Datasets:

hitachi-nlp

/

FLD.v2.reimpl

like 0

0.3

The fact that this yodeling Centropus and this plagiarising imperceptibility happens is wrong.

¬({C} & {B})

fact1: This uncharitableness does not happens and the Parcheesi does not happens if this eating Lafayette does not occurs. fact2: That amortisation happens. fact3: If that nearerness occurs this eating Lafayette does not happens and this backwardness happens. fact4: If that that instillment does not occurs and/or this plagiarising imperceptibility happens does not hold then this bimillenialness occurs. fact5: That inferentialness does not happens if the fact that that signifying opportunity does not happens and this cocooning does not occurs is false. fact6: If that inferentialness does not happens both that nearerness and this artlessness occurs. fact7: If this mushing disconnected happens that orchestrating Cryptobranchus occurs. fact8: That that orchestrating Cryptobranchus occurs hold. fact9: This propelling coordinated occurs and this outdistancing Ingres happens. fact10: That that signifying opportunity does not occurs and this cocooning does not happens is false if the fact that this destabilising keratoacanthoma happens does not hold. fact11: The pressing Eranthis happens. fact12: Both this paleoanthropologicalness and the segregating actinism occurs. fact13: The aborting Mytilidae and the unreservedness happens. fact14: This yodeling Centropus happens and that orchestrating Cryptobranchus happens. fact15: The catechising unwiseness happens. fact16: If this uncharitableness does not happens then this mushing disconnected occurs and that credulousness occurs. fact17: This destabilising keratoacanthoma does not happens. fact18: This tuckering Kenyata happens and that amortisation occurs. fact19: That this yodeling Centropus and this plagiarising imperceptibility occurs is incorrect if that that instillment does not occurs is right.

fact1: ¬{I} -> (¬{G} & ¬{H}) fact2: {FS} fact3: {K} -> (¬{I} & {J}) fact4: ¬(¬{A} v {B}) -> {HO} fact5: ¬(¬{O} & ¬{N}) -> ¬{M} fact6: ¬{M} -> ({K} & {L}) fact7: {E} -> {D} fact8: {D} fact9: ({GG} & {IA}) fact10: ¬{P} -> ¬(¬{O} & ¬{N}) fact11: {FQ} fact12: ({CQ} & {FA}) fact13: ({GL} & {HM}) fact14: ({C} & {D}) fact15: {GA} fact16: ¬{G} -> ({E} & {F}) fact17: ¬{P} fact18: ({GD} & {FS}) fact19: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} & {B})

This bimillenialness happens.

{HO}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This uncharitableness does not happens and the Parcheesi does not happens if this eating Lafayette does not occurs. fact2: That amortisation happens. fact3: If that nearerness occurs this eating Lafayette does not happens and this backwardness happens. fact4: If that that instillment does not occurs and/or this plagiarising imperceptibility happens does not hold then this bimillenialness occurs. fact5: That inferentialness does not happens if the fact that that signifying opportunity does not happens and this cocooning does not occurs is false. fact6: If that inferentialness does not happens both that nearerness and this artlessness occurs. fact7: If this mushing disconnected happens that orchestrating Cryptobranchus occurs. fact8: That that orchestrating Cryptobranchus occurs hold. fact9: This propelling coordinated occurs and this outdistancing Ingres happens. fact10: That that signifying opportunity does not occurs and this cocooning does not happens is false if the fact that this destabilising keratoacanthoma happens does not hold. fact11: The pressing Eranthis happens. fact12: Both this paleoanthropologicalness and the segregating actinism occurs. fact13: The aborting Mytilidae and the unreservedness happens. fact14: This yodeling Centropus happens and that orchestrating Cryptobranchus happens. fact15: The catechising unwiseness happens. fact16: If this uncharitableness does not happens then this mushing disconnected occurs and that credulousness occurs. fact17: This destabilising keratoacanthoma does not happens. fact18: This tuckering Kenyata happens and that amortisation occurs. fact19: That this yodeling Centropus and this plagiarising imperceptibility occurs is incorrect if that that instillment does not occurs is right. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that this yodeling Centropus and this plagiarising imperceptibility happens is wrong. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

This electrochemicalness happens.

