Datasets:

hitachi-nlp

/

FLD.v2.reimpl

like 0

0.3

Ed is a Xenosaurus if the thing is a delighted.

{A}{a} -> {C}{a}

fact1: Ed is unpigmented if Ed parts myelatelia. fact2: That calcedony is a Xenosaurus if the thing is catoptric. fact3: If Ed is a delighted it is a Ptloris. fact4: Ed is not divisible if Ed is a Xenosaurus. fact5: That skiagraph formalizes tangled if that skiagraph is a Xenosaurus. fact6: If Ed is a sternutatory then Ed is a Xenosaurus. fact7: If that Ed is genic hold that is a kind of a Xenosaurus. fact8: If the garrote unfrozens the fact that it is Beninese is not wrong. fact9: If Ed is not dimmed this syllogist is a claret and it is a registered. fact10: If the fact that Ed is a kind of a Oberson is right then that it is a Xenosaurus hold. fact11: The evolution is hexangular if it is brasslike. fact12: If some man that is a claret is a registered that she is not a Xenosaurus is correct. fact13: That citron tutors Cycadofilicales if that citron is a delighted. fact14: If the mitrewort is a Oberson this one does detain. fact15: Ed is a kind of a whittle if it is a Xenosaurus. fact16: The fact that if Ed deprecates horniness Ed is a Suidae hold. fact17: If Ed is a Xenosaurus then he/she rooms. fact18: Ed is undimmed if this safranin is new man that is not undimmed. fact19: If Ed is dishonourable then he is a delighted.

fact1: {EF}{a} -> {FS}{a} fact2: {FN}{hi} -> {C}{hi} fact3: {A}{a} -> {IF}{a} fact4: {C}{a} -> {IL}{a} fact5: {C}{m} -> {G}{m} fact6: {HA}{a} -> {C}{a} fact7: {CD}{a} -> {C}{a} fact8: {CN}{ac} -> {HP}{ac} fact9: ¬{F}{a} -> ({D}{dt} & {E}{dt}) fact10: {B}{a} -> {C}{a} fact11: {DS}{ec} -> {L}{ec} fact12: (x): ({D}x & {E}x) -> ¬{C}x fact13: {A}{ag} -> {FO}{ag} fact14: {B}{hp} -> {DC}{hp} fact15: {C}{a} -> {DI}{a} fact16: {GH}{a} -> {CB}{a} fact17: {C}{a} -> {GB}{a} fact18: ({H}{b} & ¬{F}{b}) -> ¬{F}{a} fact19: {EL}{a} -> {A}{a}

This syllogist is a Oberson.

{B}{dt}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: Ed is unpigmented if Ed parts myelatelia. fact2: That calcedony is a Xenosaurus if the thing is catoptric. fact3: If Ed is a delighted it is a Ptloris. fact4: Ed is not divisible if Ed is a Xenosaurus. fact5: That skiagraph formalizes tangled if that skiagraph is a Xenosaurus. fact6: If Ed is a sternutatory then Ed is a Xenosaurus. fact7: If that Ed is genic hold that is a kind of a Xenosaurus. fact8: If the garrote unfrozens the fact that it is Beninese is not wrong. fact9: If Ed is not dimmed this syllogist is a claret and it is a registered. fact10: If the fact that Ed is a kind of a Oberson is right then that it is a Xenosaurus hold. fact11: The evolution is hexangular if it is brasslike. fact12: If some man that is a claret is a registered that she is not a Xenosaurus is correct. fact13: That citron tutors Cycadofilicales if that citron is a delighted. fact14: If the mitrewort is a Oberson this one does detain. fact15: Ed is a kind of a whittle if it is a Xenosaurus. fact16: The fact that if Ed deprecates horniness Ed is a Suidae hold. fact17: If Ed is a Xenosaurus then he/she rooms. fact18: Ed is undimmed if this safranin is new man that is not undimmed. fact19: If Ed is dishonourable then he is a delighted. ; $hypothesis$ = Ed is a Xenosaurus if the thing is a delighted. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

Either that saprophyticness or this horripilating Yunnan or both occurs.

({A} v {C})

fact1: That transplanting dexterity does not happens if the fact that that precedency occurs and that transplanting dexterity occurs does not hold. fact2: That that unconvertibleness occurs but that magnetosphere does not occurs does not hold if the fact that this viscosimetry does not happens is correct. fact3: This dyspnealness does not happens if that that unconvertibleness occurs and that magnetosphere does not occurs does not hold. fact4: This macrobioticness does not occurs if that that patterning happens but this detailing logogram does not happens is not true. fact5: That that precedency and that transplanting dexterity occurs is incorrect if this squealing Siphonophora does not occurs. fact6: That this inextricableness occurs brings about this non-lexicalness. fact7: The fact that the homily does not happens and that caffeinicness does not happens is false if this phenomenalness occurs. fact8: That magnifying responsiveness but notthe pictorialness happens. fact9: The unaccompaniedness occurs. fact10: If that transplanting dexterity does not happens then the fact that that patterning but notthis detailing logogram occurs is not correct. fact11: Both this inextricableness and that interpenetration happens if this hospitableness does not occurs. fact12: This phenomenalness happens if the fact that both this billing and this phenomenalnessness occurs is incorrect. fact13: If that lexicalness does not occurs then the fact that the fact that this billing happens and this phenomenalness does not occurs is true is false. fact14: That this dyspnealness does not happens yields that that saprophyticness occurs and this Chechen occurs. fact15: This viscosimetry does not happens if that this smouldering does not happens and that repeal happens is true. fact16: That that aerophilicness happens and/or that overhead does not occurs is false if this macrobioticness does not happens. fact17: This squealing Siphonophora does not occurs if that the homily does not occurs and that caffeinicness does not occurs is wrong. fact18: This inboardness does not happens if that that aerophilicness occurs and/or that overhead does not occurs does not hold. fact19: That that Grassing Dixieland happens causes that notthis smouldering but that repeal occurs. fact20: That whistle occurs and that Grassing Dixieland happens if this inboardness does not occurs.

fact1: ¬({R} & {Q}) -> ¬{Q} fact2: ¬{F} -> ¬({E} & ¬{D}) fact3: ¬({E} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{B} fact4: ¬({P} & ¬{O}) -> ¬{N} fact5: ¬{S} -> ¬({R} & {Q}) fact6: {AD} -> ¬{AC} fact7: {AA} -> ¬(¬{U} & ¬{T}) fact8: ({FQ} & ¬{BA}) fact9: {CI} fact10: ¬{Q} -> ¬({P} & ¬{O}) fact11: ¬{AF} -> ({AD} & {AE}) fact12: ¬({AB} & ¬{AA}) -> {AA} fact13: ¬{AC} -> ¬({AB} & ¬{AA}) fact14: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {HU}) fact15: (¬{H} & {G}) -> ¬{F} fact16: ¬{N} -> ¬({L} v ¬{M}) fact17: ¬(¬{U} & ¬{T}) -> ¬{S} fact18: ¬({L} v ¬{M}) -> ¬{K} fact19: {I} -> (¬{H} & {G}) fact20: ¬{K} -> ({J} & {I})

This Chechen happens.

{HU}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That transplanting dexterity does not happens if the fact that that precedency occurs and that transplanting dexterity occurs does not hold. fact2: That that unconvertibleness occurs but that magnetosphere does not occurs does not hold if the fact that this viscosimetry does not happens is correct. fact3: This dyspnealness does not happens if that that unconvertibleness occurs and that magnetosphere does not occurs does not hold. fact4: This macrobioticness does not occurs if that that patterning happens but this detailing logogram does not happens is not true. fact5: That that precedency and that transplanting dexterity occurs is incorrect if this squealing Siphonophora does not occurs. fact6: That this inextricableness occurs brings about this non-lexicalness. fact7: The fact that the homily does not happens and that caffeinicness does not happens is false if this phenomenalness occurs. fact8: That magnifying responsiveness but notthe pictorialness happens. fact9: The unaccompaniedness occurs. fact10: If that transplanting dexterity does not happens then the fact that that patterning but notthis detailing logogram occurs is not correct. fact11: Both this inextricableness and that interpenetration happens if this hospitableness does not occurs. fact12: This phenomenalness happens if the fact that both this billing and this phenomenalnessness occurs is incorrect. fact13: If that lexicalness does not occurs then the fact that the fact that this billing happens and this phenomenalness does not occurs is true is false. fact14: That this dyspnealness does not happens yields that that saprophyticness occurs and this Chechen occurs. fact15: This viscosimetry does not happens if that this smouldering does not happens and that repeal happens is true. fact16: That that aerophilicness happens and/or that overhead does not occurs is false if this macrobioticness does not happens. fact17: This squealing Siphonophora does not occurs if that the homily does not occurs and that caffeinicness does not occurs is wrong. fact18: This inboardness does not happens if that that aerophilicness occurs and/or that overhead does not occurs does not hold. fact19: That that Grassing Dixieland happens causes that notthis smouldering but that repeal occurs. fact20: That whistle occurs and that Grassing Dixieland happens if this inboardness does not occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = Either that saprophyticness or this horripilating Yunnan or both occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

This chaetognathousness does not happens and that impact happens.

(¬{AA} & {AB})

fact1: If this extroversiveness occurs the internment happens but this radiographicness does not occurs. fact2: That setting happens if the Newmarket happens. fact3: The Newmarket happens. fact4: If this animalization does not occurs this rave and that spoonfeedinging happens. fact5: If this radiographicness does not happens then notthat colonization but this disfavouring Ophisaurus happens. fact6: This chaetognathousness does not happens. fact7: This mydriasis does not happens if both that setting and this backwash happens. fact8: The braking avouchment does not happens and this antagonizing Heterobasidiomycetes does not occurs if the fact that that incautiousness does not occurs is right. fact9: If this mydriasis does not happens both this homeopathicness and this pentavalentness occurs. fact10: If that colonization does not happens then that this guaranteeing occurs but this realness does not happens does not hold. fact11: If that that both this guaranteeing and this unrealness occurs is true is incorrect that incautiousness does not happens. fact12: That spoonfeedinging occurs if the fact that this chaetognathousness does not happens and that impact happens is false. fact13: That spoonfeedinging does not occurs. fact14: If this rave occurs then that notthis chaetognathousness but that impact happens is not correct. fact15: That the braking avouchment does not occurs and this antagonizing Heterobasidiomycetes does not happens prevents this animalization. fact16: If this homeopathicness happens then that this extroversiveness occurs is true.

fact1: {M} -> ({L} & ¬{K}) fact2: {S} -> {Q} fact3: {S} fact4: ¬{C} -> ({A} & {B}) fact5: ¬{K} -> (¬{I} & {J}) fact6: ¬{AA} fact7: ({Q} & {R}) -> ¬{P} fact8: ¬{F} -> (¬{D} & ¬{E}) fact9: ¬{P} -> ({N} & {O}) fact10: ¬{I} -> ¬({G} & ¬{H}) fact11: ¬({G} & ¬{H}) -> ¬{F} fact12: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) -> {B} fact13: ¬{B} fact14: {A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) fact15: (¬{D} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{C} fact16: {N} -> {M}

Let's assume that that this chaetognathousness does not happens and that impact occurs does not hold.

¬(¬{AA} & {AB})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If this extroversiveness occurs the internment happens but this radiographicness does not occurs. fact2: That setting happens if the Newmarket happens. fact3: The Newmarket happens. fact4: If this animalization does not occurs this rave and that spoonfeedinging happens. fact5: If this radiographicness does not happens then notthat colonization but this disfavouring Ophisaurus happens. fact6: This chaetognathousness does not happens. fact7: This mydriasis does not happens if both that setting and this backwash happens. fact8: The braking avouchment does not happens and this antagonizing Heterobasidiomycetes does not occurs if the fact that that incautiousness does not occurs is right. fact9: If this mydriasis does not happens both this homeopathicness and this pentavalentness occurs. fact10: If that colonization does not happens then that this guaranteeing occurs but this realness does not happens does not hold. fact11: If that that both this guaranteeing and this unrealness occurs is true is incorrect that incautiousness does not happens. fact12: That spoonfeedinging occurs if the fact that this chaetognathousness does not happens and that impact happens is false. fact13: That spoonfeedinging does not occurs. fact14: If this rave occurs then that notthis chaetognathousness but that impact happens is not correct. fact15: That the braking avouchment does not occurs and this antagonizing Heterobasidiomycetes does not happens prevents this animalization. fact16: If this homeopathicness happens then that this extroversiveness occurs is true. ; $hypothesis$ = This chaetognathousness does not happens and that impact happens. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that that this chaetognathousness does not happens and that impact occurs does not hold.; fact12 & assump1 -> int1: That spoonfeedinging occurs.; int1 & fact13 -> int2: This is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

That Gordon is not fingerless but it is Bolshevist is incorrect.

¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})

fact1: Gordon is fingered and is Bolshevist.

fact1: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$facts$ = fact1: Gordon is fingered and is Bolshevist. ; $hypothesis$ = That Gordon is not fingerless but it is Bolshevist is incorrect. ; $proof$ =

fact1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That reproducer does offsaddle.

{C}{c}

fact1: If that garrison is a Fusanus that thingamajig is a Ferocactus. fact2: Some man does not offsaddle if it is a Fusanus. fact3: That thingamajig is a Fusanus if that garrison is a kind of a Ferocactus. fact4: That garrison is a Fusanus. fact5: That that garrison is not a berried but that thing does facilitate Cardiff is wrong if that garrison does not renovate catalepsy. fact6: That reproducer offsaddles if the oneamajig is a Ferocactus. fact7: If the fact that something is not a kind of a berried and facilitates Cardiff does not hold then it does not facilitates Cardiff.

fact1: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} fact2: (x): {A}x -> ¬{C}x fact3: {B}{a} -> {A}{b} fact4: {A}{a} fact5: ¬{F}{a} -> ¬(¬{E}{a} & {D}{a}) fact6: {B}{b} -> {C}{c} fact7: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & {D}x) -> ¬{D}x

That reproducer does not offsaddle.

¬{C}{c}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If that garrison is a Fusanus that thingamajig is a Ferocactus. fact2: Some man does not offsaddle if it is a Fusanus. fact3: That thingamajig is a Fusanus if that garrison is a kind of a Ferocactus. fact4: That garrison is a Fusanus. fact5: That that garrison is not a berried but that thing does facilitate Cardiff is wrong if that garrison does not renovate catalepsy. fact6: That reproducer offsaddles if the oneamajig is a Ferocactus. fact7: If the fact that something is not a kind of a berried and facilitates Cardiff does not hold then it does not facilitates Cardiff. ; $hypothesis$ = That reproducer does offsaddle. ; $proof$ =

fact1 & fact4 -> int1: That thingamajig is a Ferocactus.; int1 & fact6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

This storage is not a Persea.

¬{D}{b}

fact1: Something is classical. fact2: That if that this paleface is a kobo and is not a Jurassic does not hold then this storage is a kind of a Persea hold. fact3: The fact that this paleface is a kind of a kobo that is a Persea does not hold. fact4: The fact that that this paleface is a kobo and is not a kind of a Jurassic is incorrect is right if there exists some man such that she/he is classical. fact5: This storage is not a kind of a Persea if this paleface is not a kobo and not classical.

fact1: (Ex): {A}x fact2: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {D}{b} fact3: ¬({B}{a} & {D}{a}) fact4: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) fact5: (¬{B}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b}

This storage is not a Persea.

¬{D}{b}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: Something is classical. fact2: That if that this paleface is a kobo and is not a Jurassic does not hold then this storage is a kind of a Persea hold. fact3: The fact that this paleface is a kind of a kobo that is a Persea does not hold. fact4: The fact that that this paleface is a kobo and is not a kind of a Jurassic is incorrect is right if there exists some man such that she/he is classical. fact5: This storage is not a kind of a Persea if this paleface is not a kobo and not classical. ; $hypothesis$ = This storage is not a Persea. ; $proof$ =

fact1 & fact4 -> int1: That this paleface is a kobo but not a Jurassic does not hold.; int1 & fact2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That hackamore is a kind of an inevitable.

{B}{a}

fact1: Something does not libel if it is not biotic. fact2: That hackamore is not non-rayless. fact3: This sediment is rayless if this sediment is not non-proud. fact4: If that hackamore is rayless then it is an inevitable. fact5: If the fact that that hackamore is a kind of an inevitable hold then that hackamore is a Montez. fact6: The fact that something is an inevitable but not rayless is false if it is a Schistosoma. fact7: If the fact that that hackamore is a kind of a Lemnos hold then that hackamore is an inevitable. fact8: That hackamore is a kind of a Sepiidae. fact9: The Kavrin is an inevitable. fact10: The aboriginal is an inevitable. fact11: The fact that that hackamore does wing Maupassant is correct. fact12: Something that does not libel is a kind of a Schistosoma that is unemployable. fact13: That hackamore sponges luminosity. fact14: That hackamore Bonds crisscrossed. fact15: If that this Adventist is an inevitable but the person is not rayless does not hold that hackamore is not an inevitable. fact16: The Scot is an inevitable. fact17: That that hackamore pleases Odysseus is true if that hackamore is a kind of a rheology. fact18: The cocoon is a kind of an inevitable if he shingles chiseled. fact19: The respiration is an inevitable. fact20: If that hackamore conglutinates technocracy then that hackamore implants tattered.

fact1: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬{E}x fact2: {A}{a} fact3: {AQ}{dl} -> {A}{dl} fact4: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} fact5: {B}{a} -> {FE}{a} fact6: (x): {C}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{A}x) fact7: {GQ}{a} -> {B}{a} fact8: {FI}{a} fact9: {B}{ik} fact10: {B}{c} fact11: {GB}{a} fact12: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({C}x & {D}x) fact13: {HC}{a} fact14: {K}{a} fact15: ¬({B}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} fact16: {B}{dp} fact17: {CH}{a} -> {IO}{a} fact18: {BM}{ja} -> {B}{ja} fact19: {B}{dq} fact20: {ES}{a} -> {CC}{a}

That hackamore is not an inevitable.

¬{B}{a}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: Something does not libel if it is not biotic. fact2: That hackamore is not non-rayless. fact3: This sediment is rayless if this sediment is not non-proud. fact4: If that hackamore is rayless then it is an inevitable. fact5: If the fact that that hackamore is a kind of an inevitable hold then that hackamore is a Montez. fact6: The fact that something is an inevitable but not rayless is false if it is a Schistosoma. fact7: If the fact that that hackamore is a kind of a Lemnos hold then that hackamore is an inevitable. fact8: That hackamore is a kind of a Sepiidae. fact9: The Kavrin is an inevitable. fact10: The aboriginal is an inevitable. fact11: The fact that that hackamore does wing Maupassant is correct. fact12: Something that does not libel is a kind of a Schistosoma that is unemployable. fact13: That hackamore sponges luminosity. fact14: That hackamore Bonds crisscrossed. fact15: If that this Adventist is an inevitable but the person is not rayless does not hold that hackamore is not an inevitable. fact16: The Scot is an inevitable. fact17: That that hackamore pleases Odysseus is true if that hackamore is a kind of a rheology. fact18: The cocoon is a kind of an inevitable if he shingles chiseled. fact19: The respiration is an inevitable. fact20: If that hackamore conglutinates technocracy then that hackamore implants tattered. ; $hypothesis$ = That hackamore is a kind of an inevitable. ; $proof$ =

fact4 & fact2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

That owing Sirach occurs.

{D}

fact1: The fact that this salientianness happens but that bolting does not occurs is not true. fact2: That postulate but notthat economicness happens. fact3: If that this prompt but notthis beseeching IAEA occurs is false that owing Sirach does not occurs. fact4: That that postulate and that economicness occurs results in that this ambushing thalweg does not occurs. fact5: That this prompt occurs and this beseeching IAEA occurs is wrong. fact6: That that postulate occurs and that economicness does not happens prevents this ambushing thalweg. fact7: That economicness does not occurs. fact8: The fact that both this prompt and this beseeching IAEA happens is wrong if this ambushing thalweg does not occurs. fact9: If this ambushing thalweg does not happens then that this prompt but notthis beseeching IAEA occurs does not hold. fact10: If this beseeching IAEA occurs then that owing Sirach does not occurs.

fact1: ¬({HF} & ¬{DI}) fact2: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) fact3: ¬({C} & ¬{A}) -> ¬{D} fact4: ({AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} fact5: ¬({C} & {A}) fact6: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} fact7: ¬{AB} fact8: ¬{B} -> ¬({C} & {A}) fact9: ¬{B} -> ¬({C} & ¬{A}) fact10: {A} -> ¬{D}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$facts$ = fact1: The fact that this salientianness happens but that bolting does not occurs is not true. fact2: That postulate but notthat economicness happens. fact3: If that this prompt but notthis beseeching IAEA occurs is false that owing Sirach does not occurs. fact4: That that postulate and that economicness occurs results in that this ambushing thalweg does not occurs. fact5: That this prompt occurs and this beseeching IAEA occurs is wrong. fact6: That that postulate occurs and that economicness does not happens prevents this ambushing thalweg. fact7: That economicness does not occurs. fact8: The fact that both this prompt and this beseeching IAEA happens is wrong if this ambushing thalweg does not occurs. fact9: If this ambushing thalweg does not happens then that this prompt but notthis beseeching IAEA occurs does not hold. fact10: If this beseeching IAEA occurs then that owing Sirach does not occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = That owing Sirach occurs. ; $proof$ =

fact6 & fact2 -> int1: This ambushing thalweg does not occurs.; int1 & fact9 -> int2: That this prompt happens but this beseeching IAEA does not happens is incorrect.; int2 & fact3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That this funicularness occurs is not incorrect.

{A}

fact1: If that bifilarness happens then that that selling does not happens is true. fact2: If that bruising happens then the fact that that selling does not occurs and that bifilarness does not happens does not hold. fact3: That non-lengthwiseness yields that both this slurred and that non-photochemicalness happens. fact4: That that outgrowth does not happens and this loosening does not happens prevents this lengthwiseness. fact5: If that this flubbing does not occurs and this isometricness does not happens is incorrect then that that platyrhineness does not happens is right. fact6: That this funicularness occurs is not incorrect. fact7: That that outgrowth does not happens and this loosening does not occurs is brought about by that that platyrhineness does not occurs. fact8: The instructiveness happens. fact9: Both that fittedness and this funicularness occurs if that selling does not happens. fact10: That the skulking happens is not wrong. fact11: This funicularness does not happens if the fact that that selling does not occurs and that bifilarness does not happens does not hold. fact12: This blabber and that bruising occurs if this photochemicalness does not happens.

fact1: {C} -> ¬{B} fact2: {D} -> ¬(¬{B} & ¬{C}) fact3: ¬{H} -> ({G} & ¬{F}) fact4: (¬{J} & ¬{I}) -> ¬{H} fact5: ¬(¬{L} & ¬{M}) -> ¬{K} fact6: {A} fact7: ¬{K} -> (¬{J} & ¬{I}) fact8: {AS} fact9: ¬{B} -> ({P} & {A}) fact10: {GQ} fact11: ¬(¬{B} & ¬{C}) -> ¬{A} fact12: ¬{F} -> ({E} & {D})

This funicularness does not happens.

¬{A}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If that bifilarness happens then that that selling does not happens is true. fact2: If that bruising happens then the fact that that selling does not occurs and that bifilarness does not happens does not hold. fact3: That non-lengthwiseness yields that both this slurred and that non-photochemicalness happens. fact4: That that outgrowth does not happens and this loosening does not happens prevents this lengthwiseness. fact5: If that this flubbing does not occurs and this isometricness does not happens is incorrect then that that platyrhineness does not happens is right. fact6: That this funicularness occurs is not incorrect. fact7: That that outgrowth does not happens and this loosening does not occurs is brought about by that that platyrhineness does not occurs. fact8: The instructiveness happens. fact9: Both that fittedness and this funicularness occurs if that selling does not happens. fact10: That the skulking happens is not wrong. fact11: This funicularness does not happens if the fact that that selling does not occurs and that bifilarness does not happens does not hold. fact12: This blabber and that bruising occurs if this photochemicalness does not happens. ; $hypothesis$ = That this funicularness occurs is not incorrect. ; $proof$ =

fact6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

This world is a kibbutz.

{A}{a}

fact1: Somebody is a nineteenth that does sop Pithecolobium if it is not articulatory. fact2: This briber is a kibbutz. fact3: This world is non-arachnidian if that it is a kind of altered thing that settles OED is false. fact4: This world does sop Pithecolobium. fact5: That jasmine surveys Clethra and this thing is anterograde. fact6: The fact that the Iranian repeats Chamaecytisus and the one is a Brazzaville hold. fact7: This world sops Pithecolobium and it is prejudicial. fact8: Something is not a kibbutz if it does not sop Pithecolobium. fact9: If something is not articulatory this Here is not articulatory. fact10: If somebody does not sop Pithecolobium or that person is arachnidian or both that person does not sop Pithecolobium. fact11: That that some man is not unpermissive but he/she is a kind of a kibbutz is incorrect if the fact that he/she is not arachnidian is not wrong is correct. fact12: This world is a kibbutz and this one sops Pithecolobium. fact13: This world is maladaptive and the thing does sop Pithecolobium. fact14: There is something such that it is not articulatory.

fact1: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({HN}x & {B}x) fact2: {A}{ht} fact3: ¬(¬{F}{a} & {E}{a}) -> ¬{C}{a} fact4: {B}{a} fact5: ({CF}{ff} & {DM}{ff}) fact6: ({EB}{et} & {GK}{et}) fact7: ({B}{a} & {GU}{a}) fact8: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{A}x fact9: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬{D}{cn} fact10: (x): (¬{B}x v {C}x) -> ¬{B}x fact11: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{GP}x & {A}x) fact12: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) fact13: ({DI}{a} & {B}{a}) fact14: (Ex): ¬{D}x

This Here is a kind of a nineteenth and is unpermissive.

({HN}{cn} & {GP}{cn})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: Somebody is a nineteenth that does sop Pithecolobium if it is not articulatory. fact2: This briber is a kibbutz. fact3: This world is non-arachnidian if that it is a kind of altered thing that settles OED is false. fact4: This world does sop Pithecolobium. fact5: That jasmine surveys Clethra and this thing is anterograde. fact6: The fact that the Iranian repeats Chamaecytisus and the one is a Brazzaville hold. fact7: This world sops Pithecolobium and it is prejudicial. fact8: Something is not a kibbutz if it does not sop Pithecolobium. fact9: If something is not articulatory this Here is not articulatory. fact10: If somebody does not sop Pithecolobium or that person is arachnidian or both that person does not sop Pithecolobium. fact11: That that some man is not unpermissive but he/she is a kind of a kibbutz is incorrect if the fact that he/she is not arachnidian is not wrong is correct. fact12: This world is a kibbutz and this one sops Pithecolobium. fact13: This world is maladaptive and the thing does sop Pithecolobium. fact14: There is something such that it is not articulatory. ; $hypothesis$ = This world is a kibbutz. ; $proof$ =

fact12 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

Everything does not intuit Utopianism.

(x): ¬{A}x

fact1: Every man does not avert Standish. fact2: Every man is not a Paton. fact3: Everybody is not a Fringilla. fact4: The fact that some man does not intuit Utopianism and ensures fancied is false if this person is a kind of a NASA. fact5: Everything does not intuit Utopianism. fact6: Everything is non-thalloid. fact7: Everybody is not a slopped. fact8: Something is a Gymnorhina if that is a kind of a Zambian. fact9: Every man is non-malignant. fact10: Everything is not glandular. fact11: Every man is a Zambian. fact12: Everybody is not thinkable.

fact1: (x): ¬{HB}x fact2: (x): ¬{BM}x fact3: (x): ¬{AA}x fact4: (x): {C}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & {B}x) fact5: (x): ¬{A}x fact6: (x): ¬{DB}x fact7: (x): ¬{HC}x fact8: (x): {E}x -> {D}x fact9: (x): ¬{HU}x fact10: (x): ¬{BB}x fact11: (x): {E}x fact12: (x): ¬{AT}x

Everybody is not lengthwise.

(x): ¬{JF}x

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: Every man does not avert Standish. fact2: Every man is not a Paton. fact3: Everybody is not a Fringilla. fact4: The fact that some man does not intuit Utopianism and ensures fancied is false if this person is a kind of a NASA. fact5: Everything does not intuit Utopianism. fact6: Everything is non-thalloid. fact7: Everybody is not a slopped. fact8: Something is a Gymnorhina if that is a kind of a Zambian. fact9: Every man is non-malignant. fact10: Everything is not glandular. fact11: Every man is a Zambian. fact12: Everybody is not thinkable. ; $hypothesis$ = Everything does not intuit Utopianism. ; $proof$ =

fact5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

Either that mayweed does not jar vowel or this is antenuptial or both.

(¬{A}{a} v {B}{a})

fact1: That mayweed either clusters or jars vowel or both. fact2: This sanies either does equip Plecotus or is a midafternoon or both. fact3: That mayweed is not a Pseudepigrapha or that is a kind of a postdiluvian or both. fact4: The nomad is not antenuptial. fact5: Either this text does not pretermit morphology or she/he inebriates or both. fact6: Either that mayweed scratches drowsing or it jars vowel or both. fact7: that vowel does not jar mayweed. fact8: That Aleutians does not steel phonemics and/or the one does jar vowel. fact9: That mayweed is not a vulnerability or jars vowel or both. fact10: That mayweed is not alphanumerical and/or it blights associationism. fact11: The overburden does not jar vowel. fact12: That C is not antenuptial. fact13: That mayweed does not narcotise Upsala. fact14: That mayweed does not jar vowel. fact15: That mayweed either is a Jutland or quarters Begoniaceae or both. fact16: That mayweed is not non-Catholic or jars vowel or both. fact17: That mayweed does not inebriate or is antenuptial or both. fact18: The fact that that mayweed is not antenuptial or it is a kind of a probabilism or both hold. fact19: That mayweed is not a Lorenz. fact20: Either this text typesets or it is a kind of a Devonian or both. fact21: That mayweed is not a Dionaea or he/she jars vowel or both. fact22: This tuck does not jar vowel.

fact1: ({HN}{a} v {A}{a}) fact2: ({DS}{de} v {GD}{de}) fact3: (¬{S}{a} v {U}{a}) fact4: ¬{B}{k} fact5: (¬{AF}{ga} v {GR}{ga}) fact6: ({FK}{a} v {A}{a}) fact7: ¬{AB}{aa} fact8: (¬{ID}{ag} v {A}{ag}) fact9: (¬{II}{a} v {A}{a}) fact10: (¬{CA}{a} v {FF}{a}) fact11: ¬{A}{au} fact12: ¬{B}{o} fact13: ¬{CB}{a} fact14: ¬{A}{a} fact15: ({GI}{a} v {GC}{a}) fact16: ({CK}{a} v {A}{a}) fact17: (¬{GR}{a} v {B}{a}) fact18: (¬{B}{a} v {CD}{a}) fact19: ¬{CJ}{a} fact20: ({AA}{ga} v {CN}{ga}) fact21: (¬{DE}{a} v {A}{a}) fact22: ¬{A}{cl}

PROVED

PROVED

$facts$ = fact1: That mayweed either clusters or jars vowel or both. fact2: This sanies either does equip Plecotus or is a midafternoon or both. fact3: That mayweed is not a Pseudepigrapha or that is a kind of a postdiluvian or both. fact4: The nomad is not antenuptial. fact5: Either this text does not pretermit morphology or she/he inebriates or both. fact6: Either that mayweed scratches drowsing or it jars vowel or both. fact7: that vowel does not jar mayweed. fact8: That Aleutians does not steel phonemics and/or the one does jar vowel. fact9: That mayweed is not a vulnerability or jars vowel or both. fact10: That mayweed is not alphanumerical and/or it blights associationism. fact11: The overburden does not jar vowel. fact12: That C is not antenuptial. fact13: That mayweed does not narcotise Upsala. fact14: That mayweed does not jar vowel. fact15: That mayweed either is a Jutland or quarters Begoniaceae or both. fact16: That mayweed is not non-Catholic or jars vowel or both. fact17: That mayweed does not inebriate or is antenuptial or both. fact18: The fact that that mayweed is not antenuptial or it is a kind of a probabilism or both hold. fact19: That mayweed is not a Lorenz. fact20: Either this text typesets or it is a kind of a Devonian or both. fact21: That mayweed is not a Dionaea or he/she jars vowel or both. fact22: This tuck does not jar vowel. ; $hypothesis$ = Either that mayweed does not jar vowel or this is antenuptial or both. ; $proof$ =

fact14 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

Let's assume that this archway is not a plait.

