Yakut does sublime and is a chill if that it does not avail is true. sent5: the turf is not a kind of an avail if it is tangible and does unionize. sent6: if something does chill the turf is tangible. sent7: if there is something such that it sublimes and/or it does chill then the turf is tangible. ; $proof$ =
sent2 & sent7 -> int1: the fact that the turf is tangible hold.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the turf is not intangible and unionizes.; int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
DeductionInstance
something does sublime and/or it is a chill.
[ "if there is something such that it sublimes and/or it does chill then the turf is tangible.", "the turf unionizes.", "the turf is not a kind of an avail if it is tangible and does unionize." ]
[ "It is either a chill or a sublime thing.", "Whatever it is, it is a chill.", "It is a chill or it is something else." ]
Whatever it is, it is a chill.
the turf unionizes.
the turf does not avail.
sent1: the turf unionizes. sent2: something does sublime and/or it is a chill. sent3: the turf is a selfishness if the Yakut sublimes. sent4: the Yakut does sublime and is a chill if that it does not avail is true. sent5: the turf is not a kind of an avail if it is tangible and does unionize. sent6: if something does chill the turf is tangible. sent7: if there is something such that it sublimes and/or it does chill then the turf is tangible.
¬{E}{a}
sent1: {D}{a} sent2: (Ex): ({A}x v {B}x) sent3: {A}{b} -> {R}{a} sent4: ¬{E}{b} -> ({A}{b} & {B}{b}) sent5: ({C}{a} & {D}{a}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent6: (x): {B}x -> {C}{a} sent7: (x): ({A}x v {B}x) -> {C}{a}
[ "sent2 & sent7 -> int1: the fact that the turf is tangible hold.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the turf is not intangible and unionizes.; int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
[ "sent2 & sent7 -> int1: {C}{a}; int1 & sent1 -> int2: ({C}{a} & {D}{a}); int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
3
3
3
0
3
the turf is a selfishness and it is vitreous.
({R}{a} & {AU}{a})
4
[]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the turf does not avail. ; $context$ = sent1: the turf unionizes. sent2: something does sublime and/or it is a chill. sent3: the turf is a selfishness if the Yakut sublimes. sent4: the Yakut does sublime and is a chill if that it does not avail is true. sent5: the turf is not a kind of an avail if it is tangible and does unionize. sent6: if something does chill the turf is tangible. sent7: if there is something such that it sublimes and/or it does chill then the turf is tangible. ; $proof$ =
sent2 & sent7 -> int1: the fact that the turf is tangible hold.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the turf is not intangible and unionizes.; int2 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
DeductionInstance
something does sublime and/or it is a chill.
[ "if there is something such that it sublimes and/or it does chill then the turf is tangible.", "the turf unionizes.", "the turf is not a kind of an avail if it is tangible and does unionize." ]
[ "It is either a chill or a sublime thing.", "Whatever it is, it is a chill.", "It is a chill or it is something else." ]
It is a chill or it is something else.
the turf is not a kind of an avail if it is tangible and does unionize.
the tropism is not legible.
sent1: the tropism is not a surveillance. sent2: if the overdrive is earlier then the tropism is not a surveillance and is Falstaffian. sent3: that the tropism is legible hold if it is a surveillance but not non-Falstaffian. sent4: the overdrive is not non-bivalve. sent5: if a surveillance is Falstaffian it is legible. sent6: the minium is a surveillance. sent7: the tropism is not earlier but it is a surveillance if the overdrive is legible. sent8: the overdrive is earlier. sent9: the gyroscope is non-lexicostatistics thing that is a corespondent. sent10: if the fact that the overdrive is earlier and not a pump does not hold then the tropism is not legible. sent11: if the overdrive is earlier the tropism is not a surveillance. sent12: the blower is not a corespondent if the gyroscope is a kind of non-lexicostatistics thing that is a corespondent. sent13: that the testator is both a disambiguator and not epidural is not true if the blower is not a corespondent. sent14: the espadrille is not a trimmer but it is a surveillance. sent15: the effector is legible. sent16: the overdrive corrects. sent17: if something is not a kind of a surveillance but it is Falstaffian the fact that it is legible is correct. sent18: that if the tropism is earlier then the overdrive is a kind of non-legible a surveillance is right. sent19: the chute is epidural if there exists something such that that it is a disambiguator and it is not an epidural is not correct.
¬{B}{aa}
sent1: ¬{AA}{aa} sent2: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent3: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent4: {FN}{a} sent5: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent6: {AA}{df} sent7: {B}{a} -> (¬{A}{aa} & {AA}{aa}) sent8: {A}{a} sent9: (¬{I}{f} & {G}{f}) sent10: ¬({A}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent11: {A}{a} -> ¬{AA}{aa} sent12: (¬{I}{f} & {G}{f}) -> ¬{G}{e} sent13: ¬{G}{e} -> ¬({H}{d} & ¬{F}{d}) sent14: (¬{AT}{fg} & {AA}{fg}) sent15: {B}{o} sent16: {DM}{a} sent17: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent18: {A}{aa} -> (¬{B}{a} & {AA}{a}) sent19: (x): ¬({H}x & ¬{F}x) -> {F}{c}
[ "sent17 -> int1: the tropism is legible if it is not a surveillance and it is Falstaffian.; sent2 & sent8 -> int2: the tropism is not a surveillance and is Falstaffian.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
[ "sent17 -> int1: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}; sent2 & sent8 -> int2: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
2
2
16
0
16
the tropism is not legible.