{C}

fact1: This roaring lycanthropy does not occurs if that this roaring lycanthropy occurs but this antibioticness does not occurs is wrong. fact2: That this electrochemicalness does not happens is triggered by that that variance happens and this antibioticness occurs. fact3: That variance happens. fact4: If that titularness occurs then this geneticness but notthis punitiveness happens. fact5: That that variance does not occurs and this electrochemicalness does not occurs is correct if this punitiveness does not happens. fact6: That this roaring lycanthropy and this non-antibioticness occurs does not hold if that variance does not happens. fact7: This non-titularness is prevented by this bulbarness. fact8: This antibioticness occurs.

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

This roaring lycanthropy does not happens.

¬{GS}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This roaring lycanthropy does not occurs if that this roaring lycanthropy occurs but this antibioticness does not occurs is wrong. fact2: That this electrochemicalness does not happens is triggered by that that variance happens and this antibioticness occurs. fact3: That variance happens. fact4: If that titularness occurs then this geneticness but notthis punitiveness happens. fact5: That that variance does not occurs and this electrochemicalness does not occurs is correct if this punitiveness does not happens. fact6: That this roaring lycanthropy and this non-antibioticness occurs does not hold if that variance does not happens. fact7: This non-titularness is prevented by this bulbarness. fact8: This antibioticness occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = This electrochemicalness happens. ; $proof$ =

fact3 & fact8 -> int1: Both that variance and this antibioticness happens.; int1 & fact2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That this souffle is not a Desmidium but it is psychoactive is false.

¬(¬{D}{b} & {C}{b})

fact1: This souffle is a glossiness. fact2: If this souffle is a Desmidium and psychoactive then this souffle is not a Cryptotis. fact3: That anhydride is not psychoactive. fact4: If some person is a Cryptotis that is a unawareness then that one is not psychoactive. fact5: This Haussa is a unawareness. fact6: If Cristobal is not psychoactive then the fact that this souffle is a Desmidium and it is psychoactive is not true. fact7: If this souffle is not a Cryptotis the fact that Cristobal is psychoactive and she/he is a Cryptotis does not hold. fact8: Cristobal is a Cryptotis. fact9: This souffle is not collagenous. fact10: If this souffle is not a Desmidium the fact that Cristobal is not a Cryptotis and is a Desmidium is wrong. fact11: Cristobal is not a microvolt. fact12: That Cristobal is a unawareness is correct. fact13: This souffle is not Nicaean. fact14: The fact that this souffle is both not a Desmidium and psychoactive is incorrect if Cristobal is not psychoactive. fact15: Cristobal is a Dacca and it blurs Embothrium. fact16: That blackseed is a unawareness and rustlesses. fact17: That this souffle is a kind of a Desmidium and is psychoactive is wrong. fact18: The fact that Cristobal is psychoactive and is a kind of a Desmidium does not hold.

fact1: {H}{b} fact2: ({D}{b} & {C}{b}) -> ¬{A}{b} fact3: ¬{C}{en} fact4: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}x fact5: {B}{ee} fact6: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬({D}{b} & {C}{b}) fact7: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬({C}{a} & {A}{a}) fact8: {A}{a} fact9: ¬{DK}{b} fact10: ¬{D}{b} -> ¬(¬{A}{a} & {D}{a}) fact11: ¬{GN}{a} fact12: {B}{a} fact13: ¬{CB}{b} fact14: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬(¬{D}{b} & {C}{b}) fact15: ({DE}{a} & {BQ}{a}) fact16: ({B}{k} & {FB}{k}) fact17: ¬({D}{b} & {C}{b}) fact18: ¬({C}{a} & {D}{a})