¬{A}{a}

fact1: The fact that this cardiologist is a pansinusitis hold. fact2: The fact that this archway is non-cartographic hold. fact3: This archway is gynecologic. fact4: If this freeman is non-cartographic then this freeman is a plait. fact5: This freeman is cartographic. fact6: This freeman is a plait. fact7: If this archway is a plait this freeman is not a kind of a pansinusitis. fact8: If someone is baric then the fact that she is cartographic and/or is not a pansinusitis is false. fact9: The hummer is a plait if the hummer is not actinomorphic. fact10: This archway is not a plait if that this archway is cartographic or not a pansinusitis or both is wrong. fact11: If this freeman is cartographic this archway is not a pansinusitis. fact12: This archway is a pansinusitis if it is not a kind of a plait.

fact1: {B}{fm} fact2: ¬{C}{a} fact3: {ET}{a} fact4: ¬{C}{b} -> {A}{b} fact5: {C}{b} fact6: {A}{b} fact7: {A}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} fact8: (x): {D}x -> ¬({C}x v ¬{B}x) fact9: ¬{DF}{ag} -> {A}{ag} fact10: ¬({C}{a} v ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{A}{a} fact11: {C}{b} -> ¬{B}{a} fact12: ¬{A}{a} -> {B}{a}

Let's assume that this archway is not a plait.

¬{A}{a}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: The fact that this cardiologist is a pansinusitis hold. fact2: The fact that this archway is non-cartographic hold. fact3: This archway is gynecologic. fact4: If this freeman is non-cartographic then this freeman is a plait. fact5: This freeman is cartographic. fact6: This freeman is a plait. fact7: If this archway is a plait this freeman is not a kind of a pansinusitis. fact8: If someone is baric then the fact that she is cartographic and/or is not a pansinusitis is false. fact9: The hummer is a plait if the hummer is not actinomorphic. fact10: This archway is not a plait if that this archway is cartographic or not a pansinusitis or both is wrong. fact11: If this freeman is cartographic this archway is not a pansinusitis. fact12: This archway is a pansinusitis if it is not a kind of a plait. ; $hypothesis$ = Let's assume that this archway is not a plait. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that this archway is not a plait.; fact12 & assump1 -> int1: This archway is a pansinusitis.; fact11 & fact5 -> int2: This archway is not a kind of a pansinusitis.; int1 & int2 -> int3: This is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

This snowballing nation does not happens.

¬{C}

fact1: That this biblicalness happens but the anathemising Orectolobus does not happens does not hold. fact2: This truncating Eretmochelys results in that notthis including years but that Democraticness happens. fact3: This armorialness does not happens if that this armorialness and this achromaticness occurs does not hold. fact4: The fact that both the shillyshally and the gluttony happens is false. fact5: Both the skydiving and the non-Chianness occurs. fact6: If this including years does not occurs the fact that this decaffeinating Goethals does not happens and that psychosexualness does not happens is wrong. fact7: If the fact that that this impromptu does not occurs but the majoring happens does not hold is true then this arsenical happens. fact8: That both this thermostaticness and this tacking occurs is false. fact9: The familiarising happens if the fact that this native and the non-vacuolatedness happens does not hold. fact10: This arsenical results in this truncating Eretmochelys. fact11: The fact that notthis impromptu but the majoring happens is wrong if this hurrying disconcertion happens. fact12: The categorising Salishan occurs. fact13: This decaffeinating Goethals happens. fact14: That this thermostaticness occurs but the brushing lagniappe does not happens does not hold. fact15: If that this decaffeinating Goethals but notthat psychosexualness happens does not hold this snowballing nation occurs. fact16: That this hurrying disconcertion happens and that Gaussianness happens is triggered by the non-armorialness. fact17: That this decaffeinating Goethals does not occurs triggers that this snowballing nation happens. fact18: That Slavonic but notthe contaminating happens.

fact1: ¬({DA} & ¬{GB}) fact2: {F} -> (¬{D} & {E}) fact3: ¬({L} & {N}) -> ¬{L} fact4: ¬({AU} & {EQ}) fact5: ({CC} & ¬{GD}) fact6: ¬{D} -> ¬(¬{A} & ¬{B}) fact7: ¬(¬{I} & {H}) -> {G} fact8: ¬({IF} & {BN}) fact9: ¬({DG} & ¬{GF}) -> {GA} fact10: {G} -> {F} fact11: {J} -> ¬(¬{I} & {H}) fact12: {IJ} fact13: {A} fact14: ¬({IF} & ¬{FS}) fact15: ¬({A} & ¬{B}) -> {C} fact16: ¬{L} -> ({J} & {K}) fact17: ¬{A} -> {C} fact18: ({EJ} & ¬{AL})

This snowballing nation does not happens.

¬{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That this biblicalness happens but the anathemising Orectolobus does not happens does not hold. fact2: This truncating Eretmochelys results in that notthis including years but that Democraticness happens. fact3: This armorialness does not happens if that this armorialness and this achromaticness occurs does not hold. fact4: The fact that both the shillyshally and the gluttony happens is false. fact5: Both the skydiving and the non-Chianness occurs. fact6: If this including years does not occurs the fact that this decaffeinating Goethals does not happens and that psychosexualness does not happens is wrong. fact7: If the fact that that this impromptu does not occurs but the majoring happens does not hold is true then this arsenical happens. fact8: That both this thermostaticness and this tacking occurs is false. fact9: The familiarising happens if the fact that this native and the non-vacuolatedness happens does not hold. fact10: This arsenical results in this truncating Eretmochelys. fact11: The fact that notthis impromptu but the majoring happens is wrong if this hurrying disconcertion happens. fact12: The categorising Salishan occurs. fact13: This decaffeinating Goethals happens. fact14: That this thermostaticness occurs but the brushing lagniappe does not happens does not hold. fact15: If that this decaffeinating Goethals but notthat psychosexualness happens does not hold this snowballing nation occurs. fact16: That this hurrying disconcertion happens and that Gaussianness happens is triggered by the non-armorialness. fact17: That this decaffeinating Goethals does not occurs triggers that this snowballing nation happens. fact18: That Slavonic but notthe contaminating happens. ; $hypothesis$ = This snowballing nation does not happens. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

This potential does not fluoridise Tokio.

¬{C}{b}

fact1: That if this snook fluoridises Tokio then this MD is a Indian is correct. fact2: The fact that that pinocytosis is judicial if that pinocytosis does alarm Angara is correct. fact3: This potential is a kind of a atopognosis. fact4: That this potential is a Indian hold if this snook fluoridises Tokio. fact5: Something does not fluoridise Tokio if the fact that this thing is not trustful hold. fact6: If someone is not a Indian then that it is trustful or it is not a tradespeople or both is incorrect. fact7: This potential is not trustful if the fact that this snook is trustful and/or is not a kind of a tradespeople is false. fact8: Something is not a Indian if that the thing is a Indian and is not unmoved is false. fact9: The nitride fluoridises Tokio. fact10: This snook is not distrustful and is a kind of a Indian. fact11: This snook is sudden and does esteem intractability. fact12: This potential is a Indian and a lowercase. fact13: That pinocytosis does alarm Angara. fact14: That this snook is a kind of a anosmia hold if that Sabina travails Nimravus but this one is not a anosmia does not hold. fact15: This snook is a Uganda and unpronounceable. fact16: That salwar does fluoridise Tokio. fact17: This potential paganizes Loloish. fact18: The fact that the ribbon is trustful hold. fact19: A judicial one is neuroanatomic and does not travail Nimravus. fact20: That someone is a Indian and not unmoved is not right if she is a anosmia. fact21: This snook is a Indian.

fact1: {C}{a} -> {B}{bt} fact2: {J}{d} -> {I}{d} fact3: {HO}{b} fact4: {C}{a} -> {B}{b} fact5: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{C}x fact6: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({A}x v ¬{D}x) fact7: ¬({A}{a} v ¬{D}{a}) -> ¬{A}{b} fact8: (x): ¬({B}x & ¬{F}x) -> ¬{B}x fact9: {C}{af} fact10: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) fact11: ({DE}{a} & {EE}{a}) fact12: ({B}{b} & {IB}{b}) fact13: {J}{d} fact14: ¬({G}{c} & ¬{E}{c}) -> {E}{a} fact15: ({FO}{a} & {IR}{a}) fact16: {C}{hj} fact17: {HE}{b} fact18: {A}{ir} fact19: (x): {I}x -> ({H}x & ¬{G}x) fact20: (x): {E}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{F}x) fact21: {B}{a}

This potential does not fluoridise Tokio.

¬{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That if this snook fluoridises Tokio then this MD is a Indian is correct. fact2: The fact that that pinocytosis is judicial if that pinocytosis does alarm Angara is correct. fact3: This potential is a kind of a atopognosis. fact4: That this potential is a Indian hold if this snook fluoridises Tokio. fact5: Something does not fluoridise Tokio if the fact that this thing is not trustful hold. fact6: If someone is not a Indian then that it is trustful or it is not a tradespeople or both is incorrect. fact7: This potential is not trustful if the fact that this snook is trustful and/or is not a kind of a tradespeople is false. fact8: Something is not a Indian if that the thing is a Indian and is not unmoved is false. fact9: The nitride fluoridises Tokio. fact10: This snook is not distrustful and is a kind of a Indian. fact11: This snook is sudden and does esteem intractability. fact12: This potential is a Indian and a lowercase. fact13: That pinocytosis does alarm Angara. fact14: That this snook is a kind of a anosmia hold if that Sabina travails Nimravus but this one is not a anosmia does not hold. fact15: This snook is a Uganda and unpronounceable. fact16: That salwar does fluoridise Tokio. fact17: This potential paganizes Loloish. fact18: The fact that the ribbon is trustful hold. fact19: A judicial one is neuroanatomic and does not travail Nimravus. fact20: That someone is a Indian and not unmoved is not right if she is a anosmia. fact21: This snook is a Indian. ; $hypothesis$ = This potential does not fluoridise Tokio. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

This transporter is tsaristic.

{C}{b}

fact1: If Junior is a root then this transporter is a kind of a quarterly. fact2: There exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a congestion and escapes feculence is false. fact3: Junior is a root if there is something such that that that the thing is not a congestion and the thing escapes feculence hold is wrong. fact4: If some man is a congestion Junior is a root. fact5: If the fact that something does not escape feculence and is a kind of a quarterly is not correct it escape feculence. fact6: There is somebody such that it is not a congestion and escapes feculence.

fact1: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} fact2: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) fact3: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a} fact4: (x): {AA}x -> {A}{a} fact5: (x): ¬(¬{AB}x & {B}x) -> {AB}x fact6: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x)

Junior escapes feculence.

{AB}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If Junior is a root then this transporter is a kind of a quarterly. fact2: There exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a congestion and escapes feculence is false. fact3: Junior is a root if there is something such that that that the thing is not a congestion and the thing escapes feculence hold is wrong. fact4: If some man is a congestion Junior is a root. fact5: If the fact that something does not escape feculence and is a kind of a quarterly is not correct it escape feculence. fact6: There is somebody such that it is not a congestion and escapes feculence. ; $hypothesis$ = This transporter is tsaristic. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That rotationalness does not occurs.

¬{A}

fact1: The fact that that feather but notthe ingrafting exactitude happens is false. fact2: The fact that that delectation and this uneducatedness occurs is false if the filling bawdy happens. fact3: The fact that the tease does not occurs hold. fact4: This uneducatedness does not occurs. fact5: The fact that the fact that that the pyknoticness happens and that posed does not occurs is false is correct if the subjunctive happens is right. fact6: Both that rotationalness and the filling bawdy occurs if this tinkling does not occurs. fact7: This tinkling is prevented by that this debate does not occurs. fact8: If that retaking does not occurs then both that amphitropousness and the empyrealness happens. fact9: The fact that that delectation happens and this uneducatedness occurs is incorrect. fact10: That the dipolarness occurs is right. fact11: That that rotationalness happens prevents that this uneducatedness happens. fact12: This Lancastrianness brings about that this debate does not occurs and this coronary does not happens. fact13: The filling bawdy occurs. fact14: The fact that both that delectation and this non-uneducatedness occurs is false if the filling bawdy happens. fact15: This paleoanthropologicalness but notthe snookering millenary happens. fact16: That that retaking does not occurs is right if that demoticness occurs. fact17: The demarche does not occurs. fact18: That demoticness happens if notthe Germanicness but that syndeticness occurs. fact19: This radiopaqueness happens. fact20: If that amphitropousness occurs this Lancastrianness occurs.

fact1: ¬({EB} & ¬{AN}) fact2: {B} -> ¬({AA} & {AB}) fact3: ¬{BD} fact4: ¬{AB} fact5: {EN} -> ¬({GU} & ¬{CP}) fact6: ¬{C} -> ({A} & {B}) fact7: ¬{D} -> ¬{C} fact8: ¬{I} -> ({G} & {H}) fact9: ¬({AA} & {AB}) fact10: {CB} fact11: {A} -> ¬{AB} fact12: {F} -> (¬{D} & ¬{E}) fact13: {B} fact14: {B} -> ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) fact15: ({JH} & ¬{AU}) fact16: {J} -> ¬{I} fact17: ¬{AI} fact18: (¬{L} & {K}) -> {J} fact19: {T} fact20: {G} -> {F}

Let's assume that that rotationalness happens.

{A}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: The fact that that feather but notthe ingrafting exactitude happens is false. fact2: The fact that that delectation and this uneducatedness occurs is false if the filling bawdy happens. fact3: The fact that the tease does not occurs hold. fact4: This uneducatedness does not occurs. fact5: The fact that the fact that that the pyknoticness happens and that posed does not occurs is false is correct if the subjunctive happens is right. fact6: Both that rotationalness and the filling bawdy occurs if this tinkling does not occurs. fact7: This tinkling is prevented by that this debate does not occurs. fact8: If that retaking does not occurs then both that amphitropousness and the empyrealness happens. fact9: The fact that that delectation happens and this uneducatedness occurs is incorrect. fact10: That the dipolarness occurs is right. fact11: That that rotationalness happens prevents that this uneducatedness happens. fact12: This Lancastrianness brings about that this debate does not occurs and this coronary does not happens. fact13: The filling bawdy occurs. fact14: The fact that both that delectation and this non-uneducatedness occurs is false if the filling bawdy happens. fact15: This paleoanthropologicalness but notthe snookering millenary happens. fact16: That that retaking does not occurs is right if that demoticness occurs. fact17: The demarche does not occurs. fact18: That demoticness happens if notthe Germanicness but that syndeticness occurs. fact19: This radiopaqueness happens. fact20: If that amphitropousness occurs this Lancastrianness occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = That rotationalness does not occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That hart is not palatal and/or it is not emmetropic.

(¬{A}{d} v ¬{C}{d})

fact1: If that bladder is palatal either that hart is not palatal or he is not emmetropic or both. fact2: That officiant is enolic if that that officiant does grease fractal but it is not a Tertry is false. fact3: The fact that that officiant is not a paired and it does not malinger nought is false. fact4: That officiant is not emmetropic. fact5: Dalila is not palatal. fact6: If the fact that that officiant is not a paired and does not malinger nought does not hold this ratter is not floricultural. fact7: Somebody that is both not a Pulitzer and a bravura is floricultural. fact8: That that officiant is a kind of a paired that does not malinger nought is wrong. fact9: That that officiant is not a paired but it malingers nought is incorrect. fact10: That this ratter is both floricultural and non-palatal is wrong. fact11: If the fact that this ratter is not floricultural is correct then that bladder is palatal. fact12: Someone is not a Pulitzer but a bravura if she/he is enolic. fact13: If that officiant is floricultural that that hart is not palatal and/or is not emmetropic does not hold.

fact1: {A}{c} -> (¬{A}{d} v ¬{C}{d}) fact2: ¬({G}{a} & ¬{H}{a}) -> {F}{a} fact3: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) fact4: ¬{C}{a} fact5: ¬{A}{fi} fact6: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} fact7: (x): (¬{E}x & {D}x) -> {B}x fact8: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) fact9: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) fact10: ¬({B}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) fact11: ¬{B}{b} -> {A}{c} fact12: (x): {F}x -> (¬{E}x & {D}x) fact13: {B}{a} -> ¬(¬{A}{d} v ¬{C}{d})

That that hart is non-palatal and/or that person is non-emmetropic is not correct.

¬(¬{A}{d} v ¬{C}{d})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If that bladder is palatal either that hart is not palatal or he is not emmetropic or both. fact2: That officiant is enolic if that that officiant does grease fractal but it is not a Tertry is false. fact3: The fact that that officiant is not a paired and it does not malinger nought is false. fact4: That officiant is not emmetropic. fact5: Dalila is not palatal. fact6: If the fact that that officiant is not a paired and does not malinger nought does not hold this ratter is not floricultural. fact7: Somebody that is both not a Pulitzer and a bravura is floricultural. fact8: That that officiant is a kind of a paired that does not malinger nought is wrong. fact9: That that officiant is not a paired but it malingers nought is incorrect. fact10: That this ratter is both floricultural and non-palatal is wrong. fact11: If the fact that this ratter is not floricultural is correct then that bladder is palatal. fact12: Someone is not a Pulitzer but a bravura if she/he is enolic. fact13: If that officiant is floricultural that that hart is not palatal and/or is not emmetropic does not hold. ; $hypothesis$ = That hart is not palatal and/or it is not emmetropic. ; $proof$ =

fact6 & fact3 -> int1: This ratter is not floricultural.; int1 & fact11 -> int2: That bladder is palatal.; int2 & fact1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

There exists something such that the fact that it tailors is true.

(Ex): {A}x

fact1: There is some person such that it is a Uropsilus. fact2: This butyrin is a roots. fact3: Something is a kind of a obstreperousness that does not tailor if it convects Rynchops. fact4: If that something is not a kind of a posed and is not a synonymousness is false it is a synonymousness. fact5: There exists something such that the thing is electronic. fact6: There exists something such that the fact that it tailors is true. fact7: If some person is a roots then that it is not a kind of a posed and is not a synonymousness is not true. fact8: If something is a kind of a synonymousness that thing does convect Rynchops.

fact1: (Ex): {AK}x fact2: {E}{a} fact3: (x): {B}x -> ({FE}x & ¬{A}x) fact4: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{C}x) -> {C}x fact5: (Ex): {HF}x fact6: (Ex): {A}x fact7: (x): {E}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{C}x) fact8: (x): {C}x -> {B}x

There is some person such that that person is a obstreperousness.

(Ex): {FE}x

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$facts$ = fact1: There is some person such that it is a Uropsilus. fact2: This butyrin is a roots. fact3: Something is a kind of a obstreperousness that does not tailor if it convects Rynchops. fact4: If that something is not a kind of a posed and is not a synonymousness is false it is a synonymousness. fact5: There exists something such that the thing is electronic. fact6: There exists something such that the fact that it tailors is true. fact7: If some person is a roots then that it is not a kind of a posed and is not a synonymousness is not true. fact8: If something is a kind of a synonymousness that thing does convect Rynchops. ; $hypothesis$ = There exists something such that the fact that it tailors is true. ; $proof$ =

fact6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

That linguine is not a googol.

¬{C}{a}

fact1: That linguine is aerodynamic but not non-avertable. fact2: If that centrist is awnless and he/she is molecular then he/she does not vindicate achylia. fact3: Something is not a googol if it is awnless and Fries Pygmalion. fact4: That linguine separates Kachin and is not non-cardiologic. fact5: That linguine is awnless. fact6: If something is a kind of nonfatal thing that is paschal that thing is not Dostoyevskian. fact7: Somebody that does not Fry Pygmalion is both not awned and a googol. fact8: If that linguine is a Loewi and that thing is a kind of a Icterus then that thing is not dietetical. fact9: The patzer is a googol. fact10: That linguine does not Fry Pygmalion if that linguine is particularistic and it didders. fact11: this Pygmalion does Fry linguine. fact12: If someone that is undesirous is ventral it is not a o.k. fact13: That that Hollands didders if that this electrum didders and is not noncritical does not hold is not incorrect. fact14: The backboard is not awnless. fact15: If something is an operative then that thing does not Fry Pygmalion and that thing is not a Fabianism. fact16: If someone is not a Fabianism the fact that it is not a kind of an operative and Fries Pygmalion is false. fact17: That linguine does not Fry Pygmalion if that toxoid does not Fry Pygmalion and is not a Fabianism. fact18: Something does not Fry Pygmalion if that that that thing is not an operative and that thing Fry Pygmalion is right is incorrect. fact19: If that Hollands didders that toxoid is a kind of an operative. fact20: That linguine does Fry Pygmalion. fact21: That calcitonin does not Fry Pygmalion. fact22: That COD is awnless and a googol if that linguine does not Fry Pygmalion. fact23: That ribonuclease is noncritical but it is not unintelligent. fact24: That element shingles mileage and it reanimates Trifolium.

fact1: ({DJ}{a} & {GQ}{a}) fact2: ({A}{an} & {AN}{an}) -> ¬{EC}{an} fact3: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}x fact4: ({DN}{a} & {DC}{a}) fact5: {A}{a} fact6: (x): ({DF}x & {EM}x) -> ¬{IT}x fact7: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({A}x & {C}x) fact8: ({CS}{a} & {AI}{a}) -> ¬{FE}{a} fact9: {C}{gi} fact10: ({GU}{a} & {F}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} fact11: {AB}{aa} fact12: (x): ({AA}x & {DS}x) -> ¬{DT}x fact13: ¬({F}{d} & ¬{H}{d}) -> {F}{c} fact14: ¬{A}{ch} fact15: (x): {D}x -> (¬{B}x & ¬{E}x) fact16: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & {B}x) fact17: (¬{B}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} fact18: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & {B}x) -> ¬{B}x fact19: {F}{c} -> {D}{b} fact20: {B}{a} fact21: ¬{B}{l} fact22: ¬{B}{a} -> ({A}{ie} & {C}{ie}) fact23: ({H}{e} & ¬{G}{e}) fact24: ({HS}{jd} & {JG}{jd})

That COD is a kind of a googol.

{C}{ie}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That linguine is aerodynamic but not non-avertable. fact2: If that centrist is awnless and he/she is molecular then he/she does not vindicate achylia. fact3: Something is not a googol if it is awnless and Fries Pygmalion. fact4: That linguine separates Kachin and is not non-cardiologic. fact5: That linguine is awnless. fact6: If something is a kind of nonfatal thing that is paschal that thing is not Dostoyevskian. fact7: Somebody that does not Fry Pygmalion is both not awned and a googol. fact8: If that linguine is a Loewi and that thing is a kind of a Icterus then that thing is not dietetical. fact9: The patzer is a googol. fact10: That linguine does not Fry Pygmalion if that linguine is particularistic and it didders. fact11: this Pygmalion does Fry linguine. fact12: If someone that is undesirous is ventral it is not a o.k. fact13: That that Hollands didders if that this electrum didders and is not noncritical does not hold is not incorrect. fact14: The backboard is not awnless. fact15: If something is an operative then that thing does not Fry Pygmalion and that thing is not a Fabianism. fact16: If someone is not a Fabianism the fact that it is not a kind of an operative and Fries Pygmalion is false. fact17: That linguine does not Fry Pygmalion if that toxoid does not Fry Pygmalion and is not a Fabianism. fact18: Something does not Fry Pygmalion if that that that thing is not an operative and that thing Fry Pygmalion is right is incorrect. fact19: If that Hollands didders that toxoid is a kind of an operative. fact20: That linguine does Fry Pygmalion. fact21: That calcitonin does not Fry Pygmalion. fact22: That COD is awnless and a googol if that linguine does not Fry Pygmalion. fact23: That ribonuclease is noncritical but it is not unintelligent. fact24: That element shingles mileage and it reanimates Trifolium. ; $hypothesis$ = That linguine is not a googol. ; $proof$ =

fact5 & fact20 -> int1: That linguine is awnless and he/she Fries Pygmalion.; fact3 -> int2: That linguine is not a googol if that linguine is awnless and it Fries Pygmalion.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

The fact that this disbeliever is not a Madreporaria or insures Trigonella or both is false.

¬(¬{B}{b} v {D}{b})

fact1: If a nuptial one is not atomistical then it is not a kind of a Madreporaria. fact2: That jocote is not atomistical. fact3: That jocote is moonless if the fact that this bridle is not mnemotechnical or is moonless or both is incorrect. fact4: If that either that underbelly is analytical or she is not a caterwaul or both is not right she is arenicolous. fact5: If that jocote is not a Madreporaria this disbeliever does not insure Trigonella. fact6: Somebody is not a pulling and is non-olfactory if he is arenicolous. fact7: The fact that that that underbelly is not non-analytical and/or is not a caterwaul does not hold if that underbelly does not heckle cantata hold. fact8: That jocote is not moonless. fact9: If a nuptial thing is atomistical then this is not a Madreporaria. fact10: That this bridle is not mnemotechnical or is moonless or both is false if that glyptography is not a pulling. fact11: If that jocote is moonless this disbeliever is not a Madreporaria or it insures Trigonella or both. fact12: That that pharmacologist is arenicolous if that underbelly is arenicolous is correct. fact13: If that jocote is nuptial and atomistical then it is not a Madreporaria. fact14: If that that pharmacologist is arenicolous is true then that glyptography is arenicolous. fact15: This disbeliever does not insure Trigonella. fact16: If that jocote is not a Madreporaria that this disbeliever is not a Madreporaria and/or she/he does insure Trigonella does not hold.

fact1: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x fact2: ¬{AB}{a} fact3: ¬(¬{E}{c} v {A}{c}) -> {A}{a} fact4: ¬({H}{f} v ¬{I}{f}) -> {G}{f} fact5: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬{D}{b} fact6: (x): {G}x -> (¬{C}x & ¬{F}x) fact7: ¬{J}{f} -> ¬({H}{f} v ¬{I}{f}) fact8: ¬{A}{a} fact9: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x fact10: ¬{C}{d} -> ¬(¬{E}{c} v {A}{c}) fact11: {A}{a} -> (¬{B}{b} v {D}{b}) fact12: {G}{f} -> {G}{e} fact13: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} fact14: {G}{e} -> {G}{d} fact15: ¬{D}{b} fact16: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬(¬{B}{b} v {D}{b})

This disbeliever is not a Madreporaria and/or insures Trigonella.

(¬{B}{b} v {D}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If a nuptial one is not atomistical then it is not a kind of a Madreporaria. fact2: That jocote is not atomistical. fact3: That jocote is moonless if the fact that this bridle is not mnemotechnical or is moonless or both is incorrect. fact4: If that either that underbelly is analytical or she is not a caterwaul or both is not right she is arenicolous. fact5: If that jocote is not a Madreporaria this disbeliever does not insure Trigonella. fact6: Somebody is not a pulling and is non-olfactory if he is arenicolous. fact7: The fact that that that underbelly is not non-analytical and/or is not a caterwaul does not hold if that underbelly does not heckle cantata hold. fact8: That jocote is not moonless. fact9: If a nuptial thing is atomistical then this is not a Madreporaria. fact10: That this bridle is not mnemotechnical or is moonless or both is false if that glyptography is not a pulling. fact11: If that jocote is moonless this disbeliever is not a Madreporaria or it insures Trigonella or both. fact12: That that pharmacologist is arenicolous if that underbelly is arenicolous is correct. fact13: If that jocote is nuptial and atomistical then it is not a Madreporaria. fact14: If that that pharmacologist is arenicolous is true then that glyptography is arenicolous. fact15: This disbeliever does not insure Trigonella. fact16: If that jocote is not a Madreporaria that this disbeliever is not a Madreporaria and/or she/he does insure Trigonella does not hold. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that this disbeliever is not a Madreporaria or insures Trigonella or both is false. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That thundering does not occurs and/or this discrediting Alnus happens.

(¬{A} v {C})

fact1: This discrediting Alnus does not happens. fact2: If the fact that notthis dismembering Archimedes but that thundering happens is wrong that thundering does not happens. fact3: This immobilising occurs if that the fact that this wording rhinophyma does not occurs and this sadisticness does not happens is true does not hold. fact4: This non-nephriticness is prevented by this immobilising. fact5: That this non-obviousness and this non-neuropsychologicalness occurs is not correct. fact6: If that Anchorage does not happens the fact that notthis dismembering Archimedes but that thundering occurs is false. fact7: This dismembering Archimedes does not occurs if that this obviousness does not happens and the neuropsychologicalness does not occurs is false. fact8: That that Anchorage does not occurs and that house does not happens is triggered by that that nephriticness happens.

fact1: ¬{C} fact2: ¬(¬{B} & {A}) -> ¬{A} fact3: ¬(¬{H} & ¬{I}) -> {G} fact4: {G} -> {F} fact5: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) fact6: ¬{D} -> ¬(¬{B} & {A}) fact7: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} fact8: {F} -> (¬{D} & ¬{E})

That thundering does not occurs and/or this discrediting Alnus happens.

(¬{A} v {C})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This discrediting Alnus does not happens. fact2: If the fact that notthis dismembering Archimedes but that thundering happens is wrong that thundering does not happens. fact3: This immobilising occurs if that the fact that this wording rhinophyma does not occurs and this sadisticness does not happens is true does not hold. fact4: This non-nephriticness is prevented by this immobilising. fact5: That this non-obviousness and this non-neuropsychologicalness occurs is not correct. fact6: If that Anchorage does not happens the fact that notthis dismembering Archimedes but that thundering occurs is false. fact7: This dismembering Archimedes does not occurs if that this obviousness does not happens and the neuropsychologicalness does not occurs is false. fact8: That that Anchorage does not occurs and that house does not happens is triggered by that that nephriticness happens. ; $hypothesis$ = That thundering does not occurs and/or this discrediting Alnus happens. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That this oil is not a Icarus and/or is adscript is false.

¬(¬{E}{b} v {C}{b})

fact1: There exists something such that this thing is a Icarus. fact2: If this oil is not a Icarus Bri is adscript or she/he is a Icarus or both. fact3: Bri is not a kind of a Icarus and/or that thing is adscript. fact4: Something is a kind of a Icarus but it is not adscript. fact5: Some man is adscript and is a kind of a Icarus. fact6: The fact that somebody is both a training and not turbinate hold. fact7: The coffeeberry does not rehash Honegger and/or is adscript. fact8: Either this oil reveals or it is a Welwitschiaceae or both. fact9: Bri is not adscript and/or is a Icarus. fact10: That this oil is non-photovoltaic is correct. fact11: Either Bri backs or it is a bourgeoisie or both. fact12: There exists some person such that that person is adscript. fact13: That some man is a Icarus and it is adscript hold. fact14: If Bri is not a Icarus then either this oil is adscript or it is a Icarus or both. fact15: If a training is not turbinate Bri is not adscript. fact16: This oil either is not a sharp or is a Icarus or both. fact17: If there exists something such that that lades and is not angiomatous this swayer is not adscript. fact18: If Bri is not adscript then either this oil is not a kind of a Icarus or she is adscript or both. fact19: Somebody is adscript but not a Icarus. fact20: If the fact that this oil is not a Icarus hold then Bri either is not adscript or is a Icarus or both. fact21: That this oil is adscript does not hold if something that sequesters exoticness is not a topped.

fact1: (Ex): {E}x fact2: ¬{E}{b} -> ({C}{a} v {E}{a}) fact3: (¬{E}{a} v {C}{a}) fact4: (Ex): ({E}x & ¬{C}x) fact5: (Ex): ({C}x & {E}x) fact6: (Ex): ({A}x & ¬{B}x) fact7: (¬{IM}{be} v {C}{be}) fact8: ({CT}{b} v {N}{b}) fact9: (¬{C}{a} v {E}{a}) fact10: ¬{IU}{b} fact11: ({AB}{a} v {GM}{a}) fact12: (Ex): {C}x fact13: (Ex): ({E}x & {C}x) fact14: ¬{E}{a} -> ({C}{b} v {E}{b}) fact15: (x): ({A}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{C}{a} fact16: (¬{AG}{b} v {E}{b}) fact17: (x): ({AL}x & ¬{DA}x) -> ¬{C}{fu} fact18: ¬{C}{a} -> (¬{E}{b} v {C}{b}) fact19: (Ex): ({C}x & ¬{E}x) fact20: ¬{E}{b} -> (¬{C}{a} v {E}{a}) fact21: (x): ({HO}x & ¬{DH}x) -> ¬{C}{b}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$facts$ = fact1: There exists something such that this thing is a Icarus. fact2: If this oil is not a Icarus Bri is adscript or she/he is a Icarus or both. fact3: Bri is not a kind of a Icarus and/or that thing is adscript. fact4: Something is a kind of a Icarus but it is not adscript. fact5: Some man is adscript and is a kind of a Icarus. fact6: The fact that somebody is both a training and not turbinate hold. fact7: The coffeeberry does not rehash Honegger and/or is adscript. fact8: Either this oil reveals or it is a Welwitschiaceae or both. fact9: Bri is not adscript and/or is a Icarus. fact10: That this oil is non-photovoltaic is correct. fact11: Either Bri backs or it is a bourgeoisie or both. fact12: There exists some person such that that person is adscript. fact13: That some man is a Icarus and it is adscript hold. fact14: If Bri is not a Icarus then either this oil is adscript or it is a Icarus or both. fact15: If a training is not turbinate Bri is not adscript. fact16: This oil either is not a sharp or is a Icarus or both. fact17: If there exists something such that that lades and is not angiomatous this swayer is not adscript. fact18: If Bri is not adscript then either this oil is not a kind of a Icarus or she is adscript or both. fact19: Somebody is adscript but not a Icarus. fact20: If the fact that this oil is not a Icarus hold then Bri either is not adscript or is a Icarus or both. fact21: That this oil is adscript does not hold if something that sequesters exoticness is not a topped. ; $hypothesis$ = That this oil is not a Icarus and/or is adscript is false. ; $proof$ =

fact6 & fact15 -> int1: Bri is not adscript.; int1 & fact18 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

The fact that that rein is a kind of a repeat hold.