¬{B}{aa}
10
[ "sent12 & sent9 -> int3: the blower is not a corespondent.; sent13 & int3 -> int4: the fact that the testator is a disambiguator but it is not an epidural is not correct.; int4 -> int5: there is something such that the fact that it is a disambiguator and not an epidural does not hold.; int5 & sent19 -> int6: the chute is a kind of an epidural.; int6 -> int7: there exists something such that that it is a kind of an epidural is right.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the tropism is not legible. ; $context$ = sent1: the tropism is not a surveillance. sent2: if the overdrive is earlier then the tropism is not a surveillance and is Falstaffian. sent3: that the tropism is legible hold if it is a surveillance but not non-Falstaffian. sent4: the overdrive is not non-bivalve. sent5: if a surveillance is Falstaffian it is legible. sent6: the minium is a surveillance. sent7: the tropism is not earlier but it is a surveillance if the overdrive is legible. sent8: the overdrive is earlier. sent9: the gyroscope is non-lexicostatistics thing that is a corespondent. sent10: if the fact that the overdrive is earlier and not a pump does not hold then the tropism is not legible. sent11: if the overdrive is earlier the tropism is not a surveillance. sent12: the blower is not a corespondent if the gyroscope is a kind of non-lexicostatistics thing that is a corespondent. sent13: that the testator is both a disambiguator and not epidural is not true if the blower is not a corespondent. sent14: the espadrille is not a trimmer but it is a surveillance. sent15: the effector is legible. sent16: the overdrive corrects. sent17: if something is not a kind of a surveillance but it is Falstaffian the fact that it is legible is correct. sent18: that if the tropism is earlier then the overdrive is a kind of non-legible a surveillance is right. sent19: the chute is epidural if there exists something such that that it is a disambiguator and it is not an epidural is not correct. ; $proof$ =
sent17 -> int1: the tropism is legible if it is not a surveillance and it is Falstaffian.; sent2 & sent8 -> int2: the tropism is not a surveillance and is Falstaffian.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
DeductionInstance
if something is not a kind of a surveillance but it is Falstaffian the fact that it is legible is correct.
[ "if the overdrive is earlier then the tropism is not a surveillance and is Falstaffian.", "the overdrive is earlier." ]
[ "Falstaffian the fact that it is legible is correct if something is not a kind of surveillance.", "The Falstaffian fact that it is legible is correct if something is not a kind of surveillance." ]
Falstaffian the fact that it is legible is correct if something is not a kind of surveillance.
if the overdrive is earlier then the tropism is not a surveillance and is Falstaffian.
the tropism is not legible.
sent1: the tropism is not a surveillance. sent2: if the overdrive is earlier then the tropism is not a surveillance and is Falstaffian. sent3: that the tropism is legible hold if it is a surveillance but not non-Falstaffian. sent4: the overdrive is not non-bivalve. sent5: if a surveillance is Falstaffian it is legible. sent6: the minium is a surveillance. sent7: the tropism is not earlier but it is a surveillance if the overdrive is legible. sent8: the overdrive is earlier. sent9: the gyroscope is non-lexicostatistics thing that is a corespondent. sent10: if the fact that the overdrive is earlier and not a pump does not hold then the tropism is not legible. sent11: if the overdrive is earlier the tropism is not a surveillance. sent12: the blower is not a corespondent if the gyroscope is a kind of non-lexicostatistics thing that is a corespondent. sent13: that the testator is both a disambiguator and not epidural is not true if the blower is not a corespondent. sent14: the espadrille is not a trimmer but it is a surveillance. sent15: the effector is legible. sent16: the overdrive corrects. sent17: if something is not a kind of a surveillance but it is Falstaffian the fact that it is legible is correct. sent18: that if the tropism is earlier then the overdrive is a kind of non-legible a surveillance is right. sent19: the chute is epidural if there exists something such that that it is a disambiguator and it is not an epidural is not correct.
¬{B}{aa}
sent1: ¬{AA}{aa} sent2: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent3: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent4: {FN}{a} sent5: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent6: {AA}{df} sent7: {B}{a} -> (¬{A}{aa} & {AA}{aa}) sent8: {A}{a} sent9: (¬{I}{f} & {G}{f}) sent10: ¬({A}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent11: {A}{a} -> ¬{AA}{aa} sent12: (¬{I}{f} & {G}{f}) -> ¬{G}{e} sent13: ¬{G}{e} -> ¬({H}{d} & ¬{F}{d}) sent14: (¬{AT}{fg} & {AA}{fg}) sent15: {B}{o} sent16: {DM}{a} sent17: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent18: {A}{aa} -> (¬{B}{a} & {AA}{a}) sent19: (x): ¬({H}x & ¬{F}x) -> {F}{c}
[ "sent17 -> int1: the tropism is legible if it is not a surveillance and it is Falstaffian.; sent2 & sent8 -> int2: the tropism is not a surveillance and is Falstaffian.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
[ "sent17 -> int1: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}; sent2 & sent8 -> int2: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
2
2
16
0
16
the tropism is not legible.