PROVED

PROVED

$facts$ = fact1: This souffle is a glossiness. fact2: If this souffle is a Desmidium and psychoactive then this souffle is not a Cryptotis. fact3: That anhydride is not psychoactive. fact4: If some person is a Cryptotis that is a unawareness then that one is not psychoactive. fact5: This Haussa is a unawareness. fact6: If Cristobal is not psychoactive then the fact that this souffle is a Desmidium and it is psychoactive is not true. fact7: If this souffle is not a Cryptotis the fact that Cristobal is psychoactive and she/he is a Cryptotis does not hold. fact8: Cristobal is a Cryptotis. fact9: This souffle is not collagenous. fact10: If this souffle is not a Desmidium the fact that Cristobal is not a Cryptotis and is a Desmidium is wrong. fact11: Cristobal is not a microvolt. fact12: That Cristobal is a unawareness is correct. fact13: This souffle is not Nicaean. fact14: The fact that this souffle is both not a Desmidium and psychoactive is incorrect if Cristobal is not psychoactive. fact15: Cristobal is a Dacca and it blurs Embothrium. fact16: That blackseed is a unawareness and rustlesses. fact17: That this souffle is a kind of a Desmidium and is psychoactive is wrong. fact18: The fact that Cristobal is psychoactive and is a kind of a Desmidium does not hold. ; $hypothesis$ = That this souffle is not a Desmidium but it is psychoactive is false. ; $proof$ =

fact8 & fact12 -> int1: Cristobal is a kind of a Cryptotis and it is a unawareness.; fact4 -> int2: If Cristobal is a Cryptotis and it is a kind of a unawareness then the fact that it is nonpsychoactive is true.; int1 & int2 -> int3: That Cristobal is not psychoactive is not wrong.; int3 & fact14 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

That if this gangliocyte blurs bold this gangliocyte is not non-agrobiological does not hold.

¬({A}{a} -> {C}{a})

fact1: If this gangliocyte does blur bold then it Kids motored. fact2: Somebody that Kids motored is agrobiological.

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$facts$ = fact1: If this gangliocyte does blur bold then it Kids motored. fact2: Somebody that Kids motored is agrobiological. ; $hypothesis$ = That if this gangliocyte blurs bold this gangliocyte is not non-agrobiological does not hold. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that this gangliocyte blurs bold.; fact1 & assump1 -> int1: This gangliocyte Kids motored.; fact2 -> int2: This gangliocyte is agrobiological if it Kids motored.; int1 & int2 -> int3: This gangliocyte is agrobiological.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

Nadine is a kind of a haematology that pastures Larrea.

({C}{c} & {D}{c})

fact1: The fact that some man does not vanish eosinopenia and is not a kind of a credulousness does not hold if she is a kind of a drafting. fact2: Nadine is logogrammatic and it is quantitative. fact3: That sunbonnet bleeps and it rhymes Castilian. fact4: This displacement is a kind of a credulousness and it is uricosuric. fact5: If this achimenes is not canonical then Laura is a SSPE and/or federal. fact6: If the fact that someone does not vanish eosinopenia and is a credulousness is incorrect the one is not a kind of a credulousness. fact7: If something is federal that thing is a drafting. fact8: the Larrea does pasture Nadine. fact9: If that sunbonnet is a credulousness Nadine is a haematology. fact10: That sunbonnet is a credulousness and/or is a haematology. fact11: If that sunbonnet is not a drafting the fact that that sunbonnet does not vanish eosinopenia and is a credulousness is not right. fact12: That sunbonnet is a haematology if Nadine is a credulousness. fact13: That sunbonnet is a kind of a 100 and/or it is a credulousness. fact14: If that something does not vanish eosinopenia and it is not a credulousness does not hold then it is not a 100. fact15: If that sunbonnet pastures Larrea then Nadine is a credulousness. fact16: That sunbonnet is a kind of a 100 if Nadine is a credulousness. fact17: Nadine pastures Larrea if that sunbonnet is a haematology. fact18: That Nadine is a haematology and it does pasture Larrea does not hold if that sunbonnet is not a 100. fact19: Nadine is a kind of a 100. fact20: Nadine does pasture Larrea.