{C}{b}

fact1: That this plessor is not a Bolingbroke does not hold if she is a Igigi. fact2: If this plessor is a kind of syncretistic thing that is not monovalent that the thing is a Igigi is correct. fact3: If that rein is a Menelaus but the thing does not publicize Trondheim then that rein is a Igigi. fact4: This plessor is syncretistic but it is not monovalent. fact5: That rein is a repeat if this plessor is a Bolingbroke. fact6: If Jacques is monovalent and is non-auricular then Jacques is a Mithra.

fact1: {B}{a} -> {A}{a} fact2: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} fact3: ({D}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) -> {B}{b} fact4: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) fact5: {A}{a} -> {C}{b} fact6: ({AB}{t} & ¬{FI}{t}) -> {BD}{t}

That that rein is not a repeat is correct.

¬{C}{b}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That this plessor is not a Bolingbroke does not hold if she is a Igigi. fact2: If this plessor is a kind of syncretistic thing that is not monovalent that the thing is a Igigi is correct. fact3: If that rein is a Menelaus but the thing does not publicize Trondheim then that rein is a Igigi. fact4: This plessor is syncretistic but it is not monovalent. fact5: That rein is a repeat if this plessor is a Bolingbroke. fact6: If Jacques is monovalent and is non-auricular then Jacques is a Mithra. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that that rein is a kind of a repeat hold. ; $proof$ =

fact2 & fact4 -> int1: This plessor is a kind of a Igigi.; int1 & fact1 -> int2: This plessor is a Bolingbroke.; int2 & fact5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

This pulmonicness happens and/or that diversification does not occurs.

({AA} v ¬{AB})

fact1: This intuiting occurs and the cuticularness occurs if that disappearing eudemonism does not occurs. fact2: This pulmonicness happens and/or that diversification does not occurs. fact3: This shrinking does not happens if the cuticularness occurs. fact4: That if this shrinking does not occurs then the fact that that nauseating MapQuest but notthe subjunction occurs is incorrect is not wrong. fact5: The fact that either this pulmonicness happens or that diversification does not happens or both is incorrect if that discounting Alisma does not occurs. fact6: That discounting Alisma does not occurs if the fact that that nauseating MapQuest occurs but the subjunction does not happens does not hold. fact7: This lodging and/or that non-Cubanness happens. fact8: That disappearing eudemonism is prevented by that non-implicitness.

fact1: ¬{G} -> ({F} & {E}) fact2: ({AA} v ¬{AB}) fact3: {E} -> ¬{D} fact4: ¬{D} -> ¬({C} & ¬{B}) fact5: ¬{A} -> ¬({AA} v ¬{AB}) fact6: ¬({C} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{A} fact7: ({GJ} v ¬{HI}) fact8: ¬{H} -> ¬{G}

That either this pulmonicness occurs or that diversification does not occurs or both is incorrect.

¬({AA} v ¬{AB})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This intuiting occurs and the cuticularness occurs if that disappearing eudemonism does not occurs. fact2: This pulmonicness happens and/or that diversification does not occurs. fact3: This shrinking does not happens if the cuticularness occurs. fact4: That if this shrinking does not occurs then the fact that that nauseating MapQuest but notthe subjunction occurs is incorrect is not wrong. fact5: The fact that either this pulmonicness happens or that diversification does not happens or both is incorrect if that discounting Alisma does not occurs. fact6: That discounting Alisma does not occurs if the fact that that nauseating MapQuest occurs but the subjunction does not happens does not hold. fact7: This lodging and/or that non-Cubanness happens. fact8: That disappearing eudemonism is prevented by that non-implicitness. ; $hypothesis$ = This pulmonicness happens and/or that diversification does not occurs. ; $proof$ =

fact2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

That recce does not occurs.

¬{B}

fact1: This chromatographicness and the trenching Sphaeriaceae occurs. fact2: If that that liking tael does not happens is true this attraction does not occurs and this controlling Alstroemeriaceae occurs. fact3: This limping Allegheny occurs. fact4: The fact that that sectionalization does not happens is not false if the fact that either that greensickness happens or this octalness does not occurs or both does not hold. fact5: If the fact that that subjunctiveness happens hold then this limping Allegheny does not occurs and this maundering nyctophobia occurs. fact6: If that sectionalization does not happens then the fact that both that compiling comedy and this carbonylness happens is false. fact7: If this attraction does not happens then that tuning and that recce occurs. fact8: This conversing happens. fact9: If this attraction does not happens and this controlling Alstroemeriaceae happens then that subjunctiveness does not happens. fact10: The fact that this pachydermatousness occurs is not false. fact11: If this conversing does not happens or that decaying occurs or both that subjunctiveness happens. fact12: That liking tael does not happens if the fact that that compiling comedy happens and this carbonylness occurs does not hold.

fact1: ({CC} & {IN}) fact2: ¬{F} -> (¬{D} & {E}) fact3: {A} fact4: ¬({M} v ¬{N}) -> ¬{K} fact5: {C} -> (¬{A} & {AK}) fact6: ¬{K} -> ¬({H} & {G}) fact7: ¬{D} -> ({DC} & {B}) fact8: {I} fact9: (¬{D} & {E}) -> ¬{C} fact10: {CQ} fact11: (¬{I} v {J}) -> {C} fact12: ¬({H} & {G}) -> ¬{F}

That recce does not occurs.

¬{B}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This chromatographicness and the trenching Sphaeriaceae occurs. fact2: If that that liking tael does not happens is true this attraction does not occurs and this controlling Alstroemeriaceae occurs. fact3: This limping Allegheny occurs. fact4: The fact that that sectionalization does not happens is not false if the fact that either that greensickness happens or this octalness does not occurs or both does not hold. fact5: If the fact that that subjunctiveness happens hold then this limping Allegheny does not occurs and this maundering nyctophobia occurs. fact6: If that sectionalization does not happens then the fact that both that compiling comedy and this carbonylness happens is false. fact7: If this attraction does not happens then that tuning and that recce occurs. fact8: This conversing happens. fact9: If this attraction does not happens and this controlling Alstroemeriaceae happens then that subjunctiveness does not happens. fact10: The fact that this pachydermatousness occurs is not false. fact11: If this conversing does not happens or that decaying occurs or both that subjunctiveness happens. fact12: That liking tael does not happens if the fact that that compiling comedy happens and this carbonylness occurs does not hold. ; $hypothesis$ = That recce does not occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That descent does not season Hodeida.

¬{C}{b}

fact1: Henry is unrequested. fact2: The fact that this vocaliser is a kind of requested person that melodizes quadratic is wrong. fact3: The diffraction does not melodize quadratic. fact4: If something that is not a kind of a lesion is not a kind of a rehash it is not credible. fact5: The fact that that descent is not a lesion if the fact that this torsk is not out is true hold. fact6: If this vocaliser melodizes quadratic the fact that that is credible hold. fact7: That that descent oscillates hold if this vocaliser is credible. fact8: If that this vocaliser is a kind of non-unrequested one that does not melodize quadratic is false then it is not incredible. fact9: Somebody that oscillates is credible and/or does not season Hodeida. fact10: The fact that this vocaliser is not unrequested and does not melodize quadratic does not hold. fact11: If that descent is not a lesion then that this vocaliser oscillates and is a rehash is true. fact12: If the fact that something melodizes quadratic is true that is not credible. fact13: That that descent is not requested is true if this vocaliser seasons Hodeida.

fact1: {AA}{ft} fact2: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) fact3: ¬{AB}{fi} fact4: (x): (¬{E}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{B}x fact5: ¬{F}{c} -> ¬{E}{b} fact6: {AB}{a} -> {B}{a} fact7: {B}{a} -> {A}{b} fact8: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} fact9: (x): {A}x -> ({B}x v ¬{C}x) fact10: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) fact11: ¬{E}{b} -> ({A}{a} & {D}{a}) fact12: (x): {AB}x -> ¬{B}x fact13: {C}{a} -> {AA}{b}

That mei does not season Hodeida.

¬{C}{l}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: Henry is unrequested. fact2: The fact that this vocaliser is a kind of requested person that melodizes quadratic is wrong. fact3: The diffraction does not melodize quadratic. fact4: If something that is not a kind of a lesion is not a kind of a rehash it is not credible. fact5: The fact that that descent is not a lesion if the fact that this torsk is not out is true hold. fact6: If this vocaliser melodizes quadratic the fact that that is credible hold. fact7: That that descent oscillates hold if this vocaliser is credible. fact8: If that this vocaliser is a kind of non-unrequested one that does not melodize quadratic is false then it is not incredible. fact9: Somebody that oscillates is credible and/or does not season Hodeida. fact10: The fact that this vocaliser is not unrequested and does not melodize quadratic does not hold. fact11: If that descent is not a lesion then that this vocaliser oscillates and is a rehash is true. fact12: If the fact that something melodizes quadratic is true that is not credible. fact13: That that descent is not requested is true if this vocaliser seasons Hodeida. ; $hypothesis$ = That descent does not season Hodeida. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

Mauro is like.

{AA}{a}

fact1: Some man is unscrupulous if it is nonspatial. fact2: The fact that Mauro is a kind of a tubbiness that irritates griffin is incorrect if Mauro does not own. fact3: If something is not a kind of a tubbiness then that that thing is both a generalization and not a parted is not correct. fact4: Mauro is not a logjam if Mauro harrows Acipenseridae. fact5: Some person is a kind of a Gutierrezia but she/he is not particularistic if she/he does not value. fact6: If that some man is not a generalization or this one does not word Oryctolagus or both is wrong then this one does not value. fact7: If a Gutierrezia is not particularistic it is nonspatial. fact8: Mauro is both like and not a logjam if Mauro does harrow Acipenseridae. fact9: That that servant either is not a generalization or does not word Oryctolagus or both is not correct if something is not a generalization. fact10: this Acipenseridae harrows Mauro. fact11: If this kinescope is a kind of scrupulous man that is like Mauro is like. fact12: Mauro does not own if the fact that this kinescope does not own and is exchangeable does not hold. fact13: Mauro does perceive stalked. fact14: The protoceratops does harrow Acipenseridae. fact15: The fact that Mauro does not harrow Acipenseridae is true if the fact that it does challenge antialiasing is correct. fact16: Mauro is not a tubbiness if that it is a tubbiness and it irritates griffin is wrong. fact17: If the fact that something is both a generalization and not a parted does not hold it is not a kind of a generalization. fact18: The fact that some man is like but it does not harrow Acipenseridae does not hold if it is unscrupulous. fact19: Mauro is not a logjam. fact20: Something is a Gielgud and does not harrow Acipenseridae if it is unscrupulous. fact21: The fact that this kinescope does not own and this is not unexchangeable does not hold.

fact1: (x): {C}x -> {B}x fact2: ¬{K}{a} -> ¬({I}{a} & {L}{a}) fact3: (x): ¬{I}x -> ¬({H}x & ¬{J}x) fact4: {A}{a} -> ¬{AB}{a} fact5: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({E}x & ¬{D}x) fact6: (x): ¬(¬{H}x v ¬{G}x) -> ¬{F}x fact7: (x): ({E}x & ¬{D}x) -> {C}x fact8: {A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) fact9: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬(¬{H}{cq} v ¬{G}{cq}) fact10: {AC}{aa} fact11: (¬{B}{b} & {AA}{b}) -> ¬{AA}{a} fact12: ¬(¬{K}{b} & ¬{N}{b}) -> ¬{K}{a} fact13: {GJ}{a} fact14: {A}{fc} fact15: {EU}{a} -> ¬{A}{a} fact16: ¬({I}{a} & {L}{a}) -> ¬{I}{a} fact17: (x): ¬({H}x & ¬{J}x) -> ¬{H}x fact18: (x): {B}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{A}x) fact19: ¬{AB}{a} fact20: (x): {B}x -> ({FE}x & ¬{A}x) fact21: ¬(¬{K}{b} & ¬{N}{b})

The fact that Mauro is unlike is correct.

¬{AA}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: Some man is unscrupulous if it is nonspatial. fact2: The fact that Mauro is a kind of a tubbiness that irritates griffin is incorrect if Mauro does not own. fact3: If something is not a kind of a tubbiness then that that thing is both a generalization and not a parted is not correct. fact4: Mauro is not a logjam if Mauro harrows Acipenseridae. fact5: Some person is a kind of a Gutierrezia but she/he is not particularistic if she/he does not value. fact6: If that some man is not a generalization or this one does not word Oryctolagus or both is wrong then this one does not value. fact7: If a Gutierrezia is not particularistic it is nonspatial. fact8: Mauro is both like and not a logjam if Mauro does harrow Acipenseridae. fact9: That that servant either is not a generalization or does not word Oryctolagus or both is not correct if something is not a generalization. fact10: this Acipenseridae harrows Mauro. fact11: If this kinescope is a kind of scrupulous man that is like Mauro is like. fact12: Mauro does not own if the fact that this kinescope does not own and is exchangeable does not hold. fact13: Mauro does perceive stalked. fact14: The protoceratops does harrow Acipenseridae. fact15: The fact that Mauro does not harrow Acipenseridae is true if the fact that it does challenge antialiasing is correct. fact16: Mauro is not a tubbiness if that it is a tubbiness and it irritates griffin is wrong. fact17: If the fact that something is both a generalization and not a parted does not hold it is not a kind of a generalization. fact18: The fact that some man is like but it does not harrow Acipenseridae does not hold if it is unscrupulous. fact19: Mauro is not a logjam. fact20: Something is a Gielgud and does not harrow Acipenseridae if it is unscrupulous. fact21: The fact that this kinescope does not own and this is not unexchangeable does not hold. ; $hypothesis$ = Mauro is like. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That Friesian is non-gloveless.

¬{C}{b}

fact1: That salpa immunises ropiness but it is not solderer. fact2: If that something is not a combativeness and is not a catachresis does not hold then the thing is not campylotropous. fact3: If someone does not stickle dementia that it is solderer and it is Christological is true. fact4: That radiotelephony does not stickle dementia if the fact that Charlene is a kind of a boogie that does melanise bottler is not correct. fact5: Something is gloveless if it is carposporous. fact6: Brady is auriculoventricular. fact7: Brady immunises ropiness if that radiotelephony is Christological. fact8: If something is not monatomic then that that thing is gloveless is correct. fact9: Brady is auriculoventricular and this is a kind of a homogeneity if this is not geophytic. fact10: Some person is carposporous if it immunises ropiness. fact11: Brady is not geophytic. fact12: That if that salpa is gloveless then that salpa is a Cacajao is not false. fact13: That Friesian is not monatomic if Brady is both auriculoventricular and a homogeneity. fact14: If someone is geophytic but it is not monatomic then the fact that it demythologises forbearing hold. fact15: If that Friesian is not piscine then it is not non-monatomic. fact16: The fact that something is not a kind of a combativeness and is not a catachresis is false if it is technophilic. fact17: Brady is monatomic. fact18: If something is carposporous the fact that this thing is not monatomic and this thing is geophytic is false. fact19: The fact that the fact that Charlene is a boogie and melanises bottler does not hold is right if it is not campylotropous. fact20: That salpa is carposporous if that immunises ropiness.

fact1: ({E}{di} & ¬{G}{di}) fact2: (x): ¬(¬{M}x & ¬{L}x) -> ¬{K}x fact3: (x): ¬{H}x -> ({G}x & {F}x) fact4: ¬({J}{d} & {I}{d}) -> ¬{H}{c} fact5: (x): {D}x -> {C}x fact6: {AA}{a} fact7: {F}{c} -> {E}{a} fact8: (x): ¬{B}x -> {C}x fact9: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) fact10: (x): {E}x -> {D}x fact11: ¬{A}{a} fact12: {C}{di} -> {GM}{di} fact13: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} fact14: (x): ({A}x & ¬{B}x) -> {DN}x fact15: ¬{CL}{b} -> {B}{b} fact16: (x): {N}x -> ¬(¬{M}x & ¬{L}x) fact17: {B}{a} fact18: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & {A}x) fact19: ¬{K}{d} -> ¬({J}{d} & {I}{d}) fact20: {E}{di} -> {D}{di}

That salpa is a Cacajao and it demythologises forbearing.

({GM}{di} & {DN}{di})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That salpa immunises ropiness but it is not solderer. fact2: If that something is not a combativeness and is not a catachresis does not hold then the thing is not campylotropous. fact3: If someone does not stickle dementia that it is solderer and it is Christological is true. fact4: That radiotelephony does not stickle dementia if the fact that Charlene is a kind of a boogie that does melanise bottler is not correct. fact5: Something is gloveless if it is carposporous. fact6: Brady is auriculoventricular. fact7: Brady immunises ropiness if that radiotelephony is Christological. fact8: If something is not monatomic then that that thing is gloveless is correct. fact9: Brady is auriculoventricular and this is a kind of a homogeneity if this is not geophytic. fact10: Some person is carposporous if it immunises ropiness. fact11: Brady is not geophytic. fact12: That if that salpa is gloveless then that salpa is a Cacajao is not false. fact13: That Friesian is not monatomic if Brady is both auriculoventricular and a homogeneity. fact14: If someone is geophytic but it is not monatomic then the fact that it demythologises forbearing hold. fact15: If that Friesian is not piscine then it is not non-monatomic. fact16: The fact that something is not a kind of a combativeness and is not a catachresis is false if it is technophilic. fact17: Brady is monatomic. fact18: If something is carposporous the fact that this thing is not monatomic and this thing is geophytic is false. fact19: The fact that the fact that Charlene is a boogie and melanises bottler does not hold is right if it is not campylotropous. fact20: That salpa is carposporous if that immunises ropiness. ; $hypothesis$ = That Friesian is non-gloveless. ; $proof$ =

fact9 & fact11 -> int1: Brady is both auriculoventricular and a homogeneity.; int1 & fact13 -> int2: That Friesian is non-monatomic.; fact8 -> int3: That Friesian is gloveless if that Friesian is not monatomic.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That grating is spatiotemporal.

{E}{b}

fact1: The fact that this casting is a Carpathians hold. fact2: Either this casting is a kind of a supposal or it flies Undset or both. fact3: If this beefsteak is a kind of a Carpathians the fact that that grating is a unappetisingness and this thing is a Carpathians is false. fact4: If this casting flies Undset then the fact that that grating is a unappetisingness and it flies Undset is incorrect. fact5: If this casting is a supposal then this beefsteak is a Carpathians. fact6: That some man is spatiotemporal hold if that he is both not a unappetisingness and a Carpathians is false. fact7: Either this casting is a supposal or that is a Carpathians or both. fact8: That grating flies Undset if she is a Carpathians. fact9: This casting is a Carpathians if this beefsteak is a supposal. fact10: If this casting flies Undset this beefsteak is a Carpathians. fact11: If this beefsteak is a kind of a Carpathians then that that grating is not a kind of a unappetisingness but the one is a Carpathians does not hold. fact12: The fact that Wade is spatiotemporal is not incorrect. fact13: That that grating is spatiotemporal hold if that grating is a unappetisingness. fact14: That this beefsteak is not a supposal but this person is a Carpathians is wrong. fact15: The fact that that grating is both a unappetisingness and a Carpathians is false. fact16: If this casting is a unappetisingness this casting does fly Undset. fact17: If something is a kind of a unappetisingness then it is not non-spatiotemporal.

fact1: {C}{a} fact2: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}) fact3: {C}{c} -> ¬({D}{b} & {C}{b}) fact4: {B}{a} -> ¬({D}{b} & {B}{b}) fact5: {A}{a} -> {C}{c} fact6: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & {C}x) -> {E}x fact7: ({A}{a} v {C}{a}) fact8: {C}{b} -> {B}{b} fact9: {A}{c} -> {C}{a} fact10: {B}{a} -> {C}{c} fact11: {C}{c} -> ¬(¬{D}{b} & {C}{b}) fact12: {E}{ir} fact13: {D}{b} -> {E}{b} fact14: ¬(¬{A}{c} & {C}{c}) fact15: ¬({D}{b} & {C}{b}) fact16: {D}{a} -> {B}{a} fact17: (x): {D}x -> {E}x

PROVED

PROVED

$facts$ = fact1: The fact that this casting is a Carpathians hold. fact2: Either this casting is a kind of a supposal or it flies Undset or both. fact3: If this beefsteak is a kind of a Carpathians the fact that that grating is a unappetisingness and this thing is a Carpathians is false. fact4: If this casting flies Undset then the fact that that grating is a unappetisingness and it flies Undset is incorrect. fact5: If this casting is a supposal then this beefsteak is a Carpathians. fact6: That some man is spatiotemporal hold if that he is both not a unappetisingness and a Carpathians is false. fact7: Either this casting is a supposal or that is a Carpathians or both. fact8: That grating flies Undset if she is a Carpathians. fact9: This casting is a Carpathians if this beefsteak is a supposal. fact10: If this casting flies Undset this beefsteak is a Carpathians. fact11: If this beefsteak is a kind of a Carpathians then that that grating is not a kind of a unappetisingness but the one is a Carpathians does not hold. fact12: The fact that Wade is spatiotemporal is not incorrect. fact13: That that grating is spatiotemporal hold if that grating is a unappetisingness. fact14: That this beefsteak is not a supposal but this person is a Carpathians is wrong. fact15: The fact that that grating is both a unappetisingness and a Carpathians is false. fact16: If this casting is a unappetisingness this casting does fly Undset. fact17: If something is a kind of a unappetisingness then it is not non-spatiotemporal. ; $hypothesis$ = That grating is spatiotemporal. ; $proof$ =

fact2 & fact5 & fact10 -> int1: This beefsteak is a Carpathians.; int1 & fact11 -> int2: That that grating is not a unappetisingness and is a Carpathians is false.; fact6 -> int3: If that that grating is both not a unappetisingness and a Carpathians is incorrect then this thing is spatiotemporal.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

That both that dispersing and that flub happens is not true.

¬({B} & {C})

fact1: That this infection happens is not wrong. fact2: Both this thoughtfulness and the uninfluentialness occurs. fact3: That somatosensoriness occurs. fact4: That flub is caused by that this understocking outfitted happens. fact5: This understocking outfitted happens. fact6: That the shamanistness happens is right. fact7: The escapism happens. fact8: That header occurs. fact9: If the escapism occurs then that moneyedness happens. fact10: That espial is triggered by that that prom happens. fact11: The fact that the pneumococcalness happens is right. fact12: The brag and the dialecticalness happens. fact13: Both that header and that dispersing happens. fact14: This cantering occurs.

fact1: {BK} fact2: ({R} & {AP}) fact3: {HU} fact4: {D} -> {C} fact5: {D} fact6: {HC} fact7: {F} fact8: {A} fact9: {F} -> {DE} fact10: {FH} -> {BE} fact11: {BB} fact12: ({GE} & {BJ}) fact13: ({A} & {B}) fact14: {EL}

That moneyedness and this accrediting Hylocichla occurs.

({DE} & {DF})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That this infection happens is not wrong. fact2: Both this thoughtfulness and the uninfluentialness occurs. fact3: That somatosensoriness occurs. fact4: That flub is caused by that this understocking outfitted happens. fact5: This understocking outfitted happens. fact6: That the shamanistness happens is right. fact7: The escapism happens. fact8: That header occurs. fact9: If the escapism occurs then that moneyedness happens. fact10: That espial is triggered by that that prom happens. fact11: The fact that the pneumococcalness happens is right. fact12: The brag and the dialecticalness happens. fact13: Both that header and that dispersing happens. fact14: This cantering occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = That both that dispersing and that flub happens is not true. ; $proof$ =

fact13 -> int1: That dispersing happens.; fact4 & fact5 -> int2: That flub happens.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

This infinite does not occurs.

¬{C}

fact1: The disclosing occurs and this salient happens. fact2: That procurance occurs if that that enthusing does not occurs and that apliticness does not happens is wrong. fact3: That that apliticness does not occurs leads to that that procurance and that enthusing occurs. fact4: That that humanization does not occurs is brought about by that that both this salient and the minedness occurs is not wrong. fact5: If that procurance occurs then that hirsuteness happens. fact6: That lip and the confounding blinding happens. fact7: That this psychoanalysis does not happens leads to that that archeologicalness does not occurs. fact8: That hirsuteness happens. fact9: That both this salient and this unminedness occurs prevents that apliticness. fact10: That that enthusing does not happens and that apliticness does not occurs does not hold. fact11: If that the planking affidavit does not occurs is right the fact that this psychoanalysis occurs and this shaving occurs is false. fact12: That exhaling Swansea and that procurance happens. fact13: This penning Odontoceti occurs and/or this European happens if that archeologicalness does not occurs. fact14: If the fact that that the fact that this psychoanalysis happens and this shaving happens is right does not hold is correct this psychoanalysis does not happens. fact15: Both that humanization and that hirsuteness occurs. fact16: That notthe disclosing but this salient occurs is caused by that this European does not occurs. fact17: If that humanization does not occurs and that hirsuteness does not happens this gregariousness occurs.

fact1: ({I} & {H}) fact2: ¬(¬{E} & ¬{F}) -> {D} fact3: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) fact4: ({H} & ¬{G}) -> ¬{A} fact5: {D} -> {B} fact6: ({BI} & {BG}) fact7: ¬{M} -> ¬{L} fact8: {B} fact9: ({H} & {G}) -> ¬{F} fact10: ¬(¬{E} & ¬{F}) fact11: ¬{N} -> ¬({M} & {O}) fact12: ({IH} & {D}) fact13: ¬{L} -> ({K} v {J}) fact14: ¬({M} & {O}) -> ¬{M} fact15: ({A} & {B}) fact16: ¬{J} -> (¬{I} & {H}) fact17: (¬{A} & ¬{B}) -> {HO}

This gregariousness occurs.

{HO}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: The disclosing occurs and this salient happens. fact2: That procurance occurs if that that enthusing does not occurs and that apliticness does not happens is wrong. fact3: That that apliticness does not occurs leads to that that procurance and that enthusing occurs. fact4: That that humanization does not occurs is brought about by that that both this salient and the minedness occurs is not wrong. fact5: If that procurance occurs then that hirsuteness happens. fact6: That lip and the confounding blinding happens. fact7: That this psychoanalysis does not happens leads to that that archeologicalness does not occurs. fact8: That hirsuteness happens. fact9: That both this salient and this unminedness occurs prevents that apliticness. fact10: That that enthusing does not happens and that apliticness does not occurs does not hold. fact11: If that the planking affidavit does not occurs is right the fact that this psychoanalysis occurs and this shaving occurs is false. fact12: That exhaling Swansea and that procurance happens. fact13: This penning Odontoceti occurs and/or this European happens if that archeologicalness does not occurs. fact14: If the fact that that the fact that this psychoanalysis happens and this shaving happens is right does not hold is correct this psychoanalysis does not happens. fact15: Both that humanization and that hirsuteness occurs. fact16: That notthe disclosing but this salient occurs is caused by that this European does not occurs. fact17: If that humanization does not occurs and that hirsuteness does not happens this gregariousness occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = This infinite does not occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That flapjack is unwelcome.

{B}{b}

fact1: This ringdove is not a Bavarian. fact2: The fact that that flapjack is not a kind of a chuck hold if that flapjack is both not a deliverable and a Bavarian. fact3: If the fact that that tartrate is not a deliverable is true that flapjack is not a Bavarian. fact4: Nathalie is not unwelcome. fact5: If that tartrate is both a chuck and unwelcome this ringdove is not a chuck. fact6: That tartrate is not a psychometry. fact7: Something is not unwelcome if it is not a Bavarian and it is a chuck. fact8: Somebody is a chuck if she pales Nuda. fact9: The atropine is not a Bavarian. fact10: That flapjack is not a Bavarian. fact11: That flapjack is not unwelcome if it is a Bavarian and it is a kind of a chuck. fact12: If that flapjack is not unwelcome then that tartrate is not a deliverable but a chuck. fact13: If someone is a Bavarian and the one is a chuck then the one is not unwelcome. fact14: That tartrate does not muffle Alectoria if that flapjack is not a lepidopterology and does muffle Alectoria. fact15: That tartrate pales Nuda. fact16: That that tartrate is not a deliverable is right. fact17: That flapjack is welcome if it is not a chuck but a deliverable. fact18: That tartrate does not armoured. fact19: If somebody does not muffle Alectoria it is a deliverable and it is unwelcome. fact20: If that flapjack is not unwelcome that tartrate is not a deliverable but that person is a Bavarian. fact21: That tartrate is not unwelcome.

fact1: ¬{AA}{do} fact2: (¬{A}{b} & {AA}{b}) -> ¬{AB}{b} fact3: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{AA}{b} fact4: ¬{B}{aj} fact5: ({AB}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{AB}{do} fact6: ¬{AO}{a} fact7: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x fact8: (x): {G}x -> {AB}x fact9: ¬{AA}{ej} fact10: ¬{AA}{b} fact11: ({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{b} fact12: ¬{B}{b} -> (¬{A}{a} & {AB}{a}) fact13: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x fact14: (¬{E}{b} & {C}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} fact15: {G}{a} fact16: ¬{A}{a} fact17: (¬{AB}{b} & {A}{b}) -> ¬{B}{b} fact18: ¬{IK}{a} fact19: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({A}x & {B}x) fact20: ¬{B}{b} -> (¬{A}{a} & {AA}{a}) fact21: ¬{B}{a}

This ringdove is not a kind of a chuck.

¬{AB}{do}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This ringdove is not a Bavarian. fact2: The fact that that flapjack is not a kind of a chuck hold if that flapjack is both not a deliverable and a Bavarian. fact3: If the fact that that tartrate is not a deliverable is true that flapjack is not a Bavarian. fact4: Nathalie is not unwelcome. fact5: If that tartrate is both a chuck and unwelcome this ringdove is not a chuck. fact6: That tartrate is not a psychometry. fact7: Something is not unwelcome if it is not a Bavarian and it is a chuck. fact8: Somebody is a chuck if she pales Nuda. fact9: The atropine is not a Bavarian. fact10: That flapjack is not a Bavarian. fact11: That flapjack is not unwelcome if it is a Bavarian and it is a kind of a chuck. fact12: If that flapjack is not unwelcome then that tartrate is not a deliverable but a chuck. fact13: If someone is a Bavarian and the one is a chuck then the one is not unwelcome. fact14: That tartrate does not muffle Alectoria if that flapjack is not a lepidopterology and does muffle Alectoria. fact15: That tartrate pales Nuda. fact16: That that tartrate is not a deliverable is right. fact17: That flapjack is welcome if it is not a chuck but a deliverable. fact18: That tartrate does not armoured. fact19: If somebody does not muffle Alectoria it is a deliverable and it is unwelcome. fact20: If that flapjack is not unwelcome that tartrate is not a deliverable but that person is a Bavarian. fact21: That tartrate is not unwelcome. ; $hypothesis$ = That flapjack is unwelcome. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That that pedestal is not a Fouquieriaceae but this hesitates is not true.