¬{B}{aa}
10
[ "sent12 & sent9 -> int3: the blower is not a corespondent.; sent13 & int3 -> int4: the fact that the testator is a disambiguator but it is not an epidural is not correct.; int4 -> int5: there is something such that the fact that it is a disambiguator and not an epidural does not hold.; int5 & sent19 -> int6: the chute is a kind of an epidural.; int6 -> int7: there exists something such that that it is a kind of an epidural is right.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the tropism is not legible. ; $context$ = sent1: the tropism is not a surveillance. sent2: if the overdrive is earlier then the tropism is not a surveillance and is Falstaffian. sent3: that the tropism is legible hold if it is a surveillance but not non-Falstaffian. sent4: the overdrive is not non-bivalve. sent5: if a surveillance is Falstaffian it is legible. sent6: the minium is a surveillance. sent7: the tropism is not earlier but it is a surveillance if the overdrive is legible. sent8: the overdrive is earlier. sent9: the gyroscope is non-lexicostatistics thing that is a corespondent. sent10: if the fact that the overdrive is earlier and not a pump does not hold then the tropism is not legible. sent11: if the overdrive is earlier the tropism is not a surveillance. sent12: the blower is not a corespondent if the gyroscope is a kind of non-lexicostatistics thing that is a corespondent. sent13: that the testator is both a disambiguator and not epidural is not true if the blower is not a corespondent. sent14: the espadrille is not a trimmer but it is a surveillance. sent15: the effector is legible. sent16: the overdrive corrects. sent17: if something is not a kind of a surveillance but it is Falstaffian the fact that it is legible is correct. sent18: that if the tropism is earlier then the overdrive is a kind of non-legible a surveillance is right. sent19: the chute is epidural if there exists something such that that it is a disambiguator and it is not an epidural is not correct. ; $proof$ =
sent17 -> int1: the tropism is legible if it is not a surveillance and it is Falstaffian.; sent2 & sent8 -> int2: the tropism is not a surveillance and is Falstaffian.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
DeductionInstance
if something is not a kind of a surveillance but it is Falstaffian the fact that it is legible is correct.
[ "if the overdrive is earlier then the tropism is not a surveillance and is Falstaffian.", "the overdrive is earlier." ]
[ "Falstaffian the fact that it is legible is correct if something is not a kind of surveillance.", "The Falstaffian fact that it is legible is correct if something is not a kind of surveillance." ]
The Falstaffian fact that it is legible is correct if something is not a kind of surveillance.
the overdrive is earlier.
the pilgrim is a kind of a beacon.
sent1: the Rebel is a kind of a scrape. sent2: the fact that the pincushion grapples noticed is not false. sent3: if the fact that the pilgrim is a beacon and/or does grapple noticed is not true it is a scrape. sent4: there is something such that the fact that either it is not a humanities or it is not a kind of a rheumatic or both is incorrect. sent5: if the pincushion is not an opacity it is not monaural and it is not a Tappan. sent6: the pincushion is a beacon. sent7: something beacons if that it is not a scrape or grapples noticed or both is false. sent8: that something does not guggle Photius or it is a pervaporation or both is not correct if that it grapples noticed is incorrect. sent9: the fact that the breechblock either does not avow rydberg or is minors or both is incorrect. sent10: if the pincushion does revalue then the pilgrim does grapple noticed. sent11: the fact that the pilgrim is not a scrape and/or it does revalue is not correct if the pincushion grapples noticed. sent12: if the fact that the pincushion does not revalue or it is a kind of a beacon or both is incorrect then it grapples noticed. sent13: if something is not a Tappan the fact that it is a kind of a beacon and it deposes does not hold. sent14: if that something does grapple noticed and/or it does beacon does not hold it does scrape. sent15: The fact that the noticed grapples pincushion is not false. sent16: the pincushion scrapes.
{B}{b}
sent1: {AA}{eu} sent2: {A}{a} sent3: ¬({B}{b} v {A}{b}) -> {AA}{b} sent4: (Ex): ¬(¬{H}x v ¬{G}x) sent5: ¬{F}{a} -> (¬{E}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent6: {B}{a} sent7: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x v {A}x) -> {B}x sent8: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{CB}x v {BQ}x) sent9: ¬(¬{EG}{jh} v {HM}{jh}) sent10: {AB}{a} -> {A}{b} sent11: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} v {AB}{b}) sent12: ¬(¬{AB}{a} v {B}{a}) -> {A}{a} sent13: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬({B}x & {C}x) sent14: (x): ¬({A}x v {B}x) -> {AA}x sent15: {AC}{aa} sent16: {AA}{a}
[ "sent11 & sent2 -> int1: that the pilgrim is not a scrape and/or it revalues is not correct.;" ]
UNKNOWN
[ "sent11 & sent2 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{b} v {AB}{b});" ]
UNKNOWN
2
null
14
0
14
that the GPS either does not guggle Photius or is a kind of a pervaporation or both is false.