fact1: (x): {F}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{B}x) fact2: ({CC}{c} & {DE}{c}) fact3: ({GB}{a} & {IK}{a}) fact4: ({B}{ih} & {FN}{ih}) fact5: ¬{I}{d} -> ({H}{b} v {G}{b}) fact6: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & {B}x) -> ¬{B}x fact7: (x): {G}x -> {F}x fact8: {AA}{aa} fact9: {B}{a} -> {C}{c} fact10: ({B}{a} v {C}{a}) fact11: ¬{F}{a} -> ¬(¬{E}{a} & {B}{a}) fact12: {B}{c} -> {C}{a} fact13: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}) fact14: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{A}x fact15: {D}{a} -> {B}{c} fact16: {B}{c} -> {A}{a} fact17: {C}{a} -> {D}{c} fact18: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({C}{c} & {D}{c}) fact19: {A}{c} fact20: {D}{c}

The fact that Nadine is a haematology and it pastures Larrea is not true.

¬({C}{c} & {D}{c})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: The fact that some man does not vanish eosinopenia and is not a kind of a credulousness does not hold if she is a kind of a drafting. fact2: Nadine is logogrammatic and it is quantitative. fact3: That sunbonnet bleeps and it rhymes Castilian. fact4: This displacement is a kind of a credulousness and it is uricosuric. fact5: If this achimenes is not canonical then Laura is a SSPE and/or federal. fact6: If the fact that someone does not vanish eosinopenia and is a credulousness is incorrect the one is not a kind of a credulousness. fact7: If something is federal that thing is a drafting. fact8: the Larrea does pasture Nadine. fact9: If that sunbonnet is a credulousness Nadine is a haematology. fact10: That sunbonnet is a credulousness and/or is a haematology. fact11: If that sunbonnet is not a drafting the fact that that sunbonnet does not vanish eosinopenia and is a credulousness is not right. fact12: That sunbonnet is a haematology if Nadine is a credulousness. fact13: That sunbonnet is a kind of a 100 and/or it is a credulousness. fact14: If that something does not vanish eosinopenia and it is not a credulousness does not hold then it is not a 100. fact15: If that sunbonnet pastures Larrea then Nadine is a credulousness. fact16: That sunbonnet is a kind of a 100 if Nadine is a credulousness. fact17: Nadine pastures Larrea if that sunbonnet is a haematology. fact18: That Nadine is a haematology and it does pasture Larrea does not hold if that sunbonnet is not a 100. fact19: Nadine is a kind of a 100. fact20: Nadine does pasture Larrea. ; $hypothesis$ = Nadine is a kind of a haematology that pastures Larrea. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That ormer is not a kind of a laced.

¬{B}{b}

fact1: Someone that does not rut is a shaved and is not archaeological. fact2: That multivitamin does huddle. fact3: If something is not egoistic and/or it is a middle then it does not rut. fact4: That ormer is a kind of a literalism. fact5: This plessimeter is a laced. fact6: Someone is not egoistic and/or is a middle if it is a pyromania. fact7: The casuarina is a laced. fact8: If this plessimeter is a laced then that ormer is a literalism. fact9: If something is both a shaved and not archaeological then it is not a kind of a literalism. fact10: That that ormer is not a kind of a laced is correct if this plessimeter is not dilute but she/he is a laced. fact11: If that ringworm does not huddle then that overlip is a kind of a pyromania and it does write ERT. fact12: That ormer is a laced if this plessimeter is a literalism. fact13: This plessimeter is not dilute and is a laced if that overlip is not a literalism. fact14: This plessimeter is a kind of a laced if that ormer is a literalism. fact15: That ringworm does not huddle if that multivitamin huddle and is a Argiopidae.

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

That ormer is not a kind of a laced.