¬(¬{D}{b} & {C}{b})

fact1: The fact that that thrower engraves cliche and/or descants gaudy hold if that centrosome is not a Crosby. fact2: That skittle does not whale culpableness and that thing is not a Fouquieriaceae if the fact that that skittle is a Gershwin hold. fact3: That pedestal is not a Bierce and is consubstantial. fact4: That pedestal is not a kind of a Fouquieriaceae but it hesitates if it is not a counterfoil. fact5: Either this Raja is not scalable or that is not a kind of a longsightedness or both if that descants gaudy. fact6: This Raja descants gaudy if that thrower engraves cliche. fact7: If either someone is not scalable or she/he is not a longsightedness or both then she/he is not a kind of a counterfoil. fact8: This flickertail is an incoming. fact9: If that skittle does not whale culpableness then the fact that that pedestal is not a kind of a Fouquieriaceae but it hesitates is false. fact10: the culpableness whales skittle. fact11: That something does not transmigrate and is lymphocytic is incorrect if it is a kind of an incoming. fact12: If something is not a kind of a counterfoil that it does not nerve sag and/or it does not whale culpableness does not hold. fact13: That pedestal is not a counterfoil if that skittle is not a kind of a Gershwin and does not mummify. fact14: That skittle is not a Gershwin and does not mummify if that skittle whales culpableness. fact15: That centrosome is not a kind of a Crosby if this flickertail transmigrates. fact16: If that something does not transmigrate but this thing is lymphocytic is wrong then this thing does transmigrate. fact17: The fact that the Pembroke is a Fouquieriaceae is correct.

fact1: ¬{J}{e} -> ({I}{d} v {H}{d}) fact2: {AA}{a} -> (¬{A}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) fact3: (¬{BD}{b} & {AR}{b}) fact4: ¬{B}{b} -> (¬{D}{b} & {C}{b}) fact5: {H}{c} -> (¬{G}{c} v ¬{F}{c}) fact6: {I}{d} -> {H}{c} fact7: (x): (¬{G}x v ¬{F}x) -> ¬{B}x fact8: {L}{f} fact9: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{D}{b} & {C}{b}) fact10: {AC}{aa} fact11: (x): {L}x -> ¬(¬{K}x & {M}x) fact12: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬(¬{E}x v ¬{A}x) fact13: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} fact14: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) fact15: {K}{f} -> ¬{J}{e} fact16: (x): ¬(¬{K}x & {M}x) -> {K}x fact17: {D}{bk}

That that pedestal is not a Fouquieriaceae but this hesitates is not true.

¬(¬{D}{b} & {C}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: The fact that that thrower engraves cliche and/or descants gaudy hold if that centrosome is not a Crosby. fact2: That skittle does not whale culpableness and that thing is not a Fouquieriaceae if the fact that that skittle is a Gershwin hold. fact3: That pedestal is not a Bierce and is consubstantial. fact4: That pedestal is not a kind of a Fouquieriaceae but it hesitates if it is not a counterfoil. fact5: Either this Raja is not scalable or that is not a kind of a longsightedness or both if that descants gaudy. fact6: This Raja descants gaudy if that thrower engraves cliche. fact7: If either someone is not scalable or she/he is not a longsightedness or both then she/he is not a kind of a counterfoil. fact8: This flickertail is an incoming. fact9: If that skittle does not whale culpableness then the fact that that pedestal is not a kind of a Fouquieriaceae but it hesitates is false. fact10: the culpableness whales skittle. fact11: That something does not transmigrate and is lymphocytic is incorrect if it is a kind of an incoming. fact12: If something is not a kind of a counterfoil that it does not nerve sag and/or it does not whale culpableness does not hold. fact13: That pedestal is not a counterfoil if that skittle is not a kind of a Gershwin and does not mummify. fact14: That skittle is not a Gershwin and does not mummify if that skittle whales culpableness. fact15: That centrosome is not a kind of a Crosby if this flickertail transmigrates. fact16: If that something does not transmigrate but this thing is lymphocytic is wrong then this thing does transmigrate. fact17: The fact that the Pembroke is a Fouquieriaceae is correct. ; $hypothesis$ = That that pedestal is not a Fouquieriaceae but this hesitates is not true. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That amplitude occurs.

{B}

fact1: That the leaner does not occurs is brought about by that that blizzard does not happens and this strategicalness does not happens. fact2: If that that non-postpartumness and/or that non-incestuousness happens does not hold the fact that that affirmativeness occurs is correct. fact3: That tenting does not happens. fact4: This numbering Speer does not occurs if that this numbering Speer happens and that Europocentricness does not occurs does not hold. fact5: The fact that this numbering Speer happens but that Europocentricness does not occurs is not true if that nonsteroidalness does not happens. fact6: That this railroading does not happens and this cytogeneticalness does not happens is brought about by that the leaner does not happens. fact7: That both that amplitude and that tenting occurs is caused by that this cytogeneticalness does not happens. fact8: If that tenting does not occurs the fact that this benzylicness does not happens and this gypping does not happens does not hold. fact9: That affirmativeness yields that the coming occurs and that nonsteroidalness does not occurs. fact10: That blizzard does not occurs and this strategicalness does not occurs if this numbering Speer does not happens.

fact1: (¬{G} & ¬{F}) -> ¬{E} fact2: ¬(¬{M} v ¬{N}) -> {L} fact3: ¬{A} fact4: ¬({H} & ¬{I}) -> ¬{H} fact5: ¬{J} -> ¬({H} & ¬{I}) fact6: ¬{E} -> (¬{D} & ¬{C}) fact7: ¬{C} -> ({B} & {A}) fact8: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) fact9: {L} -> ({K} & ¬{J}) fact10: ¬{H} -> (¬{G} & ¬{F})

That amplitude occurs.

{B}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That the leaner does not occurs is brought about by that that blizzard does not happens and this strategicalness does not happens. fact2: If that that non-postpartumness and/or that non-incestuousness happens does not hold the fact that that affirmativeness occurs is correct. fact3: That tenting does not happens. fact4: This numbering Speer does not occurs if that this numbering Speer happens and that Europocentricness does not occurs does not hold. fact5: The fact that this numbering Speer happens but that Europocentricness does not occurs is not true if that nonsteroidalness does not happens. fact6: That this railroading does not happens and this cytogeneticalness does not happens is brought about by that the leaner does not happens. fact7: That both that amplitude and that tenting occurs is caused by that this cytogeneticalness does not happens. fact8: If that tenting does not occurs the fact that this benzylicness does not happens and this gypping does not happens does not hold. fact9: That affirmativeness yields that the coming occurs and that nonsteroidalness does not occurs. fact10: That blizzard does not occurs and this strategicalness does not occurs if this numbering Speer does not happens. ; $hypothesis$ = That amplitude occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

This woodwind is not a facial.

¬{C}{b}

fact1: Something is a facial if it volatiliseds fluster. fact2: This woodwind volatiliseds fluster if this purchase is a vinegarishness. fact3: This purchase is a vinegarishness.

fact1: (x): {B}x -> {C}x fact2: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} fact3: {A}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$facts$ = fact1: Something is a facial if it volatiliseds fluster. fact2: This woodwind volatiliseds fluster if this purchase is a vinegarishness. fact3: This purchase is a vinegarishness. ; $hypothesis$ = This woodwind is not a facial. ; $proof$ =

fact2 & fact3 -> int1: This woodwind volatiliseds fluster.; fact1 -> int2: This woodwind is a facial if this woodwind volatiliseds fluster.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

This pantothen does not blaze SEC.

¬{C}{d}

fact1: The fact that that Slovenian does shovel scorched and is not a petitio is wrong. fact2: This pantothen does blaze SEC if the fact that that spirograph is not consistent and does not capriole dispensableness does not hold. fact3: If that sherlock blazes SEC then that this pantothen blazes SEC but that is not consistent does not hold. fact4: If some man does not capriole dispensableness then the fact that the one is both not a waggishness and not a petitio is false. fact5: That Slovenian blazes SEC if that this pantothen is not a petitio and does not shovel scorched is incorrect. fact6: If that that Slovenian shovels scorched but that person is not a kind of a petitio is wrong then that sherlock is consistent.

fact1: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) fact2: ¬(¬{B}{c} & ¬{A}{c}) -> {C}{d} fact3: {C}{b} -> ¬({C}{d} & ¬{B}{d}) fact4: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AO}x & ¬{AB}x) fact5: ¬(¬{AB}{d} & ¬{AA}{d}) -> {C}{a} fact6: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b}

The fact that that sherlock is not a waggishness and not a petitio does not hold.

¬(¬{AO}{b} & ¬{AB}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: The fact that that Slovenian does shovel scorched and is not a petitio is wrong. fact2: This pantothen does blaze SEC if the fact that that spirograph is not consistent and does not capriole dispensableness does not hold. fact3: If that sherlock blazes SEC then that this pantothen blazes SEC but that is not consistent does not hold. fact4: If some man does not capriole dispensableness then the fact that the one is both not a waggishness and not a petitio is false. fact5: That Slovenian blazes SEC if that this pantothen is not a petitio and does not shovel scorched is incorrect. fact6: If that that Slovenian shovels scorched but that person is not a kind of a petitio is wrong then that sherlock is consistent. ; $hypothesis$ = This pantothen does not blaze SEC. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

Let's assume that this discasing Eurypterida does not happens.

¬{A}

fact1: This unnaturalness happens. fact2: That either this non-allergenicness or this unnaturalness or both happens is brought about by that this shriveling does not happens. fact3: The spanking Tectaria occurs. fact4: The fact that the fisticuffs does not occurs and/or this pregnantness does not occurs does not hold. fact5: That this discasing Eurypterida does not happens is caused by that this shriveling but notthe screeching squealing occurs. fact6: If this discasing Eurypterida does not occurs that either this non-allergenicness or this non-unnaturalness or both occurs is not correct. fact7: If this discasing Eurypterida does not occurs then this unnaturalness happens. fact8: This shriveling does not happens. fact9: The allergenicness does not happens or this unnaturalness happens or both. fact10: The fact that this tapering does not occurs is not wrong. fact11: The anaerobioticness does not occurs. fact12: This non-allergenicness and/or that this unnaturalness does not happens is caused by that this shriveling does not happens. fact13: If that that inspiratoriness does not happens is right the fact that the malignantness does not happens and/or the invention does not happens is wrong.

fact1: {AB} fact2: ¬{B} -> (¬{AA} v {AB}) fact3: {FK} fact4: ¬(¬{ES} v ¬{IJ}) fact5: ({B} & ¬{C}) -> ¬{A} fact6: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{AA} v ¬{AB}) fact7: ¬{A} -> {AB} fact8: ¬{B} fact9: (¬{AA} v {AB}) fact10: ¬{DK} fact11: ¬{II} fact12: ¬{B} -> (¬{AA} v ¬{AB}) fact13: ¬{I} -> ¬(¬{BJ} v ¬{IO})

Let's assume that this discasing Eurypterida does not happens.

¬{A}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This unnaturalness happens. fact2: That either this non-allergenicness or this unnaturalness or both happens is brought about by that this shriveling does not happens. fact3: The spanking Tectaria occurs. fact4: The fact that the fisticuffs does not occurs and/or this pregnantness does not occurs does not hold. fact5: That this discasing Eurypterida does not happens is caused by that this shriveling but notthe screeching squealing occurs. fact6: If this discasing Eurypterida does not occurs that either this non-allergenicness or this non-unnaturalness or both occurs is not correct. fact7: If this discasing Eurypterida does not occurs then this unnaturalness happens. fact8: This shriveling does not happens. fact9: The allergenicness does not happens or this unnaturalness happens or both. fact10: The fact that this tapering does not occurs is not wrong. fact11: The anaerobioticness does not occurs. fact12: This non-allergenicness and/or that this unnaturalness does not happens is caused by that this shriveling does not happens. fact13: If that that inspiratoriness does not happens is right the fact that the malignantness does not happens and/or the invention does not happens is wrong. ; $hypothesis$ = Let's assume that this discasing Eurypterida does not happens. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that this discasing Eurypterida does not happens.; fact6 & assump1 -> int1: That this non-allergenicness or this non-unnaturalness or both happens does not hold.; fact12 & fact8 -> int2: Either this non-allergenicness or this non-unnaturalness or both occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: This is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

The fact that everything is a taurine is false.

¬((x): {A}x)

fact1: Everybody is a kind of a gloved. fact2: Something is a taurine if that it is not a kind of a Cryptogramma and is a kind of a Physalis is not true. fact3: Everyone is a Afghan. fact4: Everything kills esotropia. fact5: Everyone is tenacious. fact6: If some man is a taurine that this person is cryptologic is correct.

fact1: (x): {GJ}x fact2: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & {C}x) -> {A}x fact3: (x): {DO}x fact4: (x): {GC}x fact5: (x): {GF}x fact6: (x): {A}x -> {CN}x

Every man is cryptologic.

(x): {CN}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: Everybody is a kind of a gloved. fact2: Something is a taurine if that it is not a kind of a Cryptogramma and is a kind of a Physalis is not true. fact3: Everyone is a Afghan. fact4: Everything kills esotropia. fact5: Everyone is tenacious. fact6: If some man is a taurine that this person is cryptologic is correct. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that everything is a taurine is false. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

Everything is atrioventricular.

(x): {A}x

fact1: Every person is a upstroke. fact2: Every man is a kind of a mortal. fact3: Everybody preoccupies Lammas. fact4: A exiguity is not outward. fact5: The fact that someone is sorrowful is true if that it is hemolytic and/or not atrioventricular is wrong. fact6: Every man is afebrile. fact7: Something is not a Schnabel but a misdeal if it is inward. fact8: Everybody is both a exiguity and a limbed. fact9: Somebody is seamless if that he/she is atrioventricular hold. fact10: Everything is atrioventricular. fact11: Every man is a Ommiad. fact12: Every man does repeat. fact13: Everybody is a kind of a philanthropy. fact14: Everything is appositive. fact15: Everything is nonwashable. fact16: Every man is maturational.

fact1: (x): {BK}x fact2: (x): {AL}x fact3: (x): {IA}x fact4: (x): {F}x -> {E}x fact5: (x): ¬({B}x v ¬{A}x) -> {Q}x fact6: (x): {DD}x fact7: (x): {E}x -> (¬{C}x & {D}x) fact8: (x): ({F}x & {G}x) fact9: (x): {A}x -> {GP}x fact10: (x): {A}x fact11: (x): {BG}x fact12: (x): {T}x fact13: (x): {JG}x fact14: (x): {EI}x fact15: (x): {P}x fact16: (x): {AT}x

Everything is sorrowful.

(x): {Q}x

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: Every person is a upstroke. fact2: Every man is a kind of a mortal. fact3: Everybody preoccupies Lammas. fact4: A exiguity is not outward. fact5: The fact that someone is sorrowful is true if that it is hemolytic and/or not atrioventricular is wrong. fact6: Every man is afebrile. fact7: Something is not a Schnabel but a misdeal if it is inward. fact8: Everybody is both a exiguity and a limbed. fact9: Somebody is seamless if that he/she is atrioventricular hold. fact10: Everything is atrioventricular. fact11: Every man is a Ommiad. fact12: Every man does repeat. fact13: Everybody is a kind of a philanthropy. fact14: Everything is appositive. fact15: Everything is nonwashable. fact16: Every man is maturational. ; $hypothesis$ = Everything is atrioventricular. ; $proof$ =

fact10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

That this vilifier is not a avifauna and not Filipino is false.

¬(¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b})

fact1: If the hide is a kind of a Clethraceae that this vilifier is not balconied but he/she pilfers Vichy is incorrect. fact2: That that this vilifier is both not a avifauna and not Filipino is right is incorrect if this frijol does not recuse ABC. fact3: If the fact that something is not a conflicting and is a kind of a Japanese does not hold then that thing is not a dollar. fact4: If this frijol is not a dollar this frijol is a kind of a Furnariidae and it is unencumbered. fact5: Something is a cocoon and/or is mindful if that it does not verbalise is correct. fact6: If some man is a Furnariidae then the fact that it does not verbalise is not false. fact7: That this vilifier does not recuse ABC but it is Filipino is false if this frijol is not a avifauna. fact8: If this frijol is a Furnariidae Itzel is a Furnariidae. fact9: If that that this vilifier is non-balconied thing that pilfers Vichy is incorrect hold then it does not pilfers Vichy. fact10: The fact that this frijol is both Filipino and not a avifauna does not hold if this vilifier does not recuse ABC. fact11: This frijol does not recuse ABC. fact12: If something is a cocoon or this thing is mindful or both then this thing does not recuse ABC. fact13: If the fact that this vilifier does not pilfer Vichy is right that this frijol is not a conflicting but this thing is a Japanese does not hold. fact14: the ABC does not recuse frijol. fact15: The Triton does not recuse ABC.

fact1: {K}{c} -> ¬(¬{L}{b} & {J}{b}) fact2: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) fact3: (x): ¬(¬{I}x & {H}x) -> ¬{G}x fact4: ¬{G}{a} -> ({E}{a} & {F}{a}) fact5: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({B}x v {C}x) fact6: (x): {E}x -> ¬{D}x fact7: ¬{AA}{a} -> ¬(¬{A}{b} & {AB}{b}) fact8: {E}{a} -> {E}{cp} fact9: ¬(¬{L}{b} & {J}{b}) -> ¬{J}{b} fact10: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬({AB}{a} & ¬{AA}{a}) fact11: ¬{A}{a} fact12: (x): ({B}x v {C}x) -> ¬{A}x fact13: ¬{J}{b} -> ¬(¬{I}{a} & {H}{a}) fact14: ¬{AC}{aa} fact15: ¬{A}{bc}

Itzel does not recuse ABC.

¬{A}{cp}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If the hide is a kind of a Clethraceae that this vilifier is not balconied but he/she pilfers Vichy is incorrect. fact2: That that this vilifier is both not a avifauna and not Filipino is right is incorrect if this frijol does not recuse ABC. fact3: If the fact that something is not a conflicting and is a kind of a Japanese does not hold then that thing is not a dollar. fact4: If this frijol is not a dollar this frijol is a kind of a Furnariidae and it is unencumbered. fact5: Something is a cocoon and/or is mindful if that it does not verbalise is correct. fact6: If some man is a Furnariidae then the fact that it does not verbalise is not false. fact7: That this vilifier does not recuse ABC but it is Filipino is false if this frijol is not a avifauna. fact8: If this frijol is a Furnariidae Itzel is a Furnariidae. fact9: If that that this vilifier is non-balconied thing that pilfers Vichy is incorrect hold then it does not pilfers Vichy. fact10: The fact that this frijol is both Filipino and not a avifauna does not hold if this vilifier does not recuse ABC. fact11: This frijol does not recuse ABC. fact12: If something is a cocoon or this thing is mindful or both then this thing does not recuse ABC. fact13: If the fact that this vilifier does not pilfer Vichy is right that this frijol is not a conflicting but this thing is a Japanese does not hold. fact14: the ABC does not recuse frijol. fact15: The Triton does not recuse ABC. ; $hypothesis$ = That this vilifier is not a avifauna and not Filipino is false. ; $proof$ =

fact2 & fact11 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

The fact that there is some man such that if she/he is gravitative she/he is gravitative and is not stereoscopic does not hold.

¬((Ex): {A}x -> ({A}x & ¬{B}x))

fact1: If that this Green is gravitative is right that it is gravitative and is stereoscopic is true. fact2: Somebody is Phoenician one that is not stereoscopic if the person is Phoenician. fact3: The snoring is a Stylomecon but it does not tongue yesterday. fact4: If something is scorbutic then the fact that the fact that it directs smarminess and does not glamorize is true does not hold. fact5: Somebody is scorbutic if this person is a Physalia. fact6: Someone is a Physalia if the fact that the person is vulvar is correct. fact7: Some person is non-thermohydrometric if the fact that it directs smarminess and does not glamorize is false. fact8: There exists something such that if it is gravitative it is gravitative and it is not non-stereoscopic. fact9: If this Green is not thermohydrometric then this cuckoo is a kind of gravitative one that is stereoscopic.

fact1: {A}{a} -> ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) fact2: (x): {EA}x -> ({EA}x & ¬{B}x) fact3: ({JC}{e} & ¬{BI}{e}) fact4: (x): {F}x -> ¬({E}x & ¬{D}x) fact5: (x): {G}x -> {F}x fact6: (x): {H}x -> {G}x fact7: (x): ¬({E}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{C}x fact8: (Ex): {A}x -> ({A}x & {B}x) fact9: ¬{C}{a} -> ({A}{bf} & {B}{bf})

This cuckoo is not non-gravitative.

{A}{bf}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If that this Green is gravitative is right that it is gravitative and is stereoscopic is true. fact2: Somebody is Phoenician one that is not stereoscopic if the person is Phoenician. fact3: The snoring is a Stylomecon but it does not tongue yesterday. fact4: If something is scorbutic then the fact that the fact that it directs smarminess and does not glamorize is true does not hold. fact5: Somebody is scorbutic if this person is a Physalia. fact6: Someone is a Physalia if the fact that the person is vulvar is correct. fact7: Some person is non-thermohydrometric if the fact that it directs smarminess and does not glamorize is false. fact8: There exists something such that if it is gravitative it is gravitative and it is not non-stereoscopic. fact9: If this Green is not thermohydrometric then this cuckoo is a kind of gravitative one that is stereoscopic. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that there is some man such that if she/he is gravitative she/he is gravitative and is not stereoscopic does not hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

This intellect is a Kiribati.

{B}{aa}

fact1: If some person is dysphoric and/or it is a Aegospotami it is not a Kiribati. fact2: If there is something such that this thing is a clouded this conglutination humours hobbit and is not diamagnetic. fact3: The fact that this intellect is a Aegospotami is true. fact4: The sparer is a kind of a clouded. fact5: If this intellect is dysphoric then it is not a kind of a Kiribati. fact6: Some person that is dysphoric is not a Kiribati. fact7: That fireboat is not a kind of a Kiribati if this pigfish is a kind of a Pakistani that humours hobbit. fact8: That illustration impacts Shakti and is a Aegospotami if that fireboat is not a Kiribati. fact9: There is nothing that does not dampen forgivingness and is not macroeconomic. fact10: If that something does not dampen forgivingness and it is not macroeconomic is incorrect it is a Pakistani. fact11: Somebody impacts Shakti and that person is a kind of a Kiribati if the fact that that person does not humour hobbit is not false.

fact1: (x): ({AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x fact2: (x): {H}x -> ({C}{c} & ¬{E}{c}) fact3: {AB}{aa} fact4: {H}{d} fact5: {AA}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} fact6: (x): {AA}x -> ¬{B}x fact7: ({D}{b} & {C}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} fact8: ¬{B}{a} -> ({A}{cq} & {AB}{cq}) fact9: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{G}x) fact10: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{G}x) -> {D}x fact11: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({A}x & {B}x)

That illustration is a Aegospotami.

{AB}{cq}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If some person is dysphoric and/or it is a Aegospotami it is not a Kiribati. fact2: If there is something such that this thing is a clouded this conglutination humours hobbit and is not diamagnetic. fact3: The fact that this intellect is a Aegospotami is true. fact4: The sparer is a kind of a clouded. fact5: If this intellect is dysphoric then it is not a kind of a Kiribati. fact6: Some person that is dysphoric is not a Kiribati. fact7: That fireboat is not a kind of a Kiribati if this pigfish is a kind of a Pakistani that humours hobbit. fact8: That illustration impacts Shakti and is a Aegospotami if that fireboat is not a Kiribati. fact9: There is nothing that does not dampen forgivingness and is not macroeconomic. fact10: If that something does not dampen forgivingness and it is not macroeconomic is incorrect it is a Pakistani. fact11: Somebody impacts Shakti and that person is a kind of a Kiribati if the fact that that person does not humour hobbit is not false. ; $hypothesis$ = This intellect is a Kiribati. ; $proof$ =

fact1 -> int1: This intellect is not a Kiribati if it is dysphoric or it is a kind of a Aegospotami or both.; fact3 -> int2: This intellect is dysphoric and/or it is a Aegospotami.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That either the non-entericness or this cabinetry or both occurs does not hold.

¬(¬{B} v {C})

fact1: That entericness happens or this cabinetry occurs or both. fact2: That this antecedent happens and this teleologicalness does not happens leads to the non-entericness. fact3: The amplification happens. fact4: That this antecedent but notthis teleologicalness happens is brought about by that the amplification occurs.

fact1: ({B} v {C}) fact2: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} fact3: {A} fact4: {A} -> ({AA} & ¬{AB})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$facts$ = fact1: That entericness happens or this cabinetry occurs or both. fact2: That this antecedent happens and this teleologicalness does not happens leads to the non-entericness. fact3: The amplification happens. fact4: That this antecedent but notthis teleologicalness happens is brought about by that the amplification occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = That either the non-entericness or this cabinetry or both occurs does not hold. ; $proof$ =

fact4 & fact3 -> int1: This antecedent but notthis teleologicalness occurs.; int1 & fact2 -> int2: That entericness does not happens.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

The fact that this elimination is a kind of a magnanimousness is correct.

{AB}{b}

fact1: The birdcall is not a magnanimousness. fact2: This elimination does not soothat hematocyst and is a magnanimousness if the fact that that chit furnishes Potsdam hold. fact3: Someone is not a magnanimousness if that the one is not frequent and does not furnish Potsdam is incorrect. fact4: The risk does furnish Potsdam. fact5: This elimination does not soothat hematocyst. fact6: That chit does furnish Potsdam. fact7: that Potsdam does furnish chit.

fact1: ¬{AB}{ea} fact2: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) fact3: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{AB}x fact4: {A}{gu} fact5: ¬{AA}{b} fact6: {A}{a} fact7: {AC}{aa}

This elimination is not a magnanimousness.

¬{AB}{b}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: The birdcall is not a magnanimousness. fact2: This elimination does not soothat hematocyst and is a magnanimousness if the fact that that chit furnishes Potsdam hold. fact3: Someone is not a magnanimousness if that the one is not frequent and does not furnish Potsdam is incorrect. fact4: The risk does furnish Potsdam. fact5: This elimination does not soothat hematocyst. fact6: That chit does furnish Potsdam. fact7: that Potsdam does furnish chit. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that this elimination is a kind of a magnanimousness is correct. ; $proof$ =

fact2 & fact6 -> int1: This elimination does not soothat hematocyst and is a magnanimousness.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

This neuroblast is a Mitchum.

{E}{a}

fact1: That the jemmy is a kind of a Chiococca but that one does not begild Kulun is wrong if that one is honest. fact2: This neuroblast is a ranging and a Chiococca. fact3: The fact that this neuroblast is not a Mitchum is correct if the fact that this neuroblast does not edulcorate and is not a lb is wrong. fact4: If this neuroblast is a Chiococca that that this neuroblast does not edulcorate and is not a lb hold is false.

fact1: {IG}{ff} -> ¬({B}{ff} & ¬{CM}{ff}) fact2: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) fact3: ¬(¬{C}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) -> ¬{E}{a} fact4: {B}{a} -> ¬(¬{C}{a} & ¬{D}{a})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$facts$ = fact1: That the jemmy is a kind of a Chiococca but that one does not begild Kulun is wrong if that one is honest. fact2: This neuroblast is a ranging and a Chiococca. fact3: The fact that this neuroblast is not a Mitchum is correct if the fact that this neuroblast does not edulcorate and is not a lb is wrong. fact4: If this neuroblast is a Chiococca that that this neuroblast does not edulcorate and is not a lb hold is false. ; $hypothesis$ = This neuroblast is a Mitchum. ; $proof$ =

fact2 -> int1: This neuroblast is a Chiococca.; int1 & fact4 -> int2: That this neuroblast does not edulcorate and it is not a kind of a lb does not hold.; int2 & fact3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

The fact that both this sympatricness and that thoracentesis happens is false.

¬({AA} & {B})

fact1: That this hunter does not happens is prevented by this orthopticness. fact2: If the fact that this subpoenaing Mastigomycotina occurs and this petaledness happens is false that thoracentesis does not occurs. fact3: The mime but notthe wiggle happens if that militarization does not occurs. fact4: That that unenlightenedness does not occurs is caused by that that thoracicness does not happens. fact5: This spasmolysis happens. fact6: If that inextensibleness does not occurs that this subpoenaing Mastigomycotina and this petaledness occurs does not hold. fact7: The wiggle does not occurs. fact8: That this catheterization occurs but that militarization does not happens is true. fact9: That the mischief does not occurs is triggered by the non-estuarineness. fact10: If this flumping Canellaceae occurs that outage happens. fact11: That that mixing Acipenseridae happens triggers that this spoiling substitutability happens. fact12: The Marching blessedness occurs if that twirp happens. fact13: That unenlightenedness does not occurs. fact14: The fact that the bent does not happens is true. fact15: That thoracicness does not occurs. fact16: The gripe happens. fact17: The fact that that debauchery occurs and that romanticistness does not occurs hold if that epistemicness does not happens. fact18: The dismantling Mirabeau does not occurs. fact19: That that thoracentesis does not happens is prevented by this petaledness. fact20: Both this sympatricness and the enlightenedness happens if that thoracicness does not happens. fact21: This petaledness occurs if this subpoenaing Mastigomycotina occurs. fact22: The fact that this subpoenaing Mastigomycotina occurs hold. fact23: If the fact that that uncutness does not occurs and that uncomparableness does not occurs is incorrect then that inextensibleness does not occurs.

fact1: {EP} -> {AE} fact2: ¬({D} & {C}) -> ¬{B} fact3: ¬{DC} -> ({HQ} & ¬{EH}) fact4: ¬{A} -> ¬{AB} fact5: {IS} fact6: ¬{E} -> ¬({D} & {C}) fact7: ¬{EH} fact8: ({BS} & ¬{DC}) fact9: ¬{FF} -> ¬{HO} fact10: {K} -> {FB} fact11: {CD} -> {HT} fact12: {O} -> {AN} fact13: ¬{AB} fact14: ¬{HF} fact15: ¬{A} fact16: {AT} fact17: ¬{EJ} -> ({CJ} & ¬{EL}) fact18: ¬{BR} fact19: {C} -> {B} fact20: ¬{A} -> ({AA} & ¬{AB}) fact21: {D} -> {C} fact22: {D} fact23: ¬(¬{F} & ¬{G}) -> ¬{E}

The fact that this objurgating Lepidothamnus happens is right.

{I}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That this hunter does not happens is prevented by this orthopticness. fact2: If the fact that this subpoenaing Mastigomycotina occurs and this petaledness happens is false that thoracentesis does not occurs. fact3: The mime but notthe wiggle happens if that militarization does not occurs. fact4: That that unenlightenedness does not occurs is caused by that that thoracicness does not happens. fact5: This spasmolysis happens. fact6: If that inextensibleness does not occurs that this subpoenaing Mastigomycotina and this petaledness occurs does not hold. fact7: The wiggle does not occurs. fact8: That this catheterization occurs but that militarization does not happens is true. fact9: That the mischief does not occurs is triggered by the non-estuarineness. fact10: If this flumping Canellaceae occurs that outage happens. fact11: That that mixing Acipenseridae happens triggers that this spoiling substitutability happens. fact12: The Marching blessedness occurs if that twirp happens. fact13: That unenlightenedness does not occurs. fact14: The fact that the bent does not happens is true. fact15: That thoracicness does not occurs. fact16: The gripe happens. fact17: The fact that that debauchery occurs and that romanticistness does not occurs hold if that epistemicness does not happens. fact18: The dismantling Mirabeau does not occurs. fact19: That that thoracentesis does not happens is prevented by this petaledness. fact20: Both this sympatricness and the enlightenedness happens if that thoracicness does not happens. fact21: This petaledness occurs if this subpoenaing Mastigomycotina occurs. fact22: The fact that this subpoenaing Mastigomycotina occurs hold. fact23: If the fact that that uncutness does not occurs and that uncomparableness does not occurs is incorrect then that inextensibleness does not occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that both this sympatricness and that thoracentesis happens is false. ; $proof$ =

fact20 & fact15 -> int1: This sympatricness but notthat unenlightenedness happens.; int1 -> int2: The fact that this sympatricness occurs hold.; fact22 & fact21 -> int3: This petaledness occurs.; fact19 & int3 -> int4: That thoracentesis occurs.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That cheeseboard is not non-chitinous and it is few.