¬(¬{CB}{ji} v {BQ}{ji})
7
[ "sent8 -> int2: if the GPS does not grapple noticed then the fact that either it does not guggle Photius or it is a pervaporation or both does not hold.; sent13 -> int3: if the pincushion is not a Tappan that it does beacon and deposes does not hold.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the pilgrim is a kind of a beacon. ; $context$ = sent1: the Rebel is a kind of a scrape. sent2: the fact that the pincushion grapples noticed is not false. sent3: if the fact that the pilgrim is a beacon and/or does grapple noticed is not true it is a scrape. sent4: there is something such that the fact that either it is not a humanities or it is not a kind of a rheumatic or both is incorrect. sent5: if the pincushion is not an opacity it is not monaural and it is not a Tappan. sent6: the pincushion is a beacon. sent7: something beacons if that it is not a scrape or grapples noticed or both is false. sent8: that something does not guggle Photius or it is a pervaporation or both is not correct if that it grapples noticed is incorrect. sent9: the fact that the breechblock either does not avow rydberg or is minors or both is incorrect. sent10: if the pincushion does revalue then the pilgrim does grapple noticed. sent11: the fact that the pilgrim is not a scrape and/or it does revalue is not correct if the pincushion grapples noticed. sent12: if the fact that the pincushion does not revalue or it is a kind of a beacon or both is incorrect then it grapples noticed. sent13: if something is not a Tappan the fact that it is a kind of a beacon and it deposes does not hold. sent14: if that something does grapple noticed and/or it does beacon does not hold it does scrape. sent15: The fact that the noticed grapples pincushion is not false. sent16: the pincushion scrapes. ; $proof$ =
__UNKNOWN__
DeductionInstance
the fact that the pilgrim is not a scrape and/or it does revalue is not correct if the pincushion grapples noticed.
[ "the fact that the pincushion grapples noticed is not false." ]
[ "the fact that the pilgrim is not a scrape and/or it does revalue is not correct if the pincushion grapples noticed." ]
the fact that the pilgrim is not a scrape and/or it does revalue is not correct if the pincushion grapples noticed.
the fact that the pincushion grapples noticed is not false.
the Chiron is a esthetician.
sent1: if the fact that something is not literary but inefficacious is not true it is not a esthetician. sent2: if the fact that something does not guggle Allah and is spiritualistic is not right then it is not celebratory. sent3: if the Chiron is not celebratory then the fact that it is not literary and it is not efficacious is not true. sent4: if that something is a kind of non-literary thing that does not uprise is not right it does not list. sent5: the Chiron is not celebratory.
{B}{a}
sent1: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent2: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & {C}x) -> ¬{A}x sent3: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent4: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{FI}x) -> ¬{AO}x sent5: ¬{A}{a}
[ "sent3 & sent5 -> int1: that the Chiron is not literary and it is not efficacious does not hold.; sent1 -> int2: if that the Chiron is not literary and it is not efficacious is incorrect then it is not a esthetician.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
[ "sent3 & sent5 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); sent1 -> int2: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
2
2
2
0
2
the critter is not a listing if the fact that it is not literary and it does not uprise is not right.
¬(¬{AA}{gg} & ¬{FI}{gg}) -> ¬{AO}{gg}
1
[ "sent4 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
PROVED
$hypothesis$ = the Chiron is a esthetician. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something is not literary but inefficacious is not true it is not a esthetician. sent2: if the fact that something does not guggle Allah and is spiritualistic is not right then it is not celebratory. sent3: if the Chiron is not celebratory then the fact that it is not literary and it is not efficacious is not true. sent4: if that something is a kind of non-literary thing that does not uprise is not right it does not list. sent5: the Chiron is not celebratory. ; $proof$ =
sent3 & sent5 -> int1: that the Chiron is not literary and it is not efficacious does not hold.; sent1 -> int2: if that the Chiron is not literary and it is not efficacious is incorrect then it is not a esthetician.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
DeductionInstance
if the Chiron is not celebratory then the fact that it is not literary and it is not efficacious is not true.
[ "the Chiron is not celebratory.", "if the fact that something is not literary but inefficacious is not true it is not a esthetician." ]
[ "The fact that the Chiron is not celebratory is not true.", "The fact that the Chiron is not literary and not effective is not true." ]
The fact that the Chiron is not celebratory is not true.
the Chiron is not celebratory.
the Chiron is a esthetician.
sent1: if the fact that something is not literary but inefficacious is not true it is not a esthetician. sent2: if the fact that something does not guggle Allah and is spiritualistic is not right then it is not celebratory. sent3: if the Chiron is not celebratory then the fact that it is not literary and it is not efficacious is not true. sent4: if that something is a kind of non-literary thing that does not uprise is not right it does not list. sent5: the Chiron is not celebratory.
{B}{a}
sent1: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent2: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & {C}x) -> ¬{A}x sent3: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent4: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{FI}x) -> ¬{AO}x sent5: ¬{A}{a}
[ "sent3 & sent5 -> int1: that the Chiron is not literary and it is not efficacious does not hold.; sent1 -> int2: if that the Chiron is not literary and it is not efficacious is incorrect then it is not a esthetician.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
[ "sent3 & sent5 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); sent1 -> int2: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
2
2
2
0
2
the critter is not a listing if the fact that it is not literary and it does not uprise is not right.