({B}{a} & {C}{a})

fact1: Someone is not few. fact2: Something is chitinous and it is few if it is not a kind of a Lithospermum. fact3: There exists some person such that the fact that that one is not a Lithospermum hold. fact4: If that emancipationist is not a leukocytosis but a Lamarckism then that stratosphere is a Lamarckism. fact5: That emancipationist is not sympatric if that the fact that that that corbel is not sympatric and/or the one does not circumvolve Nero hold is not true is not false. fact6: That that cheeseboard is not a Dasyatis is right if that that stratosphere is a Lamarckism and is a Dasyatis hold. fact7: If some person is not a Dasyatis and/or does not chondrify philanthropy that person is not a Radiolaria. fact8: That that vexer does not cool or does not enjoin Poyang or both does not hold. fact9: Someone is a Lithospermum. fact10: If the fact that that vexer does not cool or the thing does not enjoin Poyang or both is incorrect the thing is a retronym. fact11: If some man is not a kind of a Lithospermum then that that cheeseboard is both not non-chitinous and few is incorrect. fact12: If that cheeseboard is not a Radiolaria it is not a Lithospermum. fact13: If that emancipationist is not sympatric the fact that that thing is not a kind of a leukocytosis and that thing is a Lamarckism is right. fact14: That that corbel is not sympatric and/or does not circumvolve Nero does not hold.

fact1: (Ex): ¬{C}x fact2: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({B}x & {C}x) fact3: (Ex): ¬{A}x fact4: (¬{J}{c} & {H}{c}) -> {H}{b} fact5: ¬(¬{K}{e} v ¬{O}{e}) -> ¬{K}{c} fact6: ({H}{b} & {E}{b}) -> ¬{E}{a} fact7: (x): (¬{E}x v ¬{F}x) -> ¬{D}x fact8: ¬(¬{M}{d} v ¬{L}{d}) fact9: (Ex): {A}x fact10: ¬(¬{M}{d} v ¬{L}{d}) -> {I}{d} fact11: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a}) fact12: ¬{D}{a} -> ¬{A}{a} fact13: ¬{K}{c} -> (¬{J}{c} & {H}{c}) fact14: ¬(¬{K}{e} v ¬{O}{e})

That cheeseboard is not non-chitinous and it is few.

({B}{a} & {C}{a})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: Someone is not few. fact2: Something is chitinous and it is few if it is not a kind of a Lithospermum. fact3: There exists some person such that the fact that that one is not a Lithospermum hold. fact4: If that emancipationist is not a leukocytosis but a Lamarckism then that stratosphere is a Lamarckism. fact5: That emancipationist is not sympatric if that the fact that that that corbel is not sympatric and/or the one does not circumvolve Nero hold is not true is not false. fact6: That that cheeseboard is not a Dasyatis is right if that that stratosphere is a Lamarckism and is a Dasyatis hold. fact7: If some person is not a Dasyatis and/or does not chondrify philanthropy that person is not a Radiolaria. fact8: That that vexer does not cool or does not enjoin Poyang or both does not hold. fact9: Someone is a Lithospermum. fact10: If the fact that that vexer does not cool or the thing does not enjoin Poyang or both is incorrect the thing is a retronym. fact11: If some man is not a kind of a Lithospermum then that that cheeseboard is both not non-chitinous and few is incorrect. fact12: If that cheeseboard is not a Radiolaria it is not a Lithospermum. fact13: If that emancipationist is not sympatric the fact that that thing is not a kind of a leukocytosis and that thing is a Lamarckism is right. fact14: That that corbel is not sympatric and/or does not circumvolve Nero does not hold. ; $hypothesis$ = That cheeseboard is not non-chitinous and it is few. ; $proof$ =

fact3 & fact11 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That that boatbill is a Moorish hold.

{D}{c}

fact1: This thermoacidophile is an unreliability. fact2: That boatbill is a kind of an unreliability. fact3: This coil is a soaked if this thermoacidophile is an unreliability. fact4: That boatbill is a soaked but it is not a Moorish if this coil is a soaked.

fact1: {A}{a} fact2: {A}{c} fact3: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} fact4: {B}{b} -> ({B}{c} & ¬{D}{c})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$facts$ = fact1: This thermoacidophile is an unreliability. fact2: That boatbill is a kind of an unreliability. fact3: This coil is a soaked if this thermoacidophile is an unreliability. fact4: That boatbill is a soaked but it is not a Moorish if this coil is a soaked. ; $hypothesis$ = That that boatbill is a Moorish hold. ; $proof$ =

fact3 & fact1 -> int1: This coil is a kind of a soaked.; int1 & fact4 -> int2: That boatbill is a soaked but it is not a Moorish.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That lastness occurs.

{C}

fact1: This regenerating Pyralis happens. fact2: If that this wishing Kenyata does not occurs and/or this regenerating Pyralis does not occurs is incorrect this wound happens. fact3: That this wishing Kenyata and this dairying occurs is correct if that basidiomycetousness does not happens. fact4: The fact that this wishing Kenyata happens is incorrect. fact5: That that lastness does not occurs is caused by that this regenerating Pyralis occurs and this wishing Kenyata does not occurs.

fact1: {A} fact2: ¬(¬{B} v ¬{A}) -> {FL} fact3: ¬{E} -> ({B} & {D}) fact4: ¬{B} fact5: ({A} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{C}

This wound happens.

{FL}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This regenerating Pyralis happens. fact2: If that this wishing Kenyata does not occurs and/or this regenerating Pyralis does not occurs is incorrect this wound happens. fact3: That this wishing Kenyata and this dairying occurs is correct if that basidiomycetousness does not happens. fact4: The fact that this wishing Kenyata happens is incorrect. fact5: That that lastness does not occurs is caused by that this regenerating Pyralis occurs and this wishing Kenyata does not occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = That lastness occurs. ; $proof$ =

fact1 & fact4 -> int1: This regenerating Pyralis but notthis wishing Kenyata occurs.; int1 & fact5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That this shrublet is a kind of a Borneo is correct.

{C}{b}

fact1: If the fact that this Father is a Borneo but this is not a kind of a Superior is incorrect then this shrublet does not decamp flavour. fact2: If this Father is a Superior and/or is not mousy then this shrublet is a kind of a Superior. fact3: That this shrublet is a Superior but not a Borneo is incorrect. fact4: this flavour decamps Father. fact5: The ironmonger decamps flavour but it does not determine. fact6: The fact that someone does not decamp flavour and it is not a Borneo is false if it is a kind of a Superior. fact7: Either something is a Superior or it is not mousy or both if the fact that it is a Zimbabwe hold. fact8: If that this Father is a Superior and does not decamp flavour is incorrect then this shrublet is not a Borneo. fact9: This shrublet is not a Borneo if this Father is not a Superior. fact10: If this Bartlett is deconstructionist then the fact that this Sarafem is deconstructionist is right. fact11: This shrublet is not bubaline if that this Father is a kind of a mineralogy but it is not a Borneo is false. fact12: This shrublet saddles diploma but this person is not unpleasant. fact13: This Bartlett lines and it is a kind of a steadied. fact14: This Father is not nonlinear. fact15: This Father decamps flavour. fact16: If the fact that this shrublet is a Borneo and does not decamp flavour is incorrect then this Father is not a kind of a Superior. fact17: The fact that either this tanka is not monatomic or it is not a Zimbabwe or both is correct if this Sarafem is deconstructionist. fact18: If that something does not decamp flavour and is not a Borneo does not hold it is a kind of a Borneo. fact19: If that this Father is a Superior but that thing is not a kind of a Borneo is wrong then this shrublet does not decamp flavour. fact20: Someone is deconstructionist if it does line.

fact1: ¬({C}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} fact2: ({A}{a} v ¬{D}{a}) -> {A}{b} fact3: ¬({A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) fact4: {AB}{ab} fact5: ({B}{dr} & ¬{BI}{dr}) fact6: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) fact7: (x): {E}x -> ({A}x v ¬{D}x) fact8: ¬({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} fact9: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{C}{b} fact10: {G}{e} -> {G}{d} fact11: ¬({DF}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{CB}{b} fact12: ({DJ}{b} & ¬{CQ}{b}) fact13: ({H}{e} & {I}{e}) fact14: ¬{ET}{a} fact15: {B}{a} fact16: ¬({C}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a} fact17: {G}{d} -> (¬{F}{c} v ¬{E}{c}) fact18: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) -> {C}x fact19: ¬({A}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} fact20: (x): {H}x -> {G}x

That this shrublet is a kind of a Borneo is correct.

{C}{b}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If the fact that this Father is a Borneo but this is not a kind of a Superior is incorrect then this shrublet does not decamp flavour. fact2: If this Father is a Superior and/or is not mousy then this shrublet is a kind of a Superior. fact3: That this shrublet is a Superior but not a Borneo is incorrect. fact4: this flavour decamps Father. fact5: The ironmonger decamps flavour but it does not determine. fact6: The fact that someone does not decamp flavour and it is not a Borneo is false if it is a kind of a Superior. fact7: Either something is a Superior or it is not mousy or both if the fact that it is a Zimbabwe hold. fact8: If that this Father is a Superior and does not decamp flavour is incorrect then this shrublet is not a Borneo. fact9: This shrublet is not a Borneo if this Father is not a Superior. fact10: If this Bartlett is deconstructionist then the fact that this Sarafem is deconstructionist is right. fact11: This shrublet is not bubaline if that this Father is a kind of a mineralogy but it is not a Borneo is false. fact12: This shrublet saddles diploma but this person is not unpleasant. fact13: This Bartlett lines and it is a kind of a steadied. fact14: This Father is not nonlinear. fact15: This Father decamps flavour. fact16: If the fact that this shrublet is a Borneo and does not decamp flavour is incorrect then this Father is not a kind of a Superior. fact17: The fact that either this tanka is not monatomic or it is not a Zimbabwe or both is correct if this Sarafem is deconstructionist. fact18: If that something does not decamp flavour and is not a Borneo does not hold it is a kind of a Borneo. fact19: If that this Father is a Superior but that thing is not a kind of a Borneo is wrong then this shrublet does not decamp flavour. fact20: Someone is deconstructionist if it does line. ; $hypothesis$ = That this shrublet is a kind of a Borneo is correct. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that this Father is a kind of a Superior and does not decamp flavour.; assump1 -> int1: This Father does not decamp flavour.; int1 & fact15 -> int2: This is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: The fact that this Father is a Superior but that thing does not decamp flavour is incorrect.; int3 & fact8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That that this derailment does not occurs is caused by this known does not hold.

¬({A} -> ¬{C})

fact1: That pitching famishment does not happens. fact2: This known prevents that this derailment does not occurs. fact3: That that this known occurs but that pitching famishment does not occurs triggers that this derailment does not happens is not wrong.

fact1: ¬{B} fact2: {A} -> {C} fact3: ({A} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{C}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$facts$ = fact1: That pitching famishment does not happens. fact2: This known prevents that this derailment does not occurs. fact3: That that this known occurs but that pitching famishment does not occurs triggers that this derailment does not happens is not wrong. ; $hypothesis$ = That that this derailment does not occurs is caused by this known does not hold. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that this known happens.; assump1 & fact1 -> int1: This known happens but that pitching famishment does not happens.; int1 & fact3 -> int2: This derailment does not happens.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That bistre is allometric but she/he is not undocumented.

({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

fact1: If that bistre does knuckle Mylitta then that the boyfriend is a kind of a Polynesian that does not glamourise Lampris does not hold. fact2: That bistre does not knuckle Mylitta. fact3: That if the fact that some person is visceral and is a Tyrannidae is not true it is visceral hold. fact4: The fact that some person is visceral and the one is a kind of a Tyrannidae is wrong if the one is not a kind of a Youngstown. fact5: that Mylitta does not knuckle bistre. fact6: The fact that that cysteine knuckles Mylitta but it does not trademark phytology is false. fact7: That emesis either subs Rhinoptera or is collegiate or both if that spokesperson is not visceral. fact8: The fact that that bistre is both allometric and not undocumented does not hold if that bistre does not knuckle Mylitta.

fact1: {A}{a} -> ¬({HF}{do} & ¬{IL}{do}) fact2: ¬{A}{a} fact3: (x): ¬({D}x & {E}x) -> ¬{D}x fact4: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬({D}x & {E}x) fact5: ¬{AC}{aa} fact6: ¬({A}{fj} & ¬{AE}{fj}) fact7: ¬{D}{c} -> ({C}{b} v {B}{b}) fact8: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

That the fact that the boyfriend is a Polynesian but it does not glamourise Lampris does not hold is true.

¬({HF}{do} & ¬{IL}{do})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If that bistre does knuckle Mylitta then that the boyfriend is a kind of a Polynesian that does not glamourise Lampris does not hold. fact2: That bistre does not knuckle Mylitta. fact3: That if the fact that some person is visceral and is a Tyrannidae is not true it is visceral hold. fact4: The fact that some person is visceral and the one is a kind of a Tyrannidae is wrong if the one is not a kind of a Youngstown. fact5: that Mylitta does not knuckle bistre. fact6: The fact that that cysteine knuckles Mylitta but it does not trademark phytology is false. fact7: That emesis either subs Rhinoptera or is collegiate or both if that spokesperson is not visceral. fact8: The fact that that bistre is both allometric and not undocumented does not hold if that bistre does not knuckle Mylitta. ; $hypothesis$ = That bistre is allometric but she/he is not undocumented. ; $proof$ =

fact8 & fact2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

The fact that both that ultrasound and the arming happens does not hold.

¬({A} & {C})

fact1: The wrenching shortcoming occurs. fact2: The arming occurs. fact3: That sass occurs. fact4: That ultrasound occurs and the wrenching shortcoming happens.

fact1: {B} fact2: {C} fact3: {GJ} fact4: ({A} & {B})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$facts$ = fact1: The wrenching shortcoming occurs. fact2: The arming occurs. fact3: That sass occurs. fact4: That ultrasound occurs and the wrenching shortcoming happens. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that both that ultrasound and the arming happens does not hold. ; $proof$ =

fact4 -> int1: That ultrasound happens.; int1 & fact2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That pasteurising Scutigerella does not occurs.

¬{A}

fact1: That pasteurising Scutigerella occurs. fact2: The fact that that pasteurising Scutigerella does not occurs if the fact that both this focusing extroversion and that pasteurising Scutigerella happens is false is true. fact3: The exploiting colorlessness happens. fact4: The retaining and that pasteurising Scutigerella happens if this fuming does not happens. fact5: That this focusing extroversion and that pasteurising Scutigerella occurs does not hold if this fuming does not occurs. fact6: This fuming does not occurs and that papering does not happens if that skirting Pharomacrus does not occurs. fact7: That both that pasteurising Scutigerella and this optative happens is triggered by that this fuming does not happens. fact8: That this fuming does not occurs and this focusing extroversion does not happens is brought about by that that papering does not occurs.

fact1: {A} fact2: ¬({C} & {A}) -> ¬{A} fact3: {EC} fact4: ¬{B} -> ({BD} & {A}) fact5: ¬{B} -> ¬({C} & {A}) fact6: ¬{E} -> (¬{B} & ¬{D}) fact7: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {DF}) fact8: ¬{D} -> (¬{B} & ¬{C})

This optative occurs.

{DF}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That pasteurising Scutigerella occurs. fact2: The fact that that pasteurising Scutigerella does not occurs if the fact that both this focusing extroversion and that pasteurising Scutigerella happens is false is true. fact3: The exploiting colorlessness happens. fact4: The retaining and that pasteurising Scutigerella happens if this fuming does not happens. fact5: That this focusing extroversion and that pasteurising Scutigerella occurs does not hold if this fuming does not occurs. fact6: This fuming does not occurs and that papering does not happens if that skirting Pharomacrus does not occurs. fact7: That both that pasteurising Scutigerella and this optative happens is triggered by that this fuming does not happens. fact8: That this fuming does not occurs and this focusing extroversion does not happens is brought about by that that papering does not occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = That pasteurising Scutigerella does not occurs. ; $proof$ =

fact1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

This dag unveils.

{B}{a}

fact1: Some person unveils if that she/he fosters paracosm or she/he is not a kind of a ametropia or both is wrong. fact2: If some person is a MKO it does not unveil and is not nonretractile. fact3: This dag is nonretractile. fact4: That if this dag is nonretractile that this dag does not foster paracosm is correct is not false. fact5: If Valentin is not a domestic then that zooplankton is not a kind of a domestic. fact6: This dag does not foster paracosm. fact7: If that Valentin is non-plumbous but it is a Erythroxylaceae does not hold then Valentin is not a domestic. fact8: If this dag is nonretractile then that it does foster paracosm and/or it is not a kind of a ametropia does not hold. fact9: The fact that Valentin is non-plumbous thing that is a Erythroxylaceae does not hold if it is not indigestible. fact10: If that zooplankton does not unveil this dag does not unveil. fact11: If someone is not a domestic then that it is both a MKO and a salmonellosis hold.

fact1: (x): ¬({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x fact2: (x): {C}x -> (¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) fact3: {A}{a} fact4: {A}{a} -> ¬{AA}{a} fact5: ¬{E}{c} -> ¬{E}{b} fact6: ¬{AA}{a} fact7: ¬(¬{G}{c} & {F}{c}) -> ¬{E}{c} fact8: {A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) fact9: {H}{c} -> ¬(¬{G}{c} & {F}{c}) fact10: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬{B}{a} fact11: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({C}x & {D}x)

This dag does not unveil.

¬{B}{a}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: Some person unveils if that she/he fosters paracosm or she/he is not a kind of a ametropia or both is wrong. fact2: If some person is a MKO it does not unveil and is not nonretractile. fact3: This dag is nonretractile. fact4: That if this dag is nonretractile that this dag does not foster paracosm is correct is not false. fact5: If Valentin is not a domestic then that zooplankton is not a kind of a domestic. fact6: This dag does not foster paracosm. fact7: If that Valentin is non-plumbous but it is a Erythroxylaceae does not hold then Valentin is not a domestic. fact8: If this dag is nonretractile then that it does foster paracosm and/or it is not a kind of a ametropia does not hold. fact9: The fact that Valentin is non-plumbous thing that is a Erythroxylaceae does not hold if it is not indigestible. fact10: If that zooplankton does not unveil this dag does not unveil. fact11: If someone is not a domestic then that it is both a MKO and a salmonellosis hold. ; $hypothesis$ = This dag unveils. ; $proof$ =

fact8 & fact3 -> int1: The fact that this dag fosters paracosm and/or is not a ametropia is incorrect.; fact1 -> int2: This dag unveils if the fact that this fosters paracosm and/or is not a kind of a ametropia does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

This reboxetine dangles Pydna.

{B}{aa}

fact1: If something is not atonic it showers tint and it tautens unlikelihood. fact2: This reboxetine is not a trainload. fact3: The fact that some man is a Krupp hold if the fact that it is not an exponential and it is not a Krupp is incorrect. fact4: If something is a Krupp it is a kind of precocious thing that does not dangle Pydna. fact5: Something dangles Pydna if that thing is a trainload that walks. fact6: If some person is not a trainload but she/he walks then she/he dangles Pydna. fact7: This reboxetine dangles Pydna if this reboxetine is a trainload and it walks. fact8: This reboxetine is not a trainload if it is precocious. fact9: This reboxetine does not dangle Pydna if that Plasticine is precocious thing that does not dangle Pydna. fact10: Some man is not a casting and incapacitates Hevesy if the fact that he/she is a trainload is true. fact11: If this reboxetine is precocious that person is not a trainload and walks. fact12: The fact that something is not an exponential and is not a Krupp is false if it does shower tint. fact13: This reboxetine is not non-precocious.

fact1: (x): ¬{G}x -> ({E}x & {F}x) fact2: ¬{AA}{aa} fact3: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{C}x) -> {C}x fact4: (x): {C}x -> ({A}x & ¬{B}x) fact5: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x fact6: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x fact7: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} fact8: {A}{aa} -> ¬{AA}{aa} fact9: ({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{B}{aa} fact10: (x): {AA}x -> (¬{HH}x & {GS}x) fact11: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) fact12: (x): {E}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{C}x) fact13: {A}{aa}

This reboxetine does not dangle Pydna.

¬{B}{aa}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If something is not atonic it showers tint and it tautens unlikelihood. fact2: This reboxetine is not a trainload. fact3: The fact that some man is a Krupp hold if the fact that it is not an exponential and it is not a Krupp is incorrect. fact4: If something is a Krupp it is a kind of precocious thing that does not dangle Pydna. fact5: Something dangles Pydna if that thing is a trainload that walks. fact6: If some person is not a trainload but she/he walks then she/he dangles Pydna. fact7: This reboxetine dangles Pydna if this reboxetine is a trainload and it walks. fact8: This reboxetine is not a trainload if it is precocious. fact9: This reboxetine does not dangle Pydna if that Plasticine is precocious thing that does not dangle Pydna. fact10: Some man is not a casting and incapacitates Hevesy if the fact that he/she is a trainload is true. fact11: If this reboxetine is precocious that person is not a trainload and walks. fact12: The fact that something is not an exponential and is not a Krupp is false if it does shower tint. fact13: This reboxetine is not non-precocious. ; $hypothesis$ = This reboxetine dangles Pydna. ; $proof$ =

fact6 -> int1: If this reboxetine is not a trainload but it walks then it does dangle Pydna.; fact13 & fact11 -> int2: This reboxetine is not a trainload and walks.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

The fact that that mavin redefines resolving and it is a fizzing does not hold.

¬({C}{b} & {D}{b})

fact1: This silt does not smooth obduracy. fact2: If this adumbration is not a eolithic then that mavin smooths obduracy. fact3: If this adumbration is a Silverstein but not a majors this spoonbill does not redefine resolving. fact4: If this spoonbill does smooth obduracy that mavin is a Silverstein. fact5: If someone is citrous she/he is a eolithic. fact6: This adumbration is a kind of a fizzing if that mavin is a eolithic. fact7: That mavin smooths obduracy and that is a fizzing if this adumbration is not a eolithic. fact8: This adumbration is a kind of a majors. fact9: If this spoonbill is a Silverstein the fact that that mavin is a kind of a majors is not false. fact10: If something is a majors then it redefines resolving. fact11: That mavin smooths obduracy. fact12: If something is a kind of a eolithic then it is a fizzing. fact13: This adumbration is not a eolithic. fact14: If the fact that this spoonbill is not a kind of a fizzing is correct then this silt redefines resolving and is not a majors. fact15: This spoonbill is a Silverstein. fact16: If someone redefines resolving and is not a majors it is acapnial. fact17: If that mavin is not a kind of a eolithic this spoonbill is not a fizzing. fact18: If this jackhammer is a eolithic then this adumbration smooths obduracy. fact19: That mavin nudges tedium and it is a Silverstein. fact20: Something milks hypovolemia and it is a Silverstein if it does not smooth obduracy.

fact1: ¬{E}{fa} fact2: ¬{F}{c} -> {E}{b} fact3: ({A}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) -> ¬{C}{a} fact4: {E}{a} -> {A}{b} fact5: (x): {G}x -> {F}x fact6: {F}{b} -> {D}{c} fact7: ¬{F}{c} -> ({E}{b} & {D}{b}) fact8: {B}{c} fact9: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} fact10: (x): {B}x -> {C}x fact11: {E}{b} fact12: (x): {F}x -> {D}x fact13: ¬{F}{c} fact14: ¬{D}{a} -> ({C}{fa} & ¬{B}{fa}) fact15: {A}{a} fact16: (x): ({C}x & ¬{B}x) -> {DD}x fact17: ¬{F}{b} -> ¬{D}{a} fact18: {F}{d} -> {E}{c} fact19: ({HK}{b} & {A}{b}) fact20: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({DU}x & {A}x)

The fact that that mavin redefines resolving and it is a fizzing does not hold.

¬({C}{b} & {D}{b})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This silt does not smooth obduracy. fact2: If this adumbration is not a eolithic then that mavin smooths obduracy. fact3: If this adumbration is a Silverstein but not a majors this spoonbill does not redefine resolving. fact4: If this spoonbill does smooth obduracy that mavin is a Silverstein. fact5: If someone is citrous she/he is a eolithic. fact6: This adumbration is a kind of a fizzing if that mavin is a eolithic. fact7: That mavin smooths obduracy and that is a fizzing if this adumbration is not a eolithic. fact8: This adumbration is a kind of a majors. fact9: If this spoonbill is a Silverstein the fact that that mavin is a kind of a majors is not false. fact10: If something is a majors then it redefines resolving. fact11: That mavin smooths obduracy. fact12: If something is a kind of a eolithic then it is a fizzing. fact13: This adumbration is not a eolithic. fact14: If the fact that this spoonbill is not a kind of a fizzing is correct then this silt redefines resolving and is not a majors. fact15: This spoonbill is a Silverstein. fact16: If someone redefines resolving and is not a majors it is acapnial. fact17: If that mavin is not a kind of a eolithic this spoonbill is not a fizzing. fact18: If this jackhammer is a eolithic then this adumbration smooths obduracy. fact19: That mavin nudges tedium and it is a Silverstein. fact20: Something milks hypovolemia and it is a Silverstein if it does not smooth obduracy. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that that mavin redefines resolving and it is a fizzing does not hold. ; $proof$ =

fact9 & fact15 -> int1: That that mavin is a kind of a majors hold.; fact10 -> int2: If that mavin is a majors the one redefines resolving.; int1 & int2 -> int3: That mavin redefines resolving.; fact7 & fact13 -> int4: That mavin smooths obduracy and it is a fizzing.; int4 -> int5: That mavin is a fizzing.; int3 & int5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

This sloping does not occurs but this outlet happens.

(¬{AA} & {AB})

fact1: The fact that that exportation does not occurs but this African happens does not hold. fact2: That this sloping occurs and this outlet happens is wrong if that spoiling does not happens. fact3: That the fact that notthe jumbling Urania but the Audenesqueness happens hold does not hold if that bash does not occurs. fact4: That both this sloping and this outlet occurs is wrong. fact5: That this non-Hassidicness and this apogamousness happens is incorrect if the fact that this rupicolousness does not occurs is true. fact6: That the overturn does not happens and this postwarness happens is wrong if the despoiling does not occurs. fact7: That that the wager does not occurs but the extenuation occurs is incorrect is right. fact8: If this mimicry does not happens then that notthe autoclaving Chronoperates but the thrilling beatitude happens is not true. fact9: That spoiling does not occurs. fact10: That liquefying does not occurs. fact11: If this postwarness does not occurs then that that Hassidicness does not happens and that hypnopedia occurs is wrong.

fact1: ¬(¬{EA} & {CM}) fact2: ¬{A} -> ¬({AA} & {AB}) fact3: ¬{HP} -> ¬(¬{CK} & {JJ}) fact4: ¬({AA} & {AB}) fact5: ¬{BA} -> ¬(¬{DM} & {CA}) fact6: ¬{DF} -> ¬(¬{HQ} & {CQ}) fact7: ¬(¬{FQ} & {O}) fact8: ¬{BC} -> ¬(¬{EI} & {FA}) fact9: ¬{A} fact10: ¬{CD} fact11: ¬{CQ} -> ¬(¬{DM} & {IO})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: The fact that that exportation does not occurs but this African happens does not hold. fact2: That this sloping occurs and this outlet happens is wrong if that spoiling does not happens. fact3: That the fact that notthe jumbling Urania but the Audenesqueness happens hold does not hold if that bash does not occurs. fact4: That both this sloping and this outlet occurs is wrong. fact5: That this non-Hassidicness and this apogamousness happens is incorrect if the fact that this rupicolousness does not occurs is true. fact6: That the overturn does not happens and this postwarness happens is wrong if the despoiling does not occurs. fact7: That that the wager does not occurs but the extenuation occurs is incorrect is right. fact8: If this mimicry does not happens then that notthe autoclaving Chronoperates but the thrilling beatitude happens is not true. fact9: That spoiling does not occurs. fact10: That liquefying does not occurs. fact11: If this postwarness does not occurs then that that Hassidicness does not happens and that hypnopedia occurs is wrong. ; $hypothesis$ = This sloping does not occurs but this outlet happens. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

The fact that there exists something such that if that it is patristical and it is not a glitz is false it is not a plaudit does not hold.

¬((Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x)

fact1: There exists someone such that if it is not patristical then it is not a plaudit. fact2: Something that is not patristical is not a plaudit. fact3: That there is something such that if that the thing is a burnished but not antediluvial is wrong the thing does not bulge ululation is correct. fact4: This labdanum is not a molar if that this labdanum is a wanness but it is not a rho is false. fact5: If the fact that some person is a Balistidae and not a ruined is false then it is non-patristical. fact6: If the fact that somebody enjoys osteoblastoma and she/he is a Musial is incorrect then she/he is not amenorrhoeic. fact7: If the fact that some man is patristical and is not a kind of a glitz does not hold then that it is a plaudit is true. fact8: That ironwork is not a plaudit if the fact that the one is both patristical and a glitz does not hold. fact9: There is somebody such that if that the one is patristical and is a glitz is false the one is not a plaudit. fact10: If the fact that that ironwork is not patristical is correct that ironwork is not a plaudit. fact11: That ironwork is not a plaudit if that ironwork is patristical one that is not a kind of a glitz. fact12: If somebody is patristical but it is not a glitz it is not a plaudit. fact13: If the fact that that that ironwork is patristical but this one is not a glitz is false is right then this one is a plaudit. fact14: There exists something such that if that it is patristical and it is not a glitz is wrong it is a plaudit.

fact1: (Ex): ¬{AA}x -> ¬{B}x fact2: (x): ¬{AA}x -> ¬{B}x fact3: (Ex): ¬({BD}x & ¬{CK}x) -> ¬{CB}x fact4: ¬({JE}{fe} & ¬{G}{fe}) -> ¬{EO}{fe} fact5: (x): ¬({HN}x & ¬{DJ}x) -> ¬{AA}x fact6: (x): ¬({FT}x & {AH}x) -> ¬{DD}x fact7: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x fact8: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} fact9: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x fact10: ¬{AA}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} fact11: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} fact12: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x fact13: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} fact14: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x

The fact that this verdure is not patristical if the fact that this verdure is a Balistidae and is not a ruined is false is true.

¬({HN}{es} & ¬{DJ}{es}) -> ¬{AA}{es}

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

$facts$ = fact1: There exists someone such that if it is not patristical then it is not a plaudit. fact2: Something that is not patristical is not a plaudit. fact3: That there is something such that if that the thing is a burnished but not antediluvial is wrong the thing does not bulge ululation is correct. fact4: This labdanum is not a molar if that this labdanum is a wanness but it is not a rho is false. fact5: If the fact that some person is a Balistidae and not a ruined is false then it is non-patristical. fact6: If the fact that somebody enjoys osteoblastoma and she/he is a Musial is incorrect then she/he is not amenorrhoeic. fact7: If the fact that some man is patristical and is not a kind of a glitz does not hold then that it is a plaudit is true. fact8: That ironwork is not a plaudit if the fact that the one is both patristical and a glitz does not hold. fact9: There is somebody such that if that the one is patristical and is a glitz is false the one is not a plaudit. fact10: If the fact that that ironwork is not patristical is correct that ironwork is not a plaudit. fact11: That ironwork is not a plaudit if that ironwork is patristical one that is not a kind of a glitz. fact12: If somebody is patristical but it is not a glitz it is not a plaudit. fact13: If the fact that that that ironwork is patristical but this one is not a glitz is false is right then this one is a plaudit. fact14: There exists something such that if that it is patristical and it is not a glitz is wrong it is a plaudit. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that there exists something such that if that it is patristical and it is not a glitz is false it is not a plaudit does not hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That spark is a polyhedron.

{B}{b}

fact1: That spark is a polyhedron if that Rachelle is southern hold. fact2: Some man is not polyphonic if that it is not a kind of a dictum and is a GSA is not correct. fact3: That spark is not a polyhedron if Rachelle is an emotion. fact4: If the fact that Rachelle is not an emotion and drubs is incorrect that spark is not a polyhedron. fact5: If the fact that something is a kind of undemocratic thing that is not areolar does not hold then it is not undemocratic. fact6: The fact that Rachelle is a kind of an emotion and drubs does not hold. fact7: The fact that the fact that that tarp is not a dictum and is a GSA is right does not hold if that is not undemocratic. fact8: That Rachelle is not a kind of an emotion but it drubs is not true.

fact1: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} fact2: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & {D}x) -> ¬{C}x fact3: {AA}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} fact4: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} fact5: (x): ¬({F}x & ¬{H}x) -> ¬{F}x fact6: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) fact7: ¬{F}{c} -> ¬(¬{E}{c} & {D}{c}) fact8: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})

That spark is a polyhedron.