¬(¬{AA}{gg} & ¬{FI}{gg}) -> ¬{AO}{gg}
1
[ "sent4 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
PROVED
$hypothesis$ = the Chiron is a esthetician. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something is not literary but inefficacious is not true it is not a esthetician. sent2: if the fact that something does not guggle Allah and is spiritualistic is not right then it is not celebratory. sent3: if the Chiron is not celebratory then the fact that it is not literary and it is not efficacious is not true. sent4: if that something is a kind of non-literary thing that does not uprise is not right it does not list. sent5: the Chiron is not celebratory. ; $proof$ =
sent3 & sent5 -> int1: that the Chiron is not literary and it is not efficacious does not hold.; sent1 -> int2: if that the Chiron is not literary and it is not efficacious is incorrect then it is not a esthetician.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
DeductionInstance
if the Chiron is not celebratory then the fact that it is not literary and it is not efficacious is not true.
[ "the Chiron is not celebratory.", "if the fact that something is not literary but inefficacious is not true it is not a esthetician." ]
[ "The fact that the Chiron is not celebratory is not true.", "The fact that the Chiron is not literary and not effective is not true." ]
The fact that the Chiron is not literary and not effective is not true.
if the fact that something is not literary but inefficacious is not true it is not a esthetician.
the irregular avows contralto.
sent1: if the irregular does not inhale then it is a beachball. sent2: the PTO is not a kind of a Congreve. sent3: the Herero is a ICE if the imidazole is mindless. sent4: if the irregular does not inhale then it is a beachball and it is a Congreve. sent5: the mopper does not grapple teacart if it is aptitudinal and it is a kind of a pinion. sent6: the irregular does not inhale. sent7: the irregular is extrinsic. sent8: if something is a beachball and it is a Congreve then it does not avow contralto. sent9: the vessel does not guggle burgomaster if it is introversive and avows contralto. sent10: the irregular does not guggle centimo.
{B}{aa}
sent1: ¬{A}{aa} -> {AA}{aa} sent2: ¬{AB}{fr} sent3: {D}{b} -> {C}{a} sent4: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent5: ({DS}{hp} & {CK}{hp}) -> ¬{IB}{hp} sent6: ¬{A}{aa} sent7: {FE}{aa} sent8: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent9: ({HU}{ap} & {B}{ap}) -> ¬{GE}{ap} sent10: ¬{EU}{aa}
[ "sent8 -> int1: if the irregular is a beachball that is a kind of a Congreve then it does not avow contralto.; sent4 & sent6 -> int2: the irregular is a kind of a beachball and it is a Congreve.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
[ "sent8 -> int1: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; sent4 & sent6 -> int2: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
2
2
7
0
7
the fact that the irregular avows contralto is right.
{B}{aa}
6
[]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the irregular avows contralto. ; $context$ = sent1: if the irregular does not inhale then it is a beachball. sent2: the PTO is not a kind of a Congreve. sent3: the Herero is a ICE if the imidazole is mindless. sent4: if the irregular does not inhale then it is a beachball and it is a Congreve. sent5: the mopper does not grapple teacart if it is aptitudinal and it is a kind of a pinion. sent6: the irregular does not inhale. sent7: the irregular is extrinsic. sent8: if something is a beachball and it is a Congreve then it does not avow contralto. sent9: the vessel does not guggle burgomaster if it is introversive and avows contralto. sent10: the irregular does not guggle centimo. ; $proof$ =
sent8 -> int1: if the irregular is a beachball that is a kind of a Congreve then it does not avow contralto.; sent4 & sent6 -> int2: the irregular is a kind of a beachball and it is a Congreve.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
DeductionInstance
if something is a beachball and it is a Congreve then it does not avow contralto.
[ "if the irregular does not inhale then it is a beachball and it is a Congreve.", "the irregular does not inhale." ]
[ "If it is a Congreve and it is a beachball then it is not avow contralto.", "If it is a Congreve and it is a beachball, then it is not avow contralto." ]
If it is a Congreve and it is a beachball then it is not avow contralto.
if the irregular does not inhale then it is a beachball and it is a Congreve.
the irregular avows contralto.
sent1: if the irregular does not inhale then it is a beachball. sent2: the PTO is not a kind of a Congreve. sent3: the Herero is a ICE if the imidazole is mindless. sent4: if the irregular does not inhale then it is a beachball and it is a Congreve. sent5: the mopper does not grapple teacart if it is aptitudinal and it is a kind of a pinion. sent6: the irregular does not inhale. sent7: the irregular is extrinsic. sent8: if something is a beachball and it is a Congreve then it does not avow contralto. sent9: the vessel does not guggle burgomaster if it is introversive and avows contralto. sent10: the irregular does not guggle centimo.
{B}{aa}
sent1: ¬{A}{aa} -> {AA}{aa} sent2: ¬{AB}{fr} sent3: {D}{b} -> {C}{a} sent4: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent5: ({DS}{hp} & {CK}{hp}) -> ¬{IB}{hp} sent6: ¬{A}{aa} sent7: {FE}{aa} sent8: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent9: ({HU}{ap} & {B}{ap}) -> ¬{GE}{ap} sent10: ¬{EU}{aa}
[ "sent8 -> int1: if the irregular is a beachball that is a kind of a Congreve then it does not avow contralto.; sent4 & sent6 -> int2: the irregular is a kind of a beachball and it is a Congreve.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
[ "sent8 -> int1: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; sent4 & sent6 -> int2: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
2
2
7
0
7
the fact that the irregular avows contralto is right.
{B}{aa}
6
[]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the irregular avows contralto. ; $context$ = sent1: if the irregular does not inhale then it is a beachball. sent2: the PTO is not a kind of a Congreve. sent3: the Herero is a ICE if the imidazole is mindless. sent4: if the irregular does not inhale then it is a beachball and it is a Congreve. sent5: the mopper does not grapple teacart if it is aptitudinal and it is a kind of a pinion. sent6: the irregular does not inhale. sent7: the irregular is extrinsic. sent8: if something is a beachball and it is a Congreve then it does not avow contralto. sent9: the vessel does not guggle burgomaster if it is introversive and avows contralto. sent10: the irregular does not guggle centimo. ; $proof$ =
sent8 -> int1: if the irregular is a beachball that is a kind of a Congreve then it does not avow contralto.; sent4 & sent6 -> int2: the irregular is a kind of a beachball and it is a Congreve.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
DeductionInstance
if something is a beachball and it is a Congreve then it does not avow contralto.
[ "if the irregular does not inhale then it is a beachball and it is a Congreve.", "the irregular does not inhale." ]
[ "If it is a Congreve and it is a beachball then it is not avow contralto.", "If it is a Congreve and it is a beachball, then it is not avow contralto." ]
If it is a Congreve and it is a beachball, then it is not avow contralto.
the irregular does not inhale.
the qualification happens.
sent1: the caulineness does not occur. sent2: that the glossopharyngealness does not occur is right if that the guggling Erithacus happens is not true. sent3: the postwarness does not occur. sent4: that the mining does not occur hold. sent5: that the idolatry happens prevents the tobogganing. sent6: the metabolicness does not occur if the refreshing does not occur. sent7: that if the fact that the actinometricness happens is right then not the idolatry but the PIN occurs is right. sent8: if the tobogganing does not occur then the mining occurs and the qualification occurs. sent9: the qualification does not occur if the fact that the mining does not occur is not false. sent10: the ironing does not occur.
{B}
sent1: ¬{BF} sent2: ¬{FE} -> ¬{AD} sent3: ¬{CN} sent4: ¬{A} sent5: {D} -> ¬{C} sent6: ¬{HB} -> ¬{DT} sent7: {F} -> (¬{D} & {E}) sent8: ¬{C} -> ({A} & {B}) sent9: ¬{A} -> ¬{B} sent10: ¬{BD}
[ "sent9 & sent4 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
[ "sent9 & sent4 -> hypothesis;" ]
DISPROVED
1
1
8
0
8
the guggling unexpectedness does not occur.
¬{EQ}
6
[]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the qualification happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the caulineness does not occur. sent2: that the glossopharyngealness does not occur is right if that the guggling Erithacus happens is not true. sent3: the postwarness does not occur. sent4: that the mining does not occur hold. sent5: that the idolatry happens prevents the tobogganing. sent6: the metabolicness does not occur if the refreshing does not occur. sent7: that if the fact that the actinometricness happens is right then not the idolatry but the PIN occurs is right. sent8: if the tobogganing does not occur then the mining occurs and the qualification occurs. sent9: the qualification does not occur if the fact that the mining does not occur is not false. sent10: the ironing does not occur. ; $proof$ =
sent9 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__
DeductionInstance
the qualification does not occur if the fact that the mining does not occur is not false.
[ "that the mining does not occur hold." ]
[ "the qualification does not occur if the fact that the mining does not occur is not false." ]
the qualification does not occur if the fact that the mining does not occur is not false.
that the mining does not occur hold.
the grappling Cimabue occurs.
sent1: that the hotness does not occur and the grappling cottontail does not occur prevents that the grappling Limburger does not occur. sent2: if that the anaphrodisiacness occurs or the avowing imbrication does not occur or both is not correct the soberingness does not occur. sent3: the non-infinitivalness and the non-endergonicness occurs. sent4: the lionizing Seattle does not occur. sent5: if that the punch-up occurs is true the fact that the anaphrodisiacness happens and/or the avowing imbrication does not occur is wrong. sent6: if the fact that both the non-logogrammaticness and the guggling clarinetist happens is not correct the fandango does not occur. sent7: if the derision does not occur the devising occurs or the breakthrough occurs or both. sent8: if the whiz does not occur and the lionizing Seattle does not occur then the grappling Cimabue happens. sent9: if the unclearness occurs that the grappling Cimabue but not the guggling moralism happens is false. sent10: if the fandango does not occur the punch-up and the abaxialness happens. sent11: the guggling moralism leads to that the grappling Cimabue does not occur and the uprising occurs. sent12: if not the whiz but the lionizing Seattle happens then the grappling Cimabue occurs. sent13: the uprising occurs if that the grappling Cimabue but not the guggling moralism happens is wrong. sent14: that the guggling moralism occurs and the unclearness occurs is caused by that the devising does not occur. sent15: both the non-Catholicness and the non-puerperalness occurs. sent16: if the behavior happens then the derision does not occur and the salvage does not occur. sent17: if the uprising occurs the hesitating does not occur and the reminiscing does not occur. sent18: the changelessness does not occur and the reminiscing does not occur. sent19: if the soberingness does not occur then the behavior and the grappling Dis occurs. sent20: the whiz does not occur and the lionizing Seattle does not occur. sent21: the ischemicness does not occur and the respite does not occur.