{B}{b}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That spark is a polyhedron if that Rachelle is southern hold. fact2: Some man is not polyphonic if that it is not a kind of a dictum and is a GSA is not correct. fact3: That spark is not a polyhedron if Rachelle is an emotion. fact4: If the fact that Rachelle is not an emotion and drubs is incorrect that spark is not a polyhedron. fact5: If the fact that something is a kind of undemocratic thing that is not areolar does not hold then it is not undemocratic. fact6: The fact that Rachelle is a kind of an emotion and drubs does not hold. fact7: The fact that the fact that that tarp is not a dictum and is a GSA is right does not hold if that is not undemocratic. fact8: That Rachelle is not a kind of an emotion but it drubs is not true. ; $hypothesis$ = That spark is a polyhedron. ; $proof$ =

fact4 & fact8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That course occurs.

{C}

fact1: That unlistedness occurs. fact2: If this expelling Lammastide and that unlistedness happens that course does not occurs. fact3: This expelling Lammastide occurs.

fact1: {B} fact2: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} fact3: {A}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$facts$ = fact1: That unlistedness occurs. fact2: If this expelling Lammastide and that unlistedness happens that course does not occurs. fact3: This expelling Lammastide occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = That course occurs. ; $proof$ =

fact3 & fact1 -> int1: This expelling Lammastide occurs and that unlistedness occurs.; int1 & fact2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

This schlep occurs.

{E}

fact1: That osteopathy happens or that mitzvah occurs or both. fact2: That mitzvah does not occurs or that osteopathy does not happens or both if this thromboembolism does not occurs. fact3: This schlep is prevented by either that tolerating wheeled or this thromboembolism or both. fact4: If that osteopathy occurs then this thromboembolism occurs. fact5: That that mitzvah happens yields this thromboembolism. fact6: That that mitzvah does not occurs is brought about by that that mitzvah does not happens and/or that this thromboembolism happens.

fact1: ({A} v {B}) fact2: ¬{C} -> (¬{B} v ¬{A}) fact3: ({D} v {C}) -> ¬{E} fact4: {A} -> {C} fact5: {B} -> {C} fact6: (¬{B} v {C}) -> ¬{B}

That belaying Cyon does not occurs.

¬{K}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That osteopathy happens or that mitzvah occurs or both. fact2: That mitzvah does not occurs or that osteopathy does not happens or both if this thromboembolism does not occurs. fact3: This schlep is prevented by either that tolerating wheeled or this thromboembolism or both. fact4: If that osteopathy occurs then this thromboembolism occurs. fact5: That that mitzvah happens yields this thromboembolism. fact6: That that mitzvah does not occurs is brought about by that that mitzvah does not happens and/or that this thromboembolism happens. ; $hypothesis$ = This schlep occurs. ; $proof$ =

fact1 & fact4 & fact5 -> int1: This thromboembolism happens.; int1 -> int2: That tolerating wheeled or this thromboembolism or both occurs.; int2 & fact3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

This center does not happens.

¬{A}

fact1: This spideriness does not occurs. fact2: That that unsusceptibleness happens but the compacting Pritzelago does not occurs is triggered by that that curtailment does not occurs. fact3: That that redeployment happens leads to that this Hindooness does not occurs and this sunrise does not happens. fact4: This overlordship occurs if this center happens. fact5: If that unsusceptibleness but notthe compacting Pritzelago occurs then that uninquisitiveness does not occurs. fact6: The fact that this overlordship does not happens is correct if this porting zest does not occurs. fact7: That that uniovularness happens yields that the aerobicness occurs. fact8: That this porting zest does not happens and/or that spiel prevents that this overlordship occurs. fact9: That that spiel does not happens is triggered by that that uninquisitiveness does not happens. fact10: This porting zest and/or that spiel happens. fact11: That that spiel does not happens and this Hindooness does not happens results in that this porting zest does not occurs. fact12: If the bewitching does not happens then that both this Hebraicalness and that non-albinisticness occurs is wrong. fact13: This center happens and this overlordship occurs if that this porting zest does not occurs is true. fact14: This porting zest does not happens and/or that spiel occurs. fact15: The bewitching does not happens if the gobbling does not occurs. fact16: The changeover is triggered by that that communization occurs. fact17: That curtailment does not happens if that both this Hebraicalness and that non-albinisticness occurs is false. fact18: This compounding happens if that this hawking happens hold.

fact1: ¬{GU} fact2: ¬{K} -> ({J} & ¬{I}) fact3: {H} -> (¬{E} & ¬{G}) fact4: {A} -> {B} fact5: ({J} & ¬{I}) -> ¬{F} fact6: ¬{C} -> ¬{B} fact7: {IQ} -> {DN} fact8: (¬{C} v {D}) -> ¬{B} fact9: ¬{F} -> ¬{D} fact10: ({C} v {D}) fact11: (¬{D} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{C} fact12: ¬{O} -> ¬({M} & ¬{L}) fact13: ¬{C} -> ({A} & {B}) fact14: (¬{C} v {D}) fact15: ¬{P} -> ¬{O} fact16: {JF} -> {GM} fact17: ¬({M} & ¬{L}) -> ¬{K} fact18: {FR} -> {HQ}

Let's assume that this center happens.

{A}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This spideriness does not occurs. fact2: That that unsusceptibleness happens but the compacting Pritzelago does not occurs is triggered by that that curtailment does not occurs. fact3: That that redeployment happens leads to that this Hindooness does not occurs and this sunrise does not happens. fact4: This overlordship occurs if this center happens. fact5: If that unsusceptibleness but notthe compacting Pritzelago occurs then that uninquisitiveness does not occurs. fact6: The fact that this overlordship does not happens is correct if this porting zest does not occurs. fact7: That that uniovularness happens yields that the aerobicness occurs. fact8: That this porting zest does not happens and/or that spiel prevents that this overlordship occurs. fact9: That that spiel does not happens is triggered by that that uninquisitiveness does not happens. fact10: This porting zest and/or that spiel happens. fact11: That that spiel does not happens and this Hindooness does not happens results in that this porting zest does not occurs. fact12: If the bewitching does not happens then that both this Hebraicalness and that non-albinisticness occurs is wrong. fact13: This center happens and this overlordship occurs if that this porting zest does not occurs is true. fact14: This porting zest does not happens and/or that spiel occurs. fact15: The bewitching does not happens if the gobbling does not occurs. fact16: The changeover is triggered by that that communization occurs. fact17: That curtailment does not happens if that both this Hebraicalness and that non-albinisticness occurs is false. fact18: This compounding happens if that this hawking happens hold. ; $hypothesis$ = This center does not happens. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that this center happens.; fact4 & assump1 -> int1: This overlordship occurs.; fact14 & fact8 -> int2: This overlordship does not happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: This is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

The fact that there is something such that if it smarts Liberia then that it does not bestir Pertusaria and it unbalances Ler is not right is wrong.

¬((Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x))

fact1: Something that smarts Liberia does not bestir Pertusaria and unbalances Ler. fact2: If that relaxation smarts Liberia the fact that the thing does bestir Pertusaria and the thing unbalances Ler is wrong. fact3: If the andradite is multivalent that the andradite is a kind of righteous person that smarts Liberia is true. fact4: If that relaxation is cryogenic then that it is sisterly and it bestirs Pertusaria does not hold. fact5: A lockjaw is non-aoristic thing that is poetical. fact6: There exists something such that if it does smart Liberia then the fact that it bestirs Pertusaria and it unbalances Ler is false. fact7: If the pleurocarp does bestir Pertusaria then it is not glycogenic and it is a sociableness. fact8: That someone is not a lxxviii but that one clears is wrong if that one tiles Illimani. fact9: The fact that if something is radiotelephonic the fact that it is not a crabbedness and is unframed is not right is not wrong. fact10: If somebody smarts Liberia that it bestirs Pertusaria and unbalances Ler is wrong.

fact1: (x): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) fact2: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) fact3: {JJ}{dj} -> (¬{CB}{dj} & {A}{dj}) fact4: {BH}{aa} -> ¬({EH}{aa} & {AA}{aa}) fact5: (x): {JI}x -> (¬{FQ}x & {FJ}x) fact6: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) fact7: {AA}{es} -> (¬{DJ}{es} & {AG}{es}) fact8: (x): {EI}x -> ¬(¬{GN}x & {JG}x) fact9: (x): {GD}x -> ¬(¬{CQ}x & {GJ}x) fact10: (x): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x)

The fact that the pyroxene is not a crabbedness but it is unframed is false if that it is radiotelephonic is correct.

{GD}{ah} -> ¬(¬{CQ}{ah} & {GJ}{ah})

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

$facts$ = fact1: Something that smarts Liberia does not bestir Pertusaria and unbalances Ler. fact2: If that relaxation smarts Liberia the fact that the thing does bestir Pertusaria and the thing unbalances Ler is wrong. fact3: If the andradite is multivalent that the andradite is a kind of righteous person that smarts Liberia is true. fact4: If that relaxation is cryogenic then that it is sisterly and it bestirs Pertusaria does not hold. fact5: A lockjaw is non-aoristic thing that is poetical. fact6: There exists something such that if it does smart Liberia then the fact that it bestirs Pertusaria and it unbalances Ler is false. fact7: If the pleurocarp does bestir Pertusaria then it is not glycogenic and it is a sociableness. fact8: That someone is not a lxxviii but that one clears is wrong if that one tiles Illimani. fact9: The fact that if something is radiotelephonic the fact that it is not a crabbedness and is unframed is not right is not wrong. fact10: If somebody smarts Liberia that it bestirs Pertusaria and unbalances Ler is wrong. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that there is something such that if it smarts Liberia then that it does not bestir Pertusaria and it unbalances Ler is not right is wrong. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

The fact that that populating frothing does not happens but that anecdotalness happens does not hold.

¬(¬{AA} & {AB})

fact1: That populating frothing does not happens but that anecdotalness occurs. fact2: That the earthliness does not happens is right. fact3: Notthe reshipping but this securerness occurs.

fact1: (¬{AA} & {AB}) fact2: ¬{EG} fact3: (¬{FQ} & {AU})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$facts$ = fact1: That populating frothing does not happens but that anecdotalness occurs. fact2: That the earthliness does not happens is right. fact3: Notthe reshipping but this securerness occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that that populating frothing does not happens but that anecdotalness happens does not hold. ; $proof$ =

fact1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

Let's assume that the fact that that nitrochloroform does not garble italic and is not chalky is wrong.

¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

fact1: That that nitrochloroform is callithumpian one that is not a heterogeneity is false. fact2: If the fact that that axletree is not a kind of a wrapped and that is not a Hamsun does not hold then that axletree is not a Vulpecula. fact3: The fact that that nitrochloroform gelts specie but this is not ill is wrong. fact4: If that that nitrochloroform does not garble italic and that is not chalky does not hold then that is not ill. fact5: This cowrie is tinny. fact6: If this snaffle does garble italic then it is not a Taiwanese. fact7: That nitrochloroform clusters baldness. fact8: This cupcake does garble italic if this cupcake souses. fact9: That nitrochloroform does not dung KKK. fact10: That that nitrochloroform is a kind of non-ill one that does not shingle Goncourt is incorrect. fact11: That nitrochloroform is tinny. fact12: That nitrochloroform is not a interchangeableness if this one is catamenial. fact13: If that nitrochloroform is tinny that nitrochloroform is ill. fact14: If that nitrochloroform is ill then that does not braid aloha.

fact1: ¬({CE}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) fact2: ¬(¬{HR}{in} & ¬{HH}{in}) -> ¬{BM}{in} fact3: ¬({BB}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) fact4: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} fact5: {A}{gt} fact6: {AA}{dq} -> ¬{T}{dq} fact7: {FD}{a} fact8: {EU}{m} -> {AA}{m} fact9: ¬{JE}{a} fact10: ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{EM}{a}) fact11: {A}{a} fact12: {IB}{a} -> ¬{HG}{a} fact13: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} fact14: {B}{a} -> ¬{DP}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$facts$ = fact1: That that nitrochloroform is callithumpian one that is not a heterogeneity is false. fact2: If the fact that that axletree is not a kind of a wrapped and that is not a Hamsun does not hold then that axletree is not a Vulpecula. fact3: The fact that that nitrochloroform gelts specie but this is not ill is wrong. fact4: If that that nitrochloroform does not garble italic and that is not chalky does not hold then that is not ill. fact5: This cowrie is tinny. fact6: If this snaffle does garble italic then it is not a Taiwanese. fact7: That nitrochloroform clusters baldness. fact8: This cupcake does garble italic if this cupcake souses. fact9: That nitrochloroform does not dung KKK. fact10: That that nitrochloroform is a kind of non-ill one that does not shingle Goncourt is incorrect. fact11: That nitrochloroform is tinny. fact12: That nitrochloroform is not a interchangeableness if this one is catamenial. fact13: If that nitrochloroform is tinny that nitrochloroform is ill. fact14: If that nitrochloroform is ill then that does not braid aloha. ; $hypothesis$ = Let's assume that the fact that that nitrochloroform does not garble italic and is not chalky is wrong. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that that nitrochloroform does not garble italic and is not chalky is wrong.; fact4 & assump1 -> int1: That nitrochloroform is non-ill.; fact11 & fact13 -> int2: That nitrochloroform is ill.; int1 & int2 -> int3: This is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

This oil is not a loftiness and/or it is not a filtrate.

(¬{B}{b} v ¬{C}{b})

fact1: That this primer either reinforces bbl or is not a bashfulness or both is correct. fact2: That jobholder is not cytolytic. fact3: That this oil either is not a kind of a loftiness or is scentless or both is not right if that jobholder is not a Coluber. fact4: That this oil is not scentless or this person is a loftiness or both is not right if that jobholder is not a filtrate. fact5: This oil is not a Ezechiel. fact6: The fact that something is not a loftiness and/or it is not a filtrate does not hold if it is scentless. fact7: This oil is a Coluber. fact8: The fact that either this oil is a loftiness or the thing does not vilify biased or both is true. fact9: This oil is not last or it calipers MiB or both. fact10: This oil is not scentless. fact11: The fact that this oil is either not a Coluber or last or both is wrong if that jobholder is not scentless. fact12: Either that jobholder is not scentless or that is not a Turdidae or both. fact13: That protirelin does not fatigue Verner if the fact that this person either does not mercerise Bayes or doubles or both does not hold. fact14: This oil is not scentless and/or is not a filtrate. fact15: This oil is not a kind of a loftiness if the fact that this oil is a kind of a Coluber or it is last or both is incorrect. fact16: If that that jobholder is not a kind of a pronoun or it is a kind of a loftiness or both does not hold then that jobholder is not anagogic. fact17: Either this rattail is not a kind of a filtrate or it is not an enough or both. fact18: If this oil is not scentless then that jobholder is a filtrate. fact19: That jobholder is not scentless.

fact1: ({GD}{en} v ¬{BH}{en}) fact2: ¬{GM}{a} fact3: ¬{AA}{a} -> ¬(¬{B}{b} v {A}{b}) fact4: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬(¬{A}{b} v {B}{b}) fact5: ¬{H}{b} fact6: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{B}x v ¬{C}x) fact7: {AA}{b} fact8: ({B}{b} v ¬{EB}{b}) fact9: (¬{AB}{b} v {IH}{b}) fact10: ¬{A}{b} fact11: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} v {AB}{b}) fact12: (¬{A}{a} v ¬{BG}{a}) fact13: ¬(¬{BL}{ad} v {JG}{ad}) -> ¬{FS}{ad} fact14: (¬{A}{b} v ¬{C}{b}) fact15: ¬({AA}{b} v {AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{b} fact16: ¬(¬{ES}{a} v {B}{a}) -> ¬{DB}{a} fact17: (¬{C}{bg} v ¬{EO}{bg}) fact18: ¬{A}{b} -> {C}{a} fact19: ¬{A}{a}

The fact that this oil is not a loftiness or not a filtrate or both does not hold.

¬(¬{B}{b} v ¬{C}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That this primer either reinforces bbl or is not a bashfulness or both is correct. fact2: That jobholder is not cytolytic. fact3: That this oil either is not a kind of a loftiness or is scentless or both is not right if that jobholder is not a Coluber. fact4: That this oil is not scentless or this person is a loftiness or both is not right if that jobholder is not a filtrate. fact5: This oil is not a Ezechiel. fact6: The fact that something is not a loftiness and/or it is not a filtrate does not hold if it is scentless. fact7: This oil is a Coluber. fact8: The fact that either this oil is a loftiness or the thing does not vilify biased or both is true. fact9: This oil is not last or it calipers MiB or both. fact10: This oil is not scentless. fact11: The fact that this oil is either not a Coluber or last or both is wrong if that jobholder is not scentless. fact12: Either that jobholder is not scentless or that is not a Turdidae or both. fact13: That protirelin does not fatigue Verner if the fact that this person either does not mercerise Bayes or doubles or both does not hold. fact14: This oil is not scentless and/or is not a filtrate. fact15: This oil is not a kind of a loftiness if the fact that this oil is a kind of a Coluber or it is last or both is incorrect. fact16: If that that jobholder is not a kind of a pronoun or it is a kind of a loftiness or both does not hold then that jobholder is not anagogic. fact17: Either this rattail is not a kind of a filtrate or it is not an enough or both. fact18: If this oil is not scentless then that jobholder is a filtrate. fact19: That jobholder is not scentless. ; $hypothesis$ = This oil is not a loftiness and/or it is not a filtrate. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That jawlessness occurs.

{C}

fact1: This bleeding does not occurs and/or that hyaloplasmicness does not happens if this approaching planeness does not happens. fact2: That jawlessness does not happens if the fact that that foraging Stalino does not happens is false. fact3: If the fact that this proofing Nestorius does not occurs is true then the fact that this clipping stymy but notthat jawlessness happens is false. fact4: That that eremiticness does not happens yields that the backhandness does not happens and that foraging Stalino does not happens. fact5: Either that this bleeding does not happens or this non-hyaloplasmicness or both prevents that this non-hyaloplasmic happens. fact6: The remounting Saigon occurs. fact7: The lurking Microstrobos is prevented by that this epidermalness or the waterproofing or both occurs. fact8: This approaching planeness does not happens if this tort occurs and that wrinklelessness does not occurs. fact9: That both this non-Shakespearianness and this proofing Nestorius occurs is wrong if that hyaloplasmicness does not happens. fact10: If the fact that this non-Shakespearianness and this proofing Nestorius happens is incorrect then this proofing Nestorius does not happens. fact11: That that jawlessness happens is prevented by that foraging Stalino and/or that that eremiticness occurs. fact12: That eremiticness does not happens if the fact that that eremiticness occurs and this clipping stymy does not happens does not hold. fact13: That that eremiticness but notthis clipping stymy happens is wrong if this proofing Nestorius happens.

fact1: ¬{H} -> (¬{I} v ¬{F}) fact2: {A} -> ¬{C} fact3: ¬{E} -> ¬({D} & ¬{C}) fact4: ¬{B} -> (¬{GC} & ¬{A}) fact5: (¬{I} v ¬{F}) -> ¬{F} fact6: {JD} fact7: ({JB} v {BI}) -> ¬{IJ} fact8: ({J} & ¬{K}) -> ¬{H} fact9: ¬{F} -> ¬(¬{G} & {E}) fact10: ¬(¬{G} & {E}) -> ¬{E} fact11: ({A} v {B}) -> ¬{C} fact12: ¬({B} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{B} fact13: {E} -> ¬({B} & ¬{D})

That jawlessness occurs.

{C}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This bleeding does not occurs and/or that hyaloplasmicness does not happens if this approaching planeness does not happens. fact2: That jawlessness does not happens if the fact that that foraging Stalino does not happens is false. fact3: If the fact that this proofing Nestorius does not occurs is true then the fact that this clipping stymy but notthat jawlessness happens is false. fact4: That that eremiticness does not happens yields that the backhandness does not happens and that foraging Stalino does not happens. fact5: Either that this bleeding does not happens or this non-hyaloplasmicness or both prevents that this non-hyaloplasmic happens. fact6: The remounting Saigon occurs. fact7: The lurking Microstrobos is prevented by that this epidermalness or the waterproofing or both occurs. fact8: This approaching planeness does not happens if this tort occurs and that wrinklelessness does not occurs. fact9: That both this non-Shakespearianness and this proofing Nestorius occurs is wrong if that hyaloplasmicness does not happens. fact10: If the fact that this non-Shakespearianness and this proofing Nestorius happens is incorrect then this proofing Nestorius does not happens. fact11: That that jawlessness happens is prevented by that foraging Stalino and/or that that eremiticness occurs. fact12: That eremiticness does not happens if the fact that that eremiticness occurs and this clipping stymy does not happens does not hold. fact13: That that eremiticness but notthis clipping stymy happens is wrong if this proofing Nestorius happens. ; $hypothesis$ = That jawlessness occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

This drink is not evidentiary.

¬{B}{aa}

fact1: This drink is a bimillennium and it stagnates. fact2: If the fact that somebody does not prejudge Notoryctus and is not a kind of a Dicksonia does not hold then she is not evidentiary. fact3: If something is not a kind of a Leucogenes then the fact that this thing does not prejudge Notoryctus and this thing is not a Dicksonia is wrong. fact4: If this drink is a kind of a bimillennium and this one does stagnate then this one is not a Leucogenes.

fact1: ({D}{aa} & {C}{aa}) fact2: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x fact3: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) fact4: ({D}{aa} & {C}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{aa}

PROVED

PROVED

$facts$ = fact1: This drink is a bimillennium and it stagnates. fact2: If the fact that somebody does not prejudge Notoryctus and is not a kind of a Dicksonia does not hold then she is not evidentiary. fact3: If something is not a kind of a Leucogenes then the fact that this thing does not prejudge Notoryctus and this thing is not a Dicksonia is wrong. fact4: If this drink is a kind of a bimillennium and this one does stagnate then this one is not a Leucogenes. ; $hypothesis$ = This drink is not evidentiary. ; $proof$ =

fact3 -> int1: If this drink is not a Leucogenes that it does not prejudge Notoryctus and it is not a Dicksonia is wrong.; fact4 & fact1 -> int2: This drink is not a kind of a Leucogenes.; int1 & int2 -> int3: The fact that this drink does not prejudge Notoryctus and is not a Dicksonia is not correct.; fact2 -> int4: This drink is non-evidentiary if that it does not prejudge Notoryctus and it is not a Dicksonia does not hold.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

That wagon is a SL.

{B}{b}

fact1: That LCD is a kind of a matrilineage if this chlamys is a matrilineage. fact2: The fact that something is a Terrapene and is not a kind of a SL does not hold if the thing is not a archine. fact3: If this touchscreen is a kind of a Guadeloupe but it does not censor that wagon is not a kind of a SL. fact4: If the fact that that DVD is a dented or not Cambrian or both is wrong he hypes Sialis. fact5: This touchscreen is a Guadeloupe and does not censor. fact6: If the fact that something is not a matrilineage and this does not grasp Aceraceae is incorrect this is a kind of a matrilineage. fact7: If something is not toothsome then the fact that that thing is both tricentenary and not vanilla is wrong. fact8: That wagon is a SL if that this touchscreen is a kind of a Terrapene but it is not a SL is wrong. fact9: If that DVD hypes Sialis then the fact that this chlamys is not a matrilineage and does not grasp Aceraceae is wrong. fact10: If the fact that that LCD is tricentenary person that is not vanilla is incorrect this touchscreen is not a kind of a archine. fact11: If someone is a matrilineage it is not toothsome and it is a foul.

fact1: {H}{d} -> {H}{c} fact2: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({C}x & ¬{B}x) fact3: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} fact4: ¬({K}{e} v ¬{L}{e}) -> {J}{e} fact5: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) fact6: (x): ¬(¬{H}x & ¬{I}x) -> {H}x fact7: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬({E}x & ¬{D}x) fact8: ¬({C}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> {B}{b} fact9: {J}{e} -> ¬(¬{H}{d} & ¬{I}{d}) fact10: ¬({E}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) -> ¬{A}{a} fact11: (x): {H}x -> (¬{F}x & {G}x)

That wagon is a SL.

{B}{b}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That LCD is a kind of a matrilineage if this chlamys is a matrilineage. fact2: The fact that something is a Terrapene and is not a kind of a SL does not hold if the thing is not a archine. fact3: If this touchscreen is a kind of a Guadeloupe but it does not censor that wagon is not a kind of a SL. fact4: If the fact that that DVD is a dented or not Cambrian or both is wrong he hypes Sialis. fact5: This touchscreen is a Guadeloupe and does not censor. fact6: If the fact that something is not a matrilineage and this does not grasp Aceraceae is incorrect this is a kind of a matrilineage. fact7: If something is not toothsome then the fact that that thing is both tricentenary and not vanilla is wrong. fact8: That wagon is a SL if that this touchscreen is a kind of a Terrapene but it is not a SL is wrong. fact9: If that DVD hypes Sialis then the fact that this chlamys is not a matrilineage and does not grasp Aceraceae is wrong. fact10: If the fact that that LCD is tricentenary person that is not vanilla is incorrect this touchscreen is not a kind of a archine. fact11: If someone is a matrilineage it is not toothsome and it is a foul. ; $hypothesis$ = That wagon is a SL. ; $proof$ =

fact3 & fact5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

The mudding does not happens.

¬{C}

fact1: The fact that the fact that notthe daubing but this offering happens hold is wrong if this pyelography does not happens. fact2: If the fact that the daubing does not occurs and this offering occurs is wrong then that arranging Homarus does not happens. fact3: This pyelography does not happens.

fact1: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) fact2: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} fact3: ¬{A}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: The fact that the fact that notthe daubing but this offering happens hold is wrong if this pyelography does not happens. fact2: If the fact that the daubing does not occurs and this offering occurs is wrong then that arranging Homarus does not happens. fact3: This pyelography does not happens. ; $hypothesis$ = The mudding does not happens. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

This crimsoning rhomb does not occurs.

¬{A}

fact1: That this hammering occurs is prevented by that that paid happens and this antisemiticness happens. fact2: That this hammering does not happens and this crimsoning rhomb does not occurs prevents that amnesty. fact3: That that blare does not happens results in that this impartialness occurs and/or this layoff occurs. fact4: This non-antisemiticness is brought about by that that paid happens and/or that votelessness occurs. fact5: That absorbing airmanship causes that that blare does not happens and that distinguishing does not occurs. fact6: Both this coarsenessing and this non-citricness occurs. fact7: That paid and this non-antisemiticness happens. fact8: That paid occurs but that votelessness does not occurs if this impartialness happens. fact9: The fact that if the fact that notthat absorbing airmanship but that gaolbreak happens does not hold then that absorbing airmanship occurs hold. fact10: This hammering does not happens and this crimsoning rhomb does not occurs if this antisemiticness happens. fact11: This antisemiticness does not occurs. fact12: If that paid occurs but this antisemiticness does not happens this hammering does not happens. fact13: This antisemiticness occurs if that paid but notthat votelessness happens.

fact1: ({D} & {C}) -> ¬{B} fact2: (¬{B} & ¬{A}) -> ¬{IA} fact3: ¬{H} -> ({F} v {G}) fact4: ({D} v {E}) -> ¬{C} fact5: {J} -> (¬{H} & ¬{I}) fact6: ({CT} & ¬{FD}) fact7: ({D} & ¬{C}) fact8: {F} -> ({D} & ¬{E}) fact9: ¬(¬{J} & {L}) -> {J} fact10: {C} -> (¬{B} & ¬{A}) fact11: ¬{C} fact12: ({D} & ¬{C}) -> ¬{B} fact13: ({D} & ¬{E}) -> {C}

That amnesty does not occurs.

¬{IA}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That this hammering occurs is prevented by that that paid happens and this antisemiticness happens. fact2: That this hammering does not happens and this crimsoning rhomb does not occurs prevents that amnesty. fact3: That that blare does not happens results in that this impartialness occurs and/or this layoff occurs. fact4: This non-antisemiticness is brought about by that that paid happens and/or that votelessness occurs. fact5: That absorbing airmanship causes that that blare does not happens and that distinguishing does not occurs. fact6: Both this coarsenessing and this non-citricness occurs. fact7: That paid and this non-antisemiticness happens. fact8: That paid occurs but that votelessness does not occurs if this impartialness happens. fact9: The fact that if the fact that notthat absorbing airmanship but that gaolbreak happens does not hold then that absorbing airmanship occurs hold. fact10: This hammering does not happens and this crimsoning rhomb does not occurs if this antisemiticness happens. fact11: This antisemiticness does not occurs. fact12: If that paid occurs but this antisemiticness does not happens this hammering does not happens. fact13: This antisemiticness occurs if that paid but notthat votelessness happens. ; $hypothesis$ = This crimsoning rhomb does not occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That this Jesuit does not occurs and this blackballing otherworld does not happens does not hold.

¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB})

fact1: The fact that this blending livelihood does not happens and/or that intensive happens does not hold if that maglev does not happens. fact2: If that trinucleateness does not occurs then this Jesuit does not occurs and this blackballing otherworld does not happens. fact3: That that trinucleateness does not occurs hold. fact4: That ischemicness does not occurs if the fact that either this blending livelihood does not happens or that intensive occurs or both does not hold. fact5: If both the non-brachycephalicness and that knitting happens that maglev does not happens. fact6: This Jesuit does not happens if that trinucleateness does not happens. fact7: That this Jesuit does not happens and this blackballing otherworld does not occurs does not hold if that trinucleateness happens. fact8: If that that this ringing Ederle but notthat diggings occurs is not wrong does not hold then that brachycephalicness does not happens. fact9: That trinucleateness and that cairnedness occurs if that ischemicness does not happens. fact10: This Jesuit does not happens.

fact1: ¬{F} -> ¬(¬{E} v {D}) fact2: ¬{A} -> (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) fact3: ¬{A} fact4: ¬(¬{E} v {D}) -> ¬{C} fact5: (¬{G} & {H}) -> ¬{F} fact6: ¬{A} -> ¬{AA} fact7: {A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) fact8: ¬({I} & ¬{J}) -> ¬{G} fact9: ¬{C} -> ({A} & {B}) fact10: ¬{AA}

That this Jesuit does not occurs and this blackballing otherworld does not happens does not hold.

¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: The fact that this blending livelihood does not happens and/or that intensive happens does not hold if that maglev does not happens. fact2: If that trinucleateness does not occurs then this Jesuit does not occurs and this blackballing otherworld does not happens. fact3: That that trinucleateness does not occurs hold. fact4: That ischemicness does not occurs if the fact that either this blending livelihood does not happens or that intensive occurs or both does not hold. fact5: If both the non-brachycephalicness and that knitting happens that maglev does not happens. fact6: This Jesuit does not happens if that trinucleateness does not happens. fact7: That this Jesuit does not happens and this blackballing otherworld does not occurs does not hold if that trinucleateness happens. fact8: If that that this ringing Ederle but notthat diggings occurs is not wrong does not hold then that brachycephalicness does not happens. fact9: That trinucleateness and that cairnedness occurs if that ischemicness does not happens. fact10: This Jesuit does not happens. ; $hypothesis$ = That this Jesuit does not occurs and this blackballing otherworld does not happens does not hold. ; $proof$ =

fact2 & fact3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

The fact that both that voicelessness and that ploughing happens does not hold.

¬({B} & {C})

fact1: Both the squatting and the brisantness occurs. fact2: The belting outcry does not happens. fact3: This clambering occurs. fact4: Both this doubles and that voicelessness occurs. fact5: Notthe belting outcry but that ploughing happens.

fact1: ({GM} & {EA}) fact2: ¬{D} fact3: {CB} fact4: ({A} & {B}) fact5: (¬{D} & {C})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$facts$ = fact1: Both the squatting and the brisantness occurs. fact2: The belting outcry does not happens. fact3: This clambering occurs. fact4: Both this doubles and that voicelessness occurs. fact5: Notthe belting outcry but that ploughing happens. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that both that voicelessness and that ploughing happens does not hold. ; $proof$ =

fact4 -> int1: That voicelessness occurs.; fact5 -> int2: That ploughing happens.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

The mydriatic is an assets.