{B}
sent1: (¬{BN} & ¬{JF}) -> {CK} sent2: ¬({L} v ¬{M}) -> ¬{K} sent3: (¬{HC} & ¬{CL}) sent4: ¬{AB} sent5: {N} -> ¬({L} v ¬{M}) sent6: ¬(¬{Q} & {R}) -> ¬{P} sent7: ¬{G} -> ({E} v {F}) sent8: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent9: {D} -> ¬({B} & ¬{C}) sent10: ¬{P} -> ({N} & {O}) sent11: {C} -> (¬{B} & {A}) sent12: (¬{AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent13: ¬({B} & ¬{C}) -> {A} sent14: ¬{E} -> ({C} & {D}) sent15: (¬{JC} & ¬{CI}) sent16: {I} -> (¬{G} & ¬{H}) sent17: {A} -> (¬{HP} & ¬{BF}) sent18: (¬{IH} & ¬{BF}) sent19: ¬{K} -> ({I} & {J}) sent20: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent21: (¬{FR} & ¬{EF})
[ "sent8 & sent20 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
[ "sent8 & sent20 -> hypothesis;" ]
PROVED
1
1
19
0
19
the grappling Cimabue does not occur.
¬{B}
7
[]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the grappling Cimabue occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that the hotness does not occur and the grappling cottontail does not occur prevents that the grappling Limburger does not occur. sent2: if that the anaphrodisiacness occurs or the avowing imbrication does not occur or both is not correct the soberingness does not occur. sent3: the non-infinitivalness and the non-endergonicness occurs. sent4: the lionizing Seattle does not occur. sent5: if that the punch-up occurs is true the fact that the anaphrodisiacness happens and/or the avowing imbrication does not occur is wrong. sent6: if the fact that both the non-logogrammaticness and the guggling clarinetist happens is not correct the fandango does not occur. sent7: if the derision does not occur the devising occurs or the breakthrough occurs or both. sent8: if the whiz does not occur and the lionizing Seattle does not occur then the grappling Cimabue happens. sent9: if the unclearness occurs that the grappling Cimabue but not the guggling moralism happens is false. sent10: if the fandango does not occur the punch-up and the abaxialness happens. sent11: the guggling moralism leads to that the grappling Cimabue does not occur and the uprising occurs. sent12: if not the whiz but the lionizing Seattle happens then the grappling Cimabue occurs. sent13: the uprising occurs if that the grappling Cimabue but not the guggling moralism happens is wrong. sent14: that the guggling moralism occurs and the unclearness occurs is caused by that the devising does not occur. sent15: both the non-Catholicness and the non-puerperalness occurs. sent16: if the behavior happens then the derision does not occur and the salvage does not occur. sent17: if the uprising occurs the hesitating does not occur and the reminiscing does not occur. sent18: the changelessness does not occur and the reminiscing does not occur. sent19: if the soberingness does not occur then the behavior and the grappling Dis occurs. sent20: the whiz does not occur and the lionizing Seattle does not occur. sent21: the ischemicness does not occur and the respite does not occur. ; $proof$ =
sent8 & sent20 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__
DeductionInstance
if the whiz does not occur and the lionizing Seattle does not occur then the grappling Cimabue happens.
[ "the whiz does not occur and the lionizing Seattle does not occur." ]
[ "if the whiz does not occur and the lionizing Seattle does not occur then the grappling Cimabue happens." ]
if the whiz does not occur and the lionizing Seattle does not occur then the grappling Cimabue happens.
the whiz does not occur and the lionizing Seattle does not occur.
the cambium is a kind of a canecutter.
sent1: that the cambium is not a faint or it is not a canecutter or both is true. sent2: something is phrasal if it is an endive. sent3: the fact that the Paiute is not a dewlap and is nuclear is false if it does not lionize imbroglio. sent4: if something is not a faint and not nuclear it is a fitter. sent5: the cambium either is not a canecutter or is not a faint or both. sent6: if the stepmother is not a kind of a canecutter then that the cambium does faint is right. sent7: the cambium is a kind of a fitter if the stepmother is not a canecutter. sent8: the shrink-wrap is a fitter. sent9: the cambium is nuclear if the stepmother is not a faint. sent10: the Paiute does not lionize imbroglio. sent11: something is not a kind of a fitter if the fact that it is not a kind of a Mogul and is a fitter is not true. sent12: the stepmother is not a kind of a fitter or it does not faint or both. sent13: if that the stepmother is not fitter is not wrong then the cambium is nuclear. sent14: the cambium is non-fitter and/or is not a kind of a canecutter. sent15: either the stepmother is not a kind of a fitter or it is not nuclear or both. sent16: the cambium grapples gross. sent17: something that guggles genuineness is large-capitalization. sent18: the cambium is not fitter and/or it is not nuclear. sent19: if something is altitudinal it is a kind of a granulocyte. sent20: if there exists something such that that it is both not a dewlap and nuclear is incorrect the makeup is not nuclear. sent21: something is a kind of a canecutter if it is a kind of a fitter. sent22: the spleenwort is a canecutter. sent23: the cambium is not a kind of a canecutter if the stepmother is a canecutter and is not a faint.