{D}{b}

fact1: This runway is not a neolithic. fact2: If something does not splat agalactosis and is not a neolithic it protrudes. fact3: this agalactosis does not splat runway. fact4: The mydriatic is not an assets if this runway protrudes.

fact1: ¬{B}{a} fact2: (x): (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) -> {C}x fact3: ¬{AA}{aa} fact4: {C}{a} -> ¬{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This runway is not a neolithic. fact2: If something does not splat agalactosis and is not a neolithic it protrudes. fact3: this agalactosis does not splat runway. fact4: The mydriatic is not an assets if this runway protrudes. ; $hypothesis$ = The mydriatic is an assets. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

The fact that that Brown happens but that invigorating haematocolpometra does not happens is wrong.

¬({AA} & ¬{AB})

fact1: That either that fogging lymphangiectasia occurs or that liquidness does not occurs or both prevents that liquidness. fact2: That liquidness occurs. fact3: If that fogging lymphangiectasia does not happens both the evasion and that liquidness happens. fact4: That Brown occurs and that invigorating haematocolpometra does not happens if that liquidness occurs. fact5: If that that liquidness does not happens hold that that Brown happens and that invigorating haematocolpometra does not happens does not hold. fact6: That this peripteralness does not occurs results in that notthat fogging lymphangiectasia but this confirmation occurs.

fact1: ({B} v ¬{A}) -> ¬{A} fact2: {A} fact3: ¬{B} -> ({J} & {A}) fact4: {A} -> ({AA} & ¬{AB}) fact5: ¬{A} -> ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) fact6: ¬{D} -> (¬{B} & {C})

The evasion happens.

{J}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That either that fogging lymphangiectasia occurs or that liquidness does not occurs or both prevents that liquidness. fact2: That liquidness occurs. fact3: If that fogging lymphangiectasia does not happens both the evasion and that liquidness happens. fact4: That Brown occurs and that invigorating haematocolpometra does not happens if that liquidness occurs. fact5: If that that liquidness does not happens hold that that Brown happens and that invigorating haematocolpometra does not happens does not hold. fact6: That this peripteralness does not occurs results in that notthat fogging lymphangiectasia but this confirmation occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that that Brown happens but that invigorating haematocolpometra does not happens is wrong. ; $proof$ =

fact4 & fact2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That pewit is a kind of a Austrian.

{D}{a}

fact1: That pewit is not hexagonal. fact2: That speedometer does not yearn cuneiform. fact3: If something that is hypertrophied does not yearn cuneiform then it is not a Austrian. fact4: The fact that that speedometer is not reportable and it is not hexagonal is wrong. fact5: That pewit is non-unsubdivided. fact6: That alizarin is not hexagonal. fact7: The Epistle is an ascendency if the Epistle is not a kind of a Papuan. fact8: That pewit is not an ascendency. fact9: That pewit does not yearn cuneiform if that that that speedometer is unreportable thing that is not hexagonal is wrong hold. fact10: That that pewit is not hypertrophied and it is not reportable is false. fact11: If that pewit is hypertrophied then that speedometer does not yearn cuneiform. fact12: That speedometer is secretarial. fact13: That pewit is not a crazed. fact14: If that pewit is not an ascendency then that pewit is not non-hypertrophied.

fact1: ¬{E}{a} fact2: ¬{C}{b} fact3: (x): ({B}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{D}x fact4: ¬(¬{F}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) fact5: ¬{T}{a} fact6: ¬{E}{ed} fact7: ¬{AI}{df} -> {A}{df} fact8: ¬{A}{a} fact9: ¬(¬{F}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} fact10: ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{F}{a}) fact11: {B}{a} -> ¬{C}{b} fact12: {II}{b} fact13: ¬{CB}{a} fact14: ¬{A}{a} -> {B}{a}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$facts$ = fact1: That pewit is not hexagonal. fact2: That speedometer does not yearn cuneiform. fact3: If something that is hypertrophied does not yearn cuneiform then it is not a Austrian. fact4: The fact that that speedometer is not reportable and it is not hexagonal is wrong. fact5: That pewit is non-unsubdivided. fact6: That alizarin is not hexagonal. fact7: The Epistle is an ascendency if the Epistle is not a kind of a Papuan. fact8: That pewit is not an ascendency. fact9: That pewit does not yearn cuneiform if that that that speedometer is unreportable thing that is not hexagonal is wrong hold. fact10: That that pewit is not hypertrophied and it is not reportable is false. fact11: If that pewit is hypertrophied then that speedometer does not yearn cuneiform. fact12: That speedometer is secretarial. fact13: That pewit is not a crazed. fact14: If that pewit is not an ascendency then that pewit is not non-hypertrophied. ; $hypothesis$ = That pewit is a kind of a Austrian. ; $proof$ =

fact14 & fact8 -> int1: That pewit is hypertrophied.; fact4 & fact9 -> int2: That pewit does not yearn cuneiform.; int1 & int2 -> int3: That pewit is hypertrophied and does not yearn cuneiform.; fact3 -> int4: That pewit is not a Austrian if that pewit is hypertrophied but that person does not yearn cuneiform.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

This vomit flags.

{AA}{a}

fact1: That this vomit does not link baisa is right. fact2: That sagitta is a Eriodictyon if that sagitta does not flag. fact3: that that baisa does not link vomit is right. fact4: If this vomit is not a kind of a trespassing then it is Frankish.

fact1: ¬{A}{a} fact2: ¬{AA}{hr} -> {T}{hr} fact3: ¬{AC}{aa} fact4: ¬{EB}{a} -> {BH}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That this vomit does not link baisa is right. fact2: That sagitta is a Eriodictyon if that sagitta does not flag. fact3: that that baisa does not link vomit is right. fact4: If this vomit is not a kind of a trespassing then it is Frankish. ; $hypothesis$ = This vomit flags. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

The fact that that brainwave is not a fizz but a stewed is incorrect.

¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

fact1: That that brainwave is not a fizz is right. fact2: Sarah does not chain peso if the fact that that that airliner is underhand and/or chain peso does not hold is correct. fact3: That brainwave does not laze and is lipless. fact4: If someone does not chain peso then that it does not razz patented and is a Froebel does not hold. fact5: That brainwave does not chain peso if that that is not underhand and that does chain peso is incorrect. fact6: That brainwave is not a fizz if the fact that that brainwave does not chain peso is right. fact7: If something does not overbear then that is not a compounded but spherical. fact8: That that brainwave is not underhand but the thing chains peso does not hold. fact9: The fact that that brainwave is non-prolusory thing that is a kind of a fizz is wrong. fact10: If this neutral is a anaphor that airliner is underhand. fact11: If that that brainwave is not a stewed and is a unsanctification does not hold this is not a unsanctification. fact12: If that that brainwave does not chain peso and is a kind of a badge does not hold she/he is not a badge. fact13: If that airliner chains peso the fact that that brainwave is not a fizz but it is a stewed is false. fact14: Something is not a fizz if the thing does not chain peso. fact15: If some man is underhand it chains peso. fact16: That the terebinth is not tibial and is a kind of a stewed does not hold.

fact1: ¬{AA}{aa} fact2: ¬({B}{a} v {A}{a}) -> ¬{A}{ed} fact3: (¬{JH}{aa} & {BB}{aa}) fact4: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{IS}x & {BA}x) fact5: ¬(¬{B}{aa} & {A}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{aa} fact6: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬{AA}{aa} fact7: (x): ¬{GE}x -> (¬{GP}x & {G}x) fact8: ¬(¬{B}{aa} & {A}{aa}) fact9: ¬(¬{CM}{aa} & {AA}{aa}) fact10: {C}{b} -> {B}{a} fact11: ¬(¬{AB}{aa} & {CT}{aa}) -> ¬{CT}{aa} fact12: ¬(¬{A}{aa} & {IQ}{aa}) -> ¬{IQ}{aa} fact13: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) fact14: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{AA}x fact15: (x): {B}x -> {A}x fact16: ¬(¬{HP}{bb} & {AB}{bb})

That that Sarah does not razz patented and is a kind of a Froebel is correct is incorrect.

¬(¬{IS}{ed} & {BA}{ed})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That that brainwave is not a fizz is right. fact2: Sarah does not chain peso if the fact that that that airliner is underhand and/or chain peso does not hold is correct. fact3: That brainwave does not laze and is lipless. fact4: If someone does not chain peso then that it does not razz patented and is a Froebel does not hold. fact5: That brainwave does not chain peso if that that is not underhand and that does chain peso is incorrect. fact6: That brainwave is not a fizz if the fact that that brainwave does not chain peso is right. fact7: If something does not overbear then that is not a compounded but spherical. fact8: That that brainwave is not underhand but the thing chains peso does not hold. fact9: The fact that that brainwave is non-prolusory thing that is a kind of a fizz is wrong. fact10: If this neutral is a anaphor that airliner is underhand. fact11: If that that brainwave is not a stewed and is a unsanctification does not hold this is not a unsanctification. fact12: If that that brainwave does not chain peso and is a kind of a badge does not hold she/he is not a badge. fact13: If that airliner chains peso the fact that that brainwave is not a fizz but it is a stewed is false. fact14: Something is not a fizz if the thing does not chain peso. fact15: If some man is underhand it chains peso. fact16: That the terebinth is not tibial and is a kind of a stewed does not hold. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that that brainwave is not a fizz but a stewed is incorrect. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

There exists nothing such that that thing does not neutralise poltroonery or does regenerate Martinique or both.

(x): ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x)

fact1: There is nobody that either is non-Saudi or is traditional or both. fact2: There is nothing such that either it is not unidirectional or it specks Nilotic or both. fact3: There exists none such that it is not epistemological and/or digitalizes Jugoslavija. fact4: There is no man such that this one is not cyclonal and/or this one does trust Aegilops. fact5: There exists nothing such that it is not a Bermuda or is a kind of a minim or both. fact6: Everything is not basidiosporous.

fact1: (x): ¬(¬{CM}x v {BF}x) fact2: (x): ¬(¬{HF}x v {JE}x) fact3: (x): ¬(¬{AQ}x v {GO}x) fact4: (x): ¬(¬{B}x v {HN}x) fact5: (x): ¬(¬{DK}x v {JI}x) fact6: (x): ¬{ED}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: There is nobody that either is non-Saudi or is traditional or both. fact2: There is nothing such that either it is not unidirectional or it specks Nilotic or both. fact3: There exists none such that it is not epistemological and/or digitalizes Jugoslavija. fact4: There is no man such that this one is not cyclonal and/or this one does trust Aegilops. fact5: There exists nothing such that it is not a Bermuda or is a kind of a minim or both. fact6: Everything is not basidiosporous. ; $hypothesis$ = There exists nothing such that that thing does not neutralise poltroonery or does regenerate Martinique or both. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

This curling intent occurs.

{D}

fact1: That that cawing occurs and that humanist happens prevents that bonging. fact2: This sowing graduated does not occurs if the fact that both this center and this sowing graduated occurs is wrong. fact3: Both this sowing graduated and that integralness happens if that this center does not happens hold. fact4: This destructing does not occurs. fact5: That this sowing graduated does not happens causes that both that humanist and that cawing occurs. fact6: The Exodus does not occurs. fact7: If that humanist happens that integralness does not happens and this Rabelaisianness does not occurs. fact8: This curling intent does not occurs if that both this curling intent and this non-centripetalness occurs is false. fact9: If that that that conceptualisation and this destructing happens is wrong is right then the fact that that conceptualisation does not happens is correct. fact10: If that integralness happens the fact that this Rabelaisianness occurs and this curling intent does not happens is false. fact11: That that centripetalness happens and that phlebotomizing Mantispidae does not happens is triggered by that that bonging does not occurs. fact12: That centripetalness does not happens. fact13: This commenting infantry does not happens. fact14: If that this Rabelaisianness does not occurs is right then the fact that both that conceptualisation and this destructing happens is incorrect. fact15: If that centripetalness does not happens and this destructing does not occurs this Rabelaisianness occurs. fact16: That this profaning does not occurs results in that that cawing and that humanist occurs. fact17: That voidance does not happens and the fishing Pomoxis does not occurs. fact18: If that voidance does not occurs and the fishing Pomoxis does not happens then that pipeline does not occurs. fact19: If that pipeline does not occurs and that Labouring Hutchinson does not occurs then this profaning does not occurs. fact20: If this Rabelaisianness happens then this curling intent happens. fact21: If that exiting does not occurs and the parrying does not occurs then the settling Derrida occurs. fact22: The fact that this curling intent occurs but that centripetalness does not occurs does not hold if this destructing occurs. fact23: The fact that this destructing happens is right if that notthis destructing but that bonging happens is not right. fact24: The maturedness does not happens.

fact1: ({H} & {G}) -> ¬{E} fact2: ¬({J} & {I}) -> ¬{I} fact3: ¬{J} -> ({I} & {F}) fact4: ¬{B} fact5: ¬{I} -> ({G} & {H}) fact6: ¬{IL} fact7: {G} -> (¬{F} & ¬{C}) fact8: ¬({D} & ¬{A}) -> ¬{D} fact9: ¬({HI} & {B}) -> ¬{HI} fact10: {F} -> ¬({C} & ¬{D}) fact11: ¬{E} -> ({A} & ¬{IN}) fact12: ¬{A} fact13: ¬{FN} fact14: ¬{C} -> ¬({HI} & {B}) fact15: (¬{A} & ¬{B}) -> {C} fact16: ¬{K} -> ({H} & {G}) fact17: (¬{N} & ¬{O}) fact18: (¬{N} & ¬{O}) -> ¬{L} fact19: (¬{L} & ¬{M}) -> ¬{K} fact20: {C} -> {D} fact21: (¬{AO} & ¬{AS}) -> {EP} fact22: {B} -> ¬({D} & ¬{A}) fact23: ¬(¬{B} & {E}) -> {B} fact24: ¬{FE}

That phlebotomizing Mantispidae does not happens and that conceptualisation does not happens.

(¬{IN} & ¬{HI})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That that cawing occurs and that humanist happens prevents that bonging. fact2: This sowing graduated does not occurs if the fact that both this center and this sowing graduated occurs is wrong. fact3: Both this sowing graduated and that integralness happens if that this center does not happens hold. fact4: This destructing does not occurs. fact5: That this sowing graduated does not happens causes that both that humanist and that cawing occurs. fact6: The Exodus does not occurs. fact7: If that humanist happens that integralness does not happens and this Rabelaisianness does not occurs. fact8: This curling intent does not occurs if that both this curling intent and this non-centripetalness occurs is false. fact9: If that that that conceptualisation and this destructing happens is wrong is right then the fact that that conceptualisation does not happens is correct. fact10: If that integralness happens the fact that this Rabelaisianness occurs and this curling intent does not happens is false. fact11: That that centripetalness happens and that phlebotomizing Mantispidae does not happens is triggered by that that bonging does not occurs. fact12: That centripetalness does not happens. fact13: This commenting infantry does not happens. fact14: If that this Rabelaisianness does not occurs is right then the fact that both that conceptualisation and this destructing happens is incorrect. fact15: If that centripetalness does not happens and this destructing does not occurs this Rabelaisianness occurs. fact16: That this profaning does not occurs results in that that cawing and that humanist occurs. fact17: That voidance does not happens and the fishing Pomoxis does not occurs. fact18: If that voidance does not occurs and the fishing Pomoxis does not happens then that pipeline does not occurs. fact19: If that pipeline does not occurs and that Labouring Hutchinson does not occurs then this profaning does not occurs. fact20: If this Rabelaisianness happens then this curling intent happens. fact21: If that exiting does not occurs and the parrying does not occurs then the settling Derrida occurs. fact22: The fact that this curling intent occurs but that centripetalness does not occurs does not hold if this destructing occurs. fact23: The fact that this destructing happens is right if that notthis destructing but that bonging happens is not right. fact24: The maturedness does not happens. ; $hypothesis$ = This curling intent occurs. ; $proof$ =

fact12 & fact4 -> int1: That centripetalness does not occurs and this destructing does not happens.; int1 & fact15 -> int2: This Rabelaisianness happens.; int2 & fact20 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

That pachysandra does not beckon giantess.

¬{B}{b}

fact1: If that that neoliberal can not lipochondrodystrophy and does knock cheapness is false then that pachysandra does not beckon giantess. fact2: If that neoliberal is a stranger then that that neoliberal can not lipochondrodystrophy and knocks cheapness is wrong. fact3: Somebody knocks cheapness if it is not a stranger. fact4: Some person that is not a chickenfeed is a stranger that beckons giantess. fact5: That pachysandra does not beckon giantess if that neoliberal does not knock cheapness. fact6: That neoliberal is a stranger. fact7: That intercom is a stranger.

fact1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} fact2: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) fact3: (x): ¬{A}x -> {AB}x fact4: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({A}x & {B}x) fact5: ¬{AB}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} fact6: {A}{a} fact7: {A}{gg}

That pachysandra beckons giantess.

{B}{b}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If that that neoliberal can not lipochondrodystrophy and does knock cheapness is false then that pachysandra does not beckon giantess. fact2: If that neoliberal is a stranger then that that neoliberal can not lipochondrodystrophy and knocks cheapness is wrong. fact3: Somebody knocks cheapness if it is not a stranger. fact4: Some person that is not a chickenfeed is a stranger that beckons giantess. fact5: That pachysandra does not beckon giantess if that neoliberal does not knock cheapness. fact6: That neoliberal is a stranger. fact7: That intercom is a stranger. ; $hypothesis$ = That pachysandra does not beckon giantess. ; $proof$ =

fact2 & fact6 -> int1: The fact that that neoliberal can not lipochondrodystrophy and does knock cheapness is false.; int1 & fact1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

That terminus is not a Houston.

¬{B}{aa}

fact1: If the fact that someone is cenobitic and that one is a kind of a biosystematics is not true then that one is not cenobitic. fact2: That terminus is unfree. fact3: That terminus does not map necrophilism. fact4: If some man is not a Houston but this one is a scribble then this one does not euphemise Iridoprocne. fact5: The fact that something is not non-formalistic but a buy is incorrect if it is not cenobitic. fact6: This macushla smatters or that does souse symbol or both. fact7: If that terminus is amethystine and a odontalgia that she/he is not a Eurafrican is correct. fact8: If this macushla smatters or that souses symbol or both the fact that this macushla is ebracteate is incorrect. fact9: The adhesion is not a Svedberg if that is not a anuran. fact10: The fact that that this diastrophism is a Houston and stomachal is right is false if there exists someone such that this person is not a buy. fact11: Paris does not euphemise Iridoprocne. fact12: That terminus is not a kind of a scribble. fact13: If some person is not a insipidity but it euphemises Iridoprocne then it is not a Houston. fact14: That this macushla is cenobitic and it is a biosystematics is false if it is not ebracteate. fact15: If there exists some person such that the fact that this one is formalistic and this one is a kind of a buy is wrong then that cachet is not a buy. fact16: That terminus is not a insipidity and euphemises Iridoprocne if this is not a kind of a scribble.

fact1: (x): ¬({E}x & {H}x) -> ¬{E}x fact2: ¬{DT}{aa} fact3: ¬{HG}{aa} fact4: (x): (¬{B}x & {A}x) -> ¬{AB}x fact5: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬({F}x & {D}x) fact6: ({J}{c} v {I}{c}) fact7: ({CU}{aa} & {AR}{aa}) -> ¬{AF}{aa} fact8: ({J}{c} v {I}{c}) -> ¬{G}{c} fact9: ¬{AE}{bk} -> ¬{JJ}{bk} fact10: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a}) fact11: ¬{AB}{jh} fact12: ¬{A}{aa} fact13: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x fact14: ¬{G}{c} -> ¬({E}{c} & {H}{c}) fact15: (x): ¬({F}x & {D}x) -> ¬{D}{b} fact16: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

The adopter is not a kind of a scribble.

¬{A}{ih}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If the fact that someone is cenobitic and that one is a kind of a biosystematics is not true then that one is not cenobitic. fact2: That terminus is unfree. fact3: That terminus does not map necrophilism. fact4: If some man is not a Houston but this one is a scribble then this one does not euphemise Iridoprocne. fact5: The fact that something is not non-formalistic but a buy is incorrect if it is not cenobitic. fact6: This macushla smatters or that does souse symbol or both. fact7: If that terminus is amethystine and a odontalgia that she/he is not a Eurafrican is correct. fact8: If this macushla smatters or that souses symbol or both the fact that this macushla is ebracteate is incorrect. fact9: The adhesion is not a Svedberg if that is not a anuran. fact10: The fact that that this diastrophism is a Houston and stomachal is right is false if there exists someone such that this person is not a buy. fact11: Paris does not euphemise Iridoprocne. fact12: That terminus is not a kind of a scribble. fact13: If some person is not a insipidity but it euphemises Iridoprocne then it is not a Houston. fact14: That this macushla is cenobitic and it is a biosystematics is false if it is not ebracteate. fact15: If there exists some person such that the fact that this one is formalistic and this one is a kind of a buy is wrong then that cachet is not a buy. fact16: That terminus is not a insipidity and euphemises Iridoprocne if this is not a kind of a scribble. ; $hypothesis$ = That terminus is not a Houston. ; $proof$ =

fact13 -> int1: That terminus is not a kind of a Houston if this thing is not a insipidity and euphemises Iridoprocne.; fact16 & fact12 -> int2: That terminus is not a kind of a insipidity but it euphemises Iridoprocne.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

This nymphet does highjack natality and/or is a Papuan.

({A}{a} v {C}{a})

fact1: Someone does not highjack natality if that the one is a kind of a Nauclea that does highjack natality does not hold. fact2: That something is a Nauclea and highjacks natality is incorrect if it is not a Papuan. fact3: The freak is honorable or he is invasive or both if this nymphet does not highjack natality. fact4: That something highjacks natality and/or it is a Papuan is incorrect if it is not invasive. fact5: This nymphet highjacks natality and is invasive. fact6: This nymphet is invasive. fact7: If some person is not a blameworthiness then it does not show baseline and is not a kind of a Papuan.

fact1: (x): ¬({D}x & {A}x) -> ¬{A}x fact2: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({D}x & {A}x) fact3: ¬{A}{a} -> ({HF}{du} v {B}{du}) fact4: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({A}x v {C}x) fact5: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) fact6: {B}{a} fact7: (x): ¬{F}x -> (¬{E}x & ¬{C}x)

The fact that this nymphet highjacks natality and/or is a Papuan is false.

¬({A}{a} v {C}{a})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: Someone does not highjack natality if that the one is a kind of a Nauclea that does highjack natality does not hold. fact2: That something is a Nauclea and highjacks natality is incorrect if it is not a Papuan. fact3: The freak is honorable or he is invasive or both if this nymphet does not highjack natality. fact4: That something highjacks natality and/or it is a Papuan is incorrect if it is not invasive. fact5: This nymphet highjacks natality and is invasive. fact6: This nymphet is invasive. fact7: If some person is not a blameworthiness then it does not show baseline and is not a kind of a Papuan. ; $hypothesis$ = This nymphet does highjack natality and/or is a Papuan. ; $proof$ =

fact5 -> int1: This nymphet highjacks natality.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

That socialness occurs.

{D}

fact1: If this misidentifying liter happens then that foxing objectiveness does not happens. fact2: That socialness happens if this tocktact but notthat foxing objectiveness happens. fact3: Both this tocktact and the indecisiveness occurs.

fact1: {E} -> ¬{C} fact2: ({A} & ¬{C}) -> {D} fact3: ({A} & {B})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If this misidentifying liter happens then that foxing objectiveness does not happens. fact2: That socialness happens if this tocktact but notthat foxing objectiveness happens. fact3: Both this tocktact and the indecisiveness occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = That socialness occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

The liveliness does not occurs.

¬{B}

fact1: If the temperament occurs then the fact that the starting Plzen does not happens and the coaling does not occurs does not hold. fact2: The fact that the bulbedness does not happens is right. fact3: That the Korean but notthe greenmail occurs does not hold. fact4: If that electrochemicalness happens the fact that this cotillion does not occurs and that categorematicness does not happens is not correct. fact5: If that this cotillion does not occurs and that categorematicness does not happens does not hold then the liveliness does not occurs. fact6: That this uplifting illogic does not happens and this needlessing typhoid does not happens does not hold if this flickering occurs. fact7: The fact that that spacefaring but notthe disgracing Spermatophyta happens does not hold if this pounding occurs. fact8: This ting does not occurs if the fact that the opacity does not happens and the crackling does not happens does not hold. fact9: That that radio happens but this spring does not occurs is false if the exhorting forecast occurs. fact10: If the borealness occurs that that destining Eglevsky but notthe rushing happens is wrong. fact11: That the disgracing Spermatophyta does not happens is caused by that that owning occurs. fact12: This Martian happens. fact13: That chromatographicness does not happens if the fact that the longness does not happens and the unshutteredness does not occurs does not hold. fact14: That that passage does not occurs and this stylisation does not occurs does not hold.

fact1: {JD} -> ¬(¬{GP} & ¬{IA}) fact2: ¬{BL} fact3: ¬({DS} & ¬{DT}) fact4: {A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) fact5: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} fact6: {U} -> ¬(¬{JA} & ¬{AU}) fact7: {HL} -> ¬({IR} & ¬{DM}) fact8: ¬(¬{GE} & ¬{AE}) -> ¬{FS} fact9: {HJ} -> ¬({AN} & ¬{D}) fact10: {HD} -> ¬({IH} & ¬{BJ}) fact11: {CM} -> ¬{DM} fact12: {FI} fact13: ¬(¬{FG} & ¬{HH}) -> ¬{AO} fact14: ¬(¬{J} & ¬{FD})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If the temperament occurs then the fact that the starting Plzen does not happens and the coaling does not occurs does not hold. fact2: The fact that the bulbedness does not happens is right. fact3: That the Korean but notthe greenmail occurs does not hold. fact4: If that electrochemicalness happens the fact that this cotillion does not occurs and that categorematicness does not happens is not correct. fact5: If that this cotillion does not occurs and that categorematicness does not happens does not hold then the liveliness does not occurs. fact6: That this uplifting illogic does not happens and this needlessing typhoid does not happens does not hold if this flickering occurs. fact7: The fact that that spacefaring but notthe disgracing Spermatophyta happens does not hold if this pounding occurs. fact8: This ting does not occurs if the fact that the opacity does not happens and the crackling does not happens does not hold. fact9: That that radio happens but this spring does not occurs is false if the exhorting forecast occurs. fact10: If the borealness occurs that that destining Eglevsky but notthe rushing happens is wrong. fact11: That the disgracing Spermatophyta does not happens is caused by that that owning occurs. fact12: This Martian happens. fact13: That chromatographicness does not happens if the fact that the longness does not happens and the unshutteredness does not occurs does not hold. fact14: That that passage does not occurs and this stylisation does not occurs does not hold. ; $hypothesis$ = The liveliness does not occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That diagramming and that endermicness happens.

({B} & {A})

fact1: If the fact that this abduction but notthe agglomeration occurs does not hold that diagramming happens. fact2: If the fact that the demobilization occurs and the backlash does not happens is incorrect then the trihydroxiness happens. fact3: If that endermicness does not happens that the printing but notthe unconvincedness occurs is incorrect. fact4: If that diagramming does not happens that endermicness does not occurs and/or that contracting happens. fact5: That endermicness and that contracting happens. fact6: If the fact that that disapproval does not happens and/or that interruption does not occurs is incorrect that contracting does not happens. fact7: That this abduction happens and the agglomeration does not happens is incorrect. fact8: If that contracting does not occurs then the fact that both that diagramming and that endermicness happens does not hold. fact9: That that diagramming does not happens is prevented by that the agglomeration occurs.

fact1: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} fact2: ¬({DF} & ¬{FR}) -> {EB} fact3: ¬{A} -> ¬({AI} & ¬{HL}) fact4: ¬{B} -> (¬{A} v {C}) fact5: ({A} & {C}) fact6: ¬(¬{E} v ¬{D}) -> ¬{C} fact7: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) fact8: ¬{C} -> ¬({B} & {A}) fact9: {AB} -> {B}

That that that diagramming happens and that endermicness happens is correct is incorrect.

¬({B} & {A})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If the fact that this abduction but notthe agglomeration occurs does not hold that diagramming happens. fact2: If the fact that the demobilization occurs and the backlash does not happens is incorrect then the trihydroxiness happens. fact3: If that endermicness does not happens that the printing but notthe unconvincedness occurs is incorrect. fact4: If that diagramming does not happens that endermicness does not occurs and/or that contracting happens. fact5: That endermicness and that contracting happens. fact6: If the fact that that disapproval does not happens and/or that interruption does not occurs is incorrect that contracting does not happens. fact7: That this abduction happens and the agglomeration does not happens is incorrect. fact8: If that contracting does not occurs then the fact that both that diagramming and that endermicness happens does not hold. fact9: That that diagramming does not happens is prevented by that the agglomeration occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = That diagramming and that endermicness happens. ; $proof$ =

fact1 & fact7 -> int1: That diagramming occurs.; fact5 -> int2: That endermicness happens.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

That boisterousness is prevented by that that pose occurs.

{B} -> ¬{C}

fact1: If the fact that that chancrousness does not happens hold then that this volarness does not occurs but that ejection happens is wrong. fact2: If the puking aristocracy occurs and this vitality happens the panicking Greenland does not occurs. fact3: If both this hamming Rhizophora and that pose occurs then that boisterousness occurs. fact4: If this hamming Rhizophora and that pose occurs then that boisterousness does not happens. fact5: If the fact that this vitality does not occurs and that anodicness happens does not hold that chancrousness does not happens. fact6: If the cerebrospinalness happens that this vitality does not happens and that anodicness occurs does not hold. fact7: That unscalableness is prevented by this unwillingness. fact8: If the fact that the sense happens and the detesting linage does not occurs is not correct that meltdown does not happens. fact9: That boisterousness happens. fact10: That that meltdown does not occurs yields that that boisterousness does not happens and that pose does not occurs. fact11: If that unscalableness does not occurs the fact that the sense happens but the detesting linage does not happens is wrong. fact12: That that pose does not happens causes that this hamming Rhizophora occurs and that foliation does not occurs. fact13: If the fact that both the non-volarness and that ejection happens is false then that this unwillingness happens is correct. fact14: This hamming Rhizophora happens.

fact1: ¬{K} -> ¬(¬{I} & {J}) fact2: ({FK} & {M}) -> ¬{HN} fact3: ({A} & {B}) -> {C} fact4: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} fact5: ¬(¬{M} & {L}) -> ¬{K} fact6: {N} -> ¬(¬{M} & {L}) fact7: {H} -> ¬{G} fact8: ¬({F} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{D} fact9: {C} fact10: ¬{D} -> (¬{C} & ¬{B}) fact11: ¬{G} -> ¬({F} & ¬{E}) fact12: ¬{B} -> ({A} & ¬{CL}) fact13: ¬(¬{I} & {J}) -> {H} fact14: {A}

That foliation does not happens.

¬{CL}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If the fact that that chancrousness does not happens hold then that this volarness does not occurs but that ejection happens is wrong. fact2: If the puking aristocracy occurs and this vitality happens the panicking Greenland does not occurs. fact3: If both this hamming Rhizophora and that pose occurs then that boisterousness occurs. fact4: If this hamming Rhizophora and that pose occurs then that boisterousness does not happens. fact5: If the fact that this vitality does not occurs and that anodicness happens does not hold that chancrousness does not happens. fact6: If the cerebrospinalness happens that this vitality does not happens and that anodicness occurs does not hold. fact7: That unscalableness is prevented by this unwillingness. fact8: If the fact that the sense happens and the detesting linage does not occurs is not correct that meltdown does not happens. fact9: That boisterousness happens. fact10: That that meltdown does not occurs yields that that boisterousness does not happens and that pose does not occurs. fact11: If that unscalableness does not occurs the fact that the sense happens but the detesting linage does not happens is wrong. fact12: That that pose does not happens causes that this hamming Rhizophora occurs and that foliation does not occurs. fact13: If the fact that both the non-volarness and that ejection happens is false then that this unwillingness happens is correct. fact14: This hamming Rhizophora happens. ; $hypothesis$ = That boisterousness is prevented by that that pose occurs. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that that pose happens.; fact14 & assump1 -> int1: Both this hamming Rhizophora and that pose happens.; int1 & fact4 -> int2: That boisterousness does not happens.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

That presidio is not awny but it indents if it is not mnemonic.

¬{A}{a} -> (¬{D}{a} & {C}{a})

fact1: If that presidio is not mnemonic then it is awny and it indents. fact2: Someone is not awny and indents if that it prunes Montez hold. fact3: If someone prunes Montez then it indents. fact4: Something is awny and it indents if it prunes Montez. fact5: If some man is not an ooze the fact that it is not a kind of a Titanosauridae and prunes Montez hold. fact6: That presidio is a kind of non-awny one that indents if that presidio is mnemonic. fact7: That presidio indents if this thing prunes Montez. fact8: That presidio is awny and it indents if it prunes Montez.

fact1: ¬{A}{a} -> ({D}{a} & {C}{a}) fact2: (x): {B}x -> (¬{D}x & {C}x) fact3: (x): {B}x -> {C}x fact4: (x): {B}x -> ({D}x & {C}x) fact5: (x): ¬{CU}x -> (¬{EM}x & {B}x) fact6: {A}{a} -> (¬{D}{a} & {C}{a}) fact7: {B}{a} -> {C}{a} fact8: {B}{a} -> ({D}{a} & {C}{a})

This stopper is not a kind of a Titanosauridae and prunes Montez if this stopper is not an ooze.

¬{CU}{fe} -> (¬{EM}{fe} & {B}{fe})

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

$facts$ = fact1: If that presidio is not mnemonic then it is awny and it indents. fact2: Someone is not awny and indents if that it prunes Montez hold. fact3: If someone prunes Montez then it indents. fact4: Something is awny and it indents if it prunes Montez. fact5: If some man is not an ooze the fact that it is not a kind of a Titanosauridae and prunes Montez hold. fact6: That presidio is a kind of non-awny one that indents if that presidio is mnemonic. fact7: That presidio indents if this thing prunes Montez. fact8: That presidio is awny and it indents if it prunes Montez. ; $hypothesis$ = That presidio is not awny but it indents if it is not mnemonic. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

The fact that this modillion is not a Trichoptera and does not insufflate Indonesia hold.

(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})

fact1: If this shaver is a kind of a mujahidin this modillion is not a Trichoptera and does not insufflate Indonesia. fact2: The fact that this shaver is not a Trichoptera but that person is inodorous is not right. fact3: This modillion is not a mujahidin if this shaver is Shona. fact4: The fact that somebody is not a Trichoptera and it does not insufflate Indonesia is not right if it is not a mujahidin. fact5: The fact that some man is not non-Shona and not a mujahidin is incorrect if it is not a Trichoptera. fact6: This shaver is Shona.

fact1: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) fact2: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {IT}{a}) fact3: {B}{a} -> ¬{A}{aa} fact4: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) fact5: (x): ¬{AA}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{A}x) fact6: {B}{a}

The fact that this modillion is not a Trichoptera and does not insufflate Indonesia hold.

(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If this shaver is a kind of a mujahidin this modillion is not a Trichoptera and does not insufflate Indonesia. fact2: The fact that this shaver is not a Trichoptera but that person is inodorous is not right. fact3: This modillion is not a mujahidin if this shaver is Shona. fact4: The fact that somebody is not a Trichoptera and it does not insufflate Indonesia is not right if it is not a mujahidin. fact5: The fact that some man is not non-Shona and not a mujahidin is incorrect if it is not a Trichoptera. fact6: This shaver is Shona. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that this modillion is not a Trichoptera and does not insufflate Indonesia hold. ; $proof$ =

fact4 -> int1: The fact that if this modillion is not a mujahidin that this modillion is not a Trichoptera and he/she does not insufflate Indonesia is incorrect is right.; fact6 & fact3 -> int2: This modillion is not a mujahidin.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

This retrogradeness occurs.

{D}

fact1: If this sensibleness occurs then this diplomaticalness does not occurs. fact2: Either that tergiversation occurs or this sensibleness happens or both. fact3: If that tergiversation occurs that this diplomaticalness does not happens hold. fact4: The antiadrenergicness happens. fact5: That non-heathlikeness results in that this sensibleness does not happens and this diplomaticalness happens. fact6: That cards is brought about by that this diplomaticalness does not happens. fact7: That tergiversation prevents that this diplomaticalness does not happens. fact8: That cards happens. fact9: If that this sharing Algren and this heathlikeness happens is false this heathlikeness does not occurs. fact10: If that cards does not occurs then this retrogradeness and this safeguarding occurs. fact11: That that tergiversation and that non-sensibleness occurs prevents that this retrogradeness occurs.

fact1: {B} -> ¬{C} fact2: ({A} v {B}) fact3: {A} -> ¬{C} fact4: {AP} fact5: ¬{F} -> (¬{B} & {C}) fact6: ¬{C} -> {E} fact7: {A} -> {C} fact8: {E} fact9: ¬({G} & {F}) -> ¬{F} fact10: ¬{E} -> ({D} & {FF}) fact11: ({A} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{D}

This retrogradeness does not occurs.

¬{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If this sensibleness occurs then this diplomaticalness does not occurs. fact2: Either that tergiversation occurs or this sensibleness happens or both. fact3: If that tergiversation occurs that this diplomaticalness does not happens hold. fact4: The antiadrenergicness happens. fact5: That non-heathlikeness results in that this sensibleness does not happens and this diplomaticalness happens. fact6: That cards is brought about by that this diplomaticalness does not happens. fact7: That tergiversation prevents that this diplomaticalness does not happens. fact8: That cards happens. fact9: If that this sharing Algren and this heathlikeness happens is false this heathlikeness does not occurs. fact10: If that cards does not occurs then this retrogradeness and this safeguarding occurs. fact11: That that tergiversation and that non-sensibleness occurs prevents that this retrogradeness occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = This retrogradeness occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That salol does not drip monogram.

¬{C}{a}

fact1: If that razor is a arccosine and is vesical that salol does not drip monogram. fact2: If that that salol is not retentive is false that salol is vesical. fact3: If some person is a kind of a arccosine the one drips monogram. fact4: That flavoring is vesical. fact5: Someone is vesical if that person drips monogram. fact6: That salol is a arccosine if that thing is vesical. fact7: That salol is nonhierarchical. fact8: If some man is a arccosine she/he does rouge telescopy.

fact1: ({B}{b} & {A}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} fact2: {P}{a} -> {A}{a} fact3: (x): {B}x -> {C}x fact4: {A}{s} fact5: (x): {C}x -> {A}x fact6: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} fact7: {GH}{a} fact8: (x): {B}x -> {DI}x

That salol does not drip monogram.

¬{C}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If that razor is a arccosine and is vesical that salol does not drip monogram. fact2: If that that salol is not retentive is false that salol is vesical. fact3: If some person is a kind of a arccosine the one drips monogram. fact4: That flavoring is vesical. fact5: Someone is vesical if that person drips monogram. fact6: That salol is a arccosine if that thing is vesical. fact7: That salol is nonhierarchical. fact8: If some man is a arccosine she/he does rouge telescopy. ; $hypothesis$ = That salol does not drip monogram. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

This Manila is advisable.

¬{B}{c}

fact1: The fact that this Manila is a malacology and/or he is not a atonicity is false. fact2: If the fact that either this Manila dignifies fibrousness or it is not inadvisable or both is false then that this autolysis is not a kind of a Mantophasmatodea is right. fact3: This Manila is not inadvisable if that this instillation empales chirpiness and/or that does not dignify fibrousness is wrong. fact4: That either this instillation is inadvisable or that thing does not dignify fibrousness or both does not hold if this Manila empales chirpiness. fact5: If this Manila is a kind of a Mantophasmatodea that this instillation is not advisable or does not dignify fibrousness or both is false. fact6: That somebody is a kind of a Spizella that is a kind of a atonicity is incorrect if it is not a kind of a tranche. fact7: If the fact that this autolysis is a kind of a Mantophasmatodea hold that this instillation empales chirpiness or it does not dignify fibrousness or both does not hold. fact8: This autolysis is not inadvisable if the fact that this Manila empales chirpiness and/or it is not a kind of a Mantophasmatodea is incorrect. fact9: If this Manila is a Mantophasmatodea that this instillation is inadvisable and/or it does not empale chirpiness is not true. fact10: If this autolysis is a Mantophasmatodea this instillation does not empale chirpiness. fact11: Everything is not a tranche. fact12: That the quizzer is a Racine or not unestablished or both is false. fact13: This instillation does not empale chirpiness. fact14: If the fact that this instillation dignifies fibrousness and/or it is not inadvisable does not hold then this Manila does not empale chirpiness. fact15: This autolysis is a Mantophasmatodea. fact16: If some man does not spot secret the person does stake Sigurd and is a kind of a Mantophasmatodea. fact17: The fact that this autolysis is not a kind of a Tunis hold. fact18: That this instillation empales chirpiness and/or the person is not inadvisable is incorrect.

fact1: ¬({HE}{c} v ¬{F}{c}) fact2: ¬({AB}{c} v ¬{B}{c}) -> ¬{A}{a} fact3: ¬({AA}{b} v ¬{AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{c} fact4: {AA}{c} -> ¬({B}{b} v ¬{AB}{b}) fact5: {A}{c} -> ¬({B}{b} v ¬{AB}{b}) fact6: (x): ¬{G}x -> ¬({E}x & {F}x) fact7: {A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{b} v ¬{AB}{b}) fact8: ¬({AA}{c} v ¬{A}{c}) -> ¬{B}{a} fact9: {A}{c} -> ¬({B}{b} v ¬{AA}{b}) fact10: {A}{a} -> ¬{AA}{b} fact11: (x): ¬{G}x fact12: ¬({CL}{gq} v ¬{BI}{gq}) fact13: ¬{AA}{b} fact14: ¬({AB}{b} v ¬{B}{b}) -> ¬{AA}{c} fact15: {A}{a} fact16: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({C}x & {A}x) fact17: ¬{HN}{a} fact18: ¬({AA}{b} v ¬{B}{b})

This Manila is inadvisable.

{B}{c}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: The fact that this Manila is a malacology and/or he is not a atonicity is false. fact2: If the fact that either this Manila dignifies fibrousness or it is not inadvisable or both is false then that this autolysis is not a kind of a Mantophasmatodea is right. fact3: This Manila is not inadvisable if that this instillation empales chirpiness and/or that does not dignify fibrousness is wrong. fact4: That either this instillation is inadvisable or that thing does not dignify fibrousness or both does not hold if this Manila empales chirpiness. fact5: If this Manila is a kind of a Mantophasmatodea that this instillation is not advisable or does not dignify fibrousness or both is false. fact6: That somebody is a kind of a Spizella that is a kind of a atonicity is incorrect if it is not a kind of a tranche. fact7: If the fact that this autolysis is a kind of a Mantophasmatodea hold that this instillation empales chirpiness or it does not dignify fibrousness or both does not hold. fact8: This autolysis is not inadvisable if the fact that this Manila empales chirpiness and/or it is not a kind of a Mantophasmatodea is incorrect. fact9: If this Manila is a Mantophasmatodea that this instillation is inadvisable and/or it does not empale chirpiness is not true. fact10: If this autolysis is a Mantophasmatodea this instillation does not empale chirpiness. fact11: Everything is not a tranche. fact12: That the quizzer is a Racine or not unestablished or both is false. fact13: This instillation does not empale chirpiness. fact14: If the fact that this instillation dignifies fibrousness and/or it is not inadvisable does not hold then this Manila does not empale chirpiness. fact15: This autolysis is a Mantophasmatodea. fact16: If some man does not spot secret the person does stake Sigurd and is a kind of a Mantophasmatodea. fact17: The fact that this autolysis is not a kind of a Tunis hold. fact18: That this instillation empales chirpiness and/or the person is not inadvisable is incorrect. ; $hypothesis$ = This Manila is advisable. ; $proof$ =

fact7 & fact15 -> int1: The fact that this instillation does empale chirpiness and/or that thing does not dignify fibrousness does not hold.; int1 & fact3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

This Halcion does not pauperize hypovolaemia.

¬{B}{b}

fact1: The fact that something is a microsecond and/or anasarcous does not hold if it does not allure deism. fact2: Something is not a kind of a Wittgenstein and does not allure deism if it is a valorousness. fact3: That this dinner is not a kind of a Hippocrepis and does Park km/h is not true if this is a kind of a dispatch. fact4: Everything does not allure deism. fact5: This dinner is not a Bath but the thing is exterritorial. fact6: If the fact that this dinner is not a kind of a satanophobia and it is not unpunished is false then this dinner is a microsecond. fact7: Something is not a hyperpiesia and is not anasarcous if it is not a microsecond. fact8: If that the cotoneaster wins factuality and/or is not a valorousness does not hold this dinner is a kind of a valorousness. fact9: If the fact that either something is a microsecond or it is anasarcous or both is wrong it is not a hyperpiesia. fact10: This dinner is not a Bath. fact11: If this dinner cowers then that the fact that this dinner is not a kind of a satanophobia and is not unpunished does not hold is correct. fact12: The sarcodinian is a Bath. fact13: This Halcion is not a microsecond if this dinner is a microsecond but this thing does not allure deism. fact14: If this dinner is a Bath and it is exterritorial that this Halcion pauperizes hypovolaemia is correct. fact15: If the fact that this dinner is not a Hippocrepis and Parks km/h is wrong then it does cower. fact16: If somebody that does not allure deism is not a microsecond then the one is not anasarcous.

fact1: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬({D}x v {C}x) fact2: (x): {J}x -> (¬{F}x & ¬{E}x) fact3: {N}{a} -> ¬(¬{M}{a} & {L}{a}) fact4: (x): ¬{E}x fact5: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) fact6: ¬(¬{G}{a} & ¬{H}{a}) -> {D}{a} fact7: (x): ¬{D}x -> (¬{A}x & ¬{C}x) fact8: ¬({K}{c} v ¬{J}{c}) -> {J}{a} fact9: (x): ¬({D}x v {C}x) -> ¬{A}x fact10: ¬{AA}{a} fact11: {I}{a} -> ¬(¬{G}{a} & ¬{H}{a}) fact12: {AA}{fp} fact13: ({D}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} fact14: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} fact15: ¬(¬{M}{a} & {L}{a}) -> {I}{a} fact16: (x): (¬{E}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{C}x

This Halcion does not pauperize hypovolaemia.

¬{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: The fact that something is a microsecond and/or anasarcous does not hold if it does not allure deism. fact2: Something is not a kind of a Wittgenstein and does not allure deism if it is a valorousness. fact3: That this dinner is not a kind of a Hippocrepis and does Park km/h is not true if this is a kind of a dispatch. fact4: Everything does not allure deism. fact5: This dinner is not a Bath but the thing is exterritorial. fact6: If the fact that this dinner is not a kind of a satanophobia and it is not unpunished is false then this dinner is a microsecond. fact7: Something is not a hyperpiesia and is not anasarcous if it is not a microsecond. fact8: If that the cotoneaster wins factuality and/or is not a valorousness does not hold this dinner is a kind of a valorousness. fact9: If the fact that either something is a microsecond or it is anasarcous or both is wrong it is not a hyperpiesia. fact10: This dinner is not a Bath. fact11: If this dinner cowers then that the fact that this dinner is not a kind of a satanophobia and is not unpunished does not hold is correct. fact12: The sarcodinian is a Bath. fact13: This Halcion is not a microsecond if this dinner is a microsecond but this thing does not allure deism. fact14: If this dinner is a Bath and it is exterritorial that this Halcion pauperizes hypovolaemia is correct. fact15: If the fact that this dinner is not a Hippocrepis and Parks km/h is wrong then it does cower. fact16: If somebody that does not allure deism is not a microsecond then the one is not anasarcous. ; $hypothesis$ = This Halcion does not pauperize hypovolaemia. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That tortrix is a Vespula.

{B}{aa}

fact1: That that caravansary does not shinny refractivity and the one does not disturb is false. fact2: The fact that that something is a hypercalcemia is right is true. fact3: If the fact that something is refined and that thing is not a Myrmecophaga is false then that thing does not disturb. fact4: The fact that something is not unrefined and is not a Myrmecophaga is wrong if it shinnies refractivity. fact5: That Feosol is a Myrmecophaga and the thing is not refined if there exists something such that the thing is refined. fact6: If this nobleman does not juggle cumulation and that is not a mill this nobleman is not a Calystegia. fact7: If that caravansary does not disturb then that Feosol is not a kind of a apothegm and it does not reason Tupungatito. fact8: If this nobleman is not a Calystegia this nobleman is not a kind of an eyes. fact9: That tortrix is not a apothegm. fact10: If that some man is both a definition and an alexia does not hold then that the one is not a Vespula hold. fact11: There is something such that the fact that it is a apothegm is right. fact12: There exists somebody such that the person is unrefined. fact13: If something disturbs then the fact that it is a apothegm and it does not reason Tupungatito is incorrect. fact14: If that Feosol is not a Vespula or does not reason Tupungatito or both then that tortrix is a Vespula. fact15: That caravansary does not effuse and shinnies refractivity if this nobleman is not an eyes. fact16: That Feosol does not disturb if that that caravansary does not shinny refractivity and does not disturb is false. fact17: This nobleman does not juggle cumulation if there exists someone such that it is a kind of a hypercalcemia. fact18: The fact that the fact that that tortrix is a definition and it is a kind of an alexia does not hold if there exists somebody such that it is a apothegm hold.

fact1: ¬(¬{G}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) fact2: (Ex): {M}x fact3: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{F}x) -> ¬{D}x fact4: (x): {G}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{F}x) fact5: (x): {E}x -> ({F}{a} & {E}{a}) fact6: (¬{L}{c} & ¬{K}{c}) -> ¬{J}{c} fact7: ¬{D}{b} -> (¬{A}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) fact8: ¬{J}{c} -> ¬{I}{c} fact9: ¬{A}{aa} fact10: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x fact11: (Ex): {A}x fact12: (Ex): {E}x fact13: (x): {D}x -> ¬({A}x & ¬{C}x) fact14: (¬{B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) -> {B}{aa} fact15: ¬{I}{c} -> (¬{H}{b} & {G}{b}) fact16: ¬(¬{G}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) -> ¬{D}{a} fact17: (x): {M}x -> ¬{L}{c} fact18: (x): {A}x -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

That tortrix is a Vespula.

{B}{aa}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That that caravansary does not shinny refractivity and the one does not disturb is false. fact2: The fact that that something is a hypercalcemia is right is true. fact3: If the fact that something is refined and that thing is not a Myrmecophaga is false then that thing does not disturb. fact4: The fact that something is not unrefined and is not a Myrmecophaga is wrong if it shinnies refractivity. fact5: That Feosol is a Myrmecophaga and the thing is not refined if there exists something such that the thing is refined. fact6: If this nobleman does not juggle cumulation and that is not a mill this nobleman is not a Calystegia. fact7: If that caravansary does not disturb then that Feosol is not a kind of a apothegm and it does not reason Tupungatito. fact8: If this nobleman is not a Calystegia this nobleman is not a kind of an eyes. fact9: That tortrix is not a apothegm. fact10: If that some man is both a definition and an alexia does not hold then that the one is not a Vespula hold. fact11: There is something such that the fact that it is a apothegm is right. fact12: There exists somebody such that the person is unrefined. fact13: If something disturbs then the fact that it is a apothegm and it does not reason Tupungatito is incorrect. fact14: If that Feosol is not a Vespula or does not reason Tupungatito or both then that tortrix is a Vespula. fact15: That caravansary does not effuse and shinnies refractivity if this nobleman is not an eyes. fact16: That Feosol does not disturb if that that caravansary does not shinny refractivity and does not disturb is false. fact17: This nobleman does not juggle cumulation if there exists someone such that it is a kind of a hypercalcemia. fact18: The fact that the fact that that tortrix is a definition and it is a kind of an alexia does not hold if there exists somebody such that it is a apothegm hold. ; $hypothesis$ = That tortrix is a Vespula. ; $proof$ =

fact10 -> int1: If the fact that that tortrix is a definition that is a kind of an alexia is not true then she/he is not a kind of a Vespula.; fact11 & fact18 -> int2: The fact that that tortrix is a definition and is an alexia is false.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

This attaining does not happens.

¬{C}

fact1: This psychiatricalness causes that that exacerbation but notthat sobbing worth occurs. fact2: If that sobbing worth does not occurs this attaining does not occurs. fact3: If the fact that that bespeaking excogitation and that vaccinating thalweg happens is wrong that bespeaking excogitation does not happens. fact4: If that this deceasing does not happens is true then the fact that this psychiatricalness happens and/or that practiced occurs is incorrect. fact5: If this undercoated does not happens then both this nucleateding and this plucking occurs. fact6: That this switcheroo does not occurs is caused by that both this nucleateding and this plucking happens. fact7: This attaining does not happens if the fact that either this psychiatricalness happens or that practiced occurs or both is incorrect. fact8: That the deserving FTO occurs is caused by that that semi happens. fact9: The elementalness prevents that this sabering decreed does not occurs. fact10: That the deserving FTO occurs prevents that jesting leishmaniosis. fact11: If that pigmenting fable happens then that semi happens and the smootherness does not happens. fact12: That that bespeaking excogitation happens and that vaccinating thalweg occurs is wrong if that this unfurnishedness does not occurs hold. fact13: If that sobbing worth does not occurs and that exacerbation does not occurs this sensualizing Kolonia happens. fact14: That that sobbing worth happens hold. fact15: If that exacerbation occurs this attaining happens. fact16: This undercoated is prevented by that that jesting leishmaniosis does not occurs and/or that this rearing asystole happens. fact17: That both this non-unfurnishedness and that fantasying Myrtaceae happens is triggered by that this switcheroo does not occurs. fact18: That this deceasing does not occurs and this homoeopathy does not occurs is brought about by that that bespeaking excogitation does not occurs.

fact1: {D} -> ({B} & ¬{A}) fact2: ¬{A} -> ¬{C} fact3: ¬({H} & {I}) -> ¬{H} fact4: ¬{F} -> ¬({D} v {E}) fact5: ¬{O} -> ({M} & {N}) fact6: ({M} & {N}) -> ¬{L} fact7: ¬({D} v {E}) -> ¬{C} fact8: {S} -> {R} fact9: {FL} -> {AU} fact10: {R} -> ¬{Q} fact11: {U} -> ({S} & ¬{T}) fact12: ¬{J} -> ¬({H} & {I}) fact13: (¬{A} & ¬{B}) -> {HD} fact14: {A} fact15: {B} -> {C} fact16: (¬{Q} v {P}) -> ¬{O} fact17: ¬{L} -> (¬{J} & {K}) fact18: ¬{H} -> (¬{F} & ¬{G})

This sensualizing Kolonia happens.

{HD}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This psychiatricalness causes that that exacerbation but notthat sobbing worth occurs. fact2: If that sobbing worth does not occurs this attaining does not occurs. fact3: If the fact that that bespeaking excogitation and that vaccinating thalweg happens is wrong that bespeaking excogitation does not happens. fact4: If that this deceasing does not happens is true then the fact that this psychiatricalness happens and/or that practiced occurs is incorrect. fact5: If this undercoated does not happens then both this nucleateding and this plucking occurs. fact6: That this switcheroo does not occurs is caused by that both this nucleateding and this plucking happens. fact7: This attaining does not happens if the fact that either this psychiatricalness happens or that practiced occurs or both is incorrect. fact8: That the deserving FTO occurs is caused by that that semi happens. fact9: The elementalness prevents that this sabering decreed does not occurs. fact10: That the deserving FTO occurs prevents that jesting leishmaniosis. fact11: If that pigmenting fable happens then that semi happens and the smootherness does not happens. fact12: That that bespeaking excogitation happens and that vaccinating thalweg occurs is wrong if that this unfurnishedness does not occurs hold. fact13: If that sobbing worth does not occurs and that exacerbation does not occurs this sensualizing Kolonia happens. fact14: That that sobbing worth happens hold. fact15: If that exacerbation occurs this attaining happens. fact16: This undercoated is prevented by that that jesting leishmaniosis does not occurs and/or that this rearing asystole happens. fact17: That both this non-unfurnishedness and that fantasying Myrtaceae happens is triggered by that this switcheroo does not occurs. fact18: That this deceasing does not occurs and this homoeopathy does not occurs is brought about by that that bespeaking excogitation does not occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = This attaining does not happens. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

This K.E. happens.

{C}

fact1: The wayfaring happens. fact2: The agriculture happens and this plodding happens. fact3: That limbicness happens if this financing much occurs. fact4: This whirring occurs. fact5: This interlude occurs. fact6: That Senecanness happens and the error occurs. fact7: That the gallinaceousness happens is brought about by that the interring continuo happens. fact8: This plodding happens. fact9: This K.E. does not happens if the fact that that chaplainship happens and this unworldliness happens does not hold. fact10: The workout occurs. fact11: The fact that this acrobatics occurs is true. fact12: The error occurs and/or that Senecanness occurs if this K.E. does not happens. fact13: This romanticisticness happens if that that sketching occurs is not incorrect. fact14: That this multiplying Polybotria occurs and the whooshing Aspidophoroides happens is not wrong. fact15: This derogating Crawford happens. fact16: The mews occurs.

fact1: {S} fact2: ({JE} & {AP}) fact3: {CK} -> {DF} fact4: {DD} fact5: {JJ} fact6: ({A} & {B}) fact7: {HK} -> {EO} fact8: {AP} fact9: ¬({E} & {D}) -> ¬{C} fact10: {CQ} fact11: {GP} fact12: ¬{C} -> ({B} v {A}) fact13: {FN} -> {DK} fact14: ({CI} & {GE}) fact15: {ED} fact16: {GT}

This nisus happens.

{DM}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: The wayfaring happens. fact2: The agriculture happens and this plodding happens. fact3: That limbicness happens if this financing much occurs. fact4: This whirring occurs. fact5: This interlude occurs. fact6: That Senecanness happens and the error occurs. fact7: That the gallinaceousness happens is brought about by that the interring continuo happens. fact8: This plodding happens. fact9: This K.E. does not happens if the fact that that chaplainship happens and this unworldliness happens does not hold. fact10: The workout occurs. fact11: The fact that this acrobatics occurs is true. fact12: The error occurs and/or that Senecanness occurs if this K.E. does not happens. fact13: This romanticisticness happens if that that sketching occurs is not incorrect. fact14: That this multiplying Polybotria occurs and the whooshing Aspidophoroides happens is not wrong. fact15: This derogating Crawford happens. fact16: The mews occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = This K.E. happens. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That this expressing Spirochaeta occurs hold.

{A}

fact1: This sacrament does not occurs if that Montserratianness does not happens. fact2: That that gambling prepossession does not occurs is caused by that the numeralness happens. fact3: If that gambling prepossession does not occurs this expressing Spirochaeta does not occurs. fact4: That Montserratianness does not occurs if that both that concretion and this non-brisantness occurs does not hold. fact5: That this sacrament does not happens brings about that this expressing Spirochaeta happens and that gambling prepossession occurs. fact6: That this non-numeralness and that leavening crisscrossed occurs is incorrect. fact7: That this inquisitorialness occurs or that this denigration does not happens or both prevents that this inquisitorialness does not occurs. fact8: If this anathematisation does not happens then the absorbableness does not occurs. fact9: That notthe stops but the enfranchising Silvanus occurs does not hold. fact10: That either this inquisitorialness happens or this denigration does not happens or both is caused by that intramuralness. fact11: If this expressing Spirochaeta happens then that this non-middlingness and this anathematisation occurs does not hold. fact12: This messianicness does not happens. fact13: That gambling prepossession does not happens if the fact that this non-numeralness and that leavening crisscrossed happens does not hold. fact14: The debauching does not happens if the fact that that veiling does not happens and this cyanobacterialness occurs is incorrect. fact15: That the numeralness occurs and that leavening crisscrossed happens does not hold. fact16: If this inquisitorialness occurs that that concretion happens but this brisantness does not happens does not hold. fact17: If the fact that this brisantness occurs but that concretion does not occurs does not hold that concretion occurs.

fact1: ¬{D} -> ¬{C} fact2: {AA} -> ¬{B} fact3: ¬{B} -> ¬{A} fact4: ¬({E} & ¬{F}) -> ¬{D} fact5: ¬{C} -> ({A} & {B}) fact6: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) fact7: ({G} v ¬{I}) -> {G} fact8: ¬{JF} -> ¬{GT} fact9: ¬(¬{HG} & {HC}) fact10: {H} -> ({G} v ¬{I}) fact11: {A} -> ¬(¬{HD} & {JF}) fact12: ¬{ID} fact13: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} fact14: ¬(¬{CS} & {AE}) -> ¬{HF} fact15: ¬({AA} & {AB}) fact16: {G} -> ¬({E} & ¬{F}) fact17: ¬({F} & ¬{E}) -> {E}

That this expressing Spirochaeta occurs hold.

{A}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This sacrament does not occurs if that Montserratianness does not happens. fact2: That that gambling prepossession does not occurs is caused by that the numeralness happens. fact3: If that gambling prepossession does not occurs this expressing Spirochaeta does not occurs. fact4: That Montserratianness does not occurs if that both that concretion and this non-brisantness occurs does not hold. fact5: That this sacrament does not happens brings about that this expressing Spirochaeta happens and that gambling prepossession occurs. fact6: That this non-numeralness and that leavening crisscrossed occurs is incorrect. fact7: That this inquisitorialness occurs or that this denigration does not happens or both prevents that this inquisitorialness does not occurs. fact8: If this anathematisation does not happens then the absorbableness does not occurs. fact9: That notthe stops but the enfranchising Silvanus occurs does not hold. fact10: That either this inquisitorialness happens or this denigration does not happens or both is caused by that intramuralness. fact11: If this expressing Spirochaeta happens then that this non-middlingness and this anathematisation occurs does not hold. fact12: This messianicness does not happens. fact13: That gambling prepossession does not happens if the fact that this non-numeralness and that leavening crisscrossed happens does not hold. fact14: The debauching does not happens if the fact that that veiling does not happens and this cyanobacterialness occurs is incorrect. fact15: That the numeralness occurs and that leavening crisscrossed happens does not hold. fact16: If this inquisitorialness occurs that that concretion happens but this brisantness does not happens does not hold. fact17: If the fact that this brisantness occurs but that concretion does not occurs does not hold that concretion occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = That this expressing Spirochaeta occurs hold. ; $proof$ =

fact13 & fact6 -> int1: That gambling prepossession does not occurs.; int1 & fact3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That blockbuster does not happens.

¬{B}

fact1: That blockbuster does not happens if that that echoing happens hold. fact2: The fact that this chasing does not occurs and that echoing does not happens is false if this deep does not occurs. fact3: If this thundering occurs then that slicing happens and the caudalness does not occurs. fact4: This shenanigan does not happens. fact5: That slicing triggers that that clearness happens and that weightlifting does not occurs. fact6: That this anisogameticness does not happens is triggered by that that journey does not occurs but the punctuation occurs. fact7: If this anisogameticness does not happens then both this thundering and this forbearance occurs. fact8: If that weightlifting does not happens notthis deep but that blockbuster occurs. fact9: This deep does not happens. fact10: If that the bellying mantichora does not occurs is right then the fact that the dodging sterility does not happens but the sectarian occurs is incorrect. fact11: The fact that notthis chasing but that echoing happens is false. fact12: If this deep does not occurs the fact that this chasing does not happens but that echoing occurs is false.

fact1: {AB} -> ¬{B} fact2: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) fact3: {G} -> ({E} & ¬{F}) fact4: ¬{T} fact5: {E} -> ({D} & ¬{C}) fact6: (¬{K} & {J}) -> ¬{I} fact7: ¬{I} -> ({G} & {H}) fact8: ¬{C} -> (¬{A} & {B}) fact9: ¬{A} fact10: ¬{AG} -> ¬(¬{CT} & {JE}) fact11: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) fact12: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & {AB})

That blockbuster occurs.

{B}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That blockbuster does not happens if that that echoing happens hold. fact2: The fact that this chasing does not occurs and that echoing does not happens is false if this deep does not occurs. fact3: If this thundering occurs then that slicing happens and the caudalness does not occurs. fact4: This shenanigan does not happens. fact5: That slicing triggers that that clearness happens and that weightlifting does not occurs. fact6: That this anisogameticness does not happens is triggered by that that journey does not occurs but the punctuation occurs. fact7: If this anisogameticness does not happens then both this thundering and this forbearance occurs. fact8: If that weightlifting does not happens notthis deep but that blockbuster occurs. fact9: This deep does not happens. fact10: If that the bellying mantichora does not occurs is right then the fact that the dodging sterility does not happens but the sectarian occurs is incorrect. fact11: The fact that notthis chasing but that echoing happens is false. fact12: If this deep does not occurs the fact that this chasing does not happens but that echoing occurs is false. ; $hypothesis$ = That blockbuster does not happens. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__