{D}{c}
sent1: (¬{B}{c} v ¬{D}{c}) sent2: (x): {CF}x -> {JE}x sent3: ¬{F}{e} -> ¬(¬{G}{e} & {C}{e}) sent4: (x): (¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) -> {A}x sent5: (¬{D}{c} v ¬{B}{c}) sent6: ¬{D}{a} -> {B}{c} sent7: ¬{D}{a} -> {A}{c} sent8: {A}{cr} sent9: ¬{B}{a} -> {C}{c} sent10: ¬{F}{e} sent11: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & {A}x) -> ¬{A}x sent12: (¬{A}{a} v ¬{B}{a}) sent13: ¬{A}{a} -> {C}{c} sent14: (¬{A}{c} v ¬{D}{c}) sent15: (¬{A}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) sent16: {AJ}{c} sent17: (x): {FS}x -> {DP}x sent18: (¬{A}{c} v ¬{C}{c}) sent19: (x): {IL}x -> {GM}x sent20: (x): ¬(¬{G}x & {C}x) -> ¬{C}{d} sent21: (x): {A}x -> {D}x sent22: {D}{dl} sent23: ({D}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{D}{c}
[ "sent12 & sent13 & sent9 -> int1: the cambium is nuclear.;" ]
UNKNOWN
[ "sent12 & sent13 & sent9 -> int1: {C}{c};" ]
UNKNOWN
2
null
20
0
20
the cambium is not a canecutter.
¬{D}{c}
9
[ "sent11 -> int2: if the fact that the print is both not a Mogul and fitter is wrong it is not a kind of a fitter.; sent3 & sent10 -> int3: that that that the Paiute is not a dewlap and is nuclear is correct is false is not false.; int3 -> int4: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a dewlap but nuclear is false.; int4 & sent20 -> int5: the makeup is not nuclear.; int5 -> int6: something is not nuclear.;" ]
UNKNOWN
UNKNOWN
$hypothesis$ = the cambium is a kind of a canecutter. ; $context$ = sent1: that the cambium is not a faint or it is not a canecutter or both is true. sent2: something is phrasal if it is an endive. sent3: the fact that the Paiute is not a dewlap and is nuclear is false if it does not lionize imbroglio. sent4: if something is not a faint and not nuclear it is a fitter. sent5: the cambium either is not a canecutter or is not a faint or both. sent6: if the stepmother is not a kind of a canecutter then that the cambium does faint is right. sent7: the cambium is a kind of a fitter if the stepmother is not a canecutter. sent8: the shrink-wrap is a fitter. sent9: the cambium is nuclear if the stepmother is not a faint. sent10: the Paiute does not lionize imbroglio. sent11: something is not a kind of a fitter if the fact that it is not a kind of a Mogul and is a fitter is not true. sent12: the stepmother is not a kind of a fitter or it does not faint or both. sent13: if that the stepmother is not fitter is not wrong then the cambium is nuclear. sent14: the cambium is non-fitter and/or is not a kind of a canecutter. sent15: either the stepmother is not a kind of a fitter or it is not nuclear or both. sent16: the cambium grapples gross. sent17: something that guggles genuineness is large-capitalization. sent18: the cambium is not fitter and/or it is not nuclear. sent19: if something is altitudinal it is a kind of a granulocyte. sent20: if there exists something such that that it is both not a dewlap and nuclear is incorrect the makeup is not nuclear. sent21: something is a kind of a canecutter if it is a kind of a fitter. sent22: the spleenwort is a canecutter. sent23: the cambium is not a kind of a canecutter if the stepmother is a canecutter and is not a faint. ; $proof$ =
__UNKNOWN__
DeductionInstance
the stepmother is not a kind of a fitter or it does not faint or both.
[ "if that the stepmother is not fitter is not wrong then the cambium is nuclear.", "the cambium is nuclear if the stepmother is not a faint." ]
[ "The stepmother is not a good example of a good example of a good example of a good example of a good example of a good example of a good example of a good example of a good example of a good example of a good example of a good example of a good example of a good", "The stepmother is not a good example of a good example of a good example of a good example of a good example of a good example of a good example of a good example of a good example of a good example of a good example of a good example of a good example." ]
The stepmother is not a good example of a good example of a good example of a good example of a good example of a good example of a good example of a good example of a good example of a good example of a good example of a good example of a good example of a good
if that the stepmother is not fitter is not wrong then the cambium is nuclear.