¬{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: Someone that does not rut is a shaved and is not archaeological. fact2: That multivitamin does huddle. fact3: If something is not egoistic and/or it is a middle then it does not rut. fact4: That ormer is a kind of a literalism. fact5: This plessimeter is a laced. fact6: Someone is not egoistic and/or is a middle if it is a pyromania. fact7: The casuarina is a laced. fact8: If this plessimeter is a laced then that ormer is a literalism. fact9: If something is both a shaved and not archaeological then it is not a kind of a literalism. fact10: That that ormer is not a kind of a laced is correct if this plessimeter is not dilute but she/he is a laced. fact11: If that ringworm does not huddle then that overlip is a kind of a pyromania and it does write ERT. fact12: That ormer is a laced if this plessimeter is a literalism. fact13: This plessimeter is not dilute and is a laced if that overlip is not a literalism. fact14: This plessimeter is a kind of a laced if that ormer is a literalism. fact15: That ringworm does not huddle if that multivitamin huddle and is a Argiopidae. ; $hypothesis$ = That ormer is not a kind of a laced. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

If that noreaster revs Ulmus that pottery is a Pezizaceae.

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

fact1: If that noreaster is ideological that is a Pezizaceae. fact2: If that pottery is ideological and the thing does agitate then that noreaster is not ideological. fact3: If that pottery is a Pezizaceae it is ideological. fact4: If that noreaster is ideological then that pottery revs Ulmus. fact5: If that noreaster is not ideological then this conglutination is not ideological. fact6: If that that noreaster is ideological is right then the fact that that pottery is a Pezizaceae is not incorrect. fact7: That pottery revs Ulmus if that noreaster is a Pezizaceae. fact8: If that noreaster revs Ulmus then the fact that he/she is a Pezizaceae hold. fact9: If that noreaster is a kind of a Pezizaceae that noreaster does rev Ulmus. fact10: That pottery revs Ulmus if that pottery is a Pezizaceae. fact11: That pottery is a kind of a Pezizaceae if that pottery is a Lamiaceae. fact12: That noreaster does habited candlepower. fact13: If that pottery is ideological that noreaster is a Pezizaceae. fact14: That pottery is ideological if that noreaster is a Pezizaceae. fact15: If that pottery does rev Ulmus then that noreaster is a Pezizaceae. fact16: That noreaster is ideological if that noreaster revs Ulmus. fact17: Some person is a Pezizaceae and it does rev Ulmus if the fact that it is not ideological is not incorrect. fact18: The fact that that noreaster is a Pezizaceae is true. fact19: If that pottery is ideological that noreaster revs Ulmus. fact20: That pottery suburbanises 1850s if that noreaster is a Pezizaceae.

fact1: {B}{a} -> {C}{a} fact2: ({B}{b} & {E}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} fact3: {C}{b} -> {B}{b} fact4: {B}{a} -> {A}{b} fact5: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬{B}{fo} fact6: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} fact7: {C}{a} -> {A}{b} fact8: {A}{a} -> {C}{a} fact9: {C}{a} -> {A}{a} fact10: {C}{b} -> {A}{b} fact11: {BB}{b} -> {C}{b} fact12: {FJ}{a} fact13: {B}{b} -> {C}{a} fact14: {C}{a} -> {B}{b} fact15: {A}{b} -> {C}{a} fact16: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} fact17: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({C}x & {A}x) fact18: {C}{a} fact19: {B}{b} -> {A}{a} fact20: {C}{a} -> {FC}{b}

This conglutination is a Pezizaceae.

{C}{fo}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If that noreaster is ideological that is a Pezizaceae. fact2: If that pottery is ideological and the thing does agitate then that noreaster is not ideological. fact3: If that pottery is a Pezizaceae it is ideological. fact4: If that noreaster is ideological then that pottery revs Ulmus. fact5: If that noreaster is not ideological then this conglutination is not ideological. fact6: If that that noreaster is ideological is right then the fact that that pottery is a Pezizaceae is not incorrect. fact7: That pottery revs Ulmus if that noreaster is a Pezizaceae. fact8: If that noreaster revs Ulmus then the fact that he/she is a Pezizaceae hold. fact9: If that noreaster is a kind of a Pezizaceae that noreaster does rev Ulmus. fact10: That pottery revs Ulmus if that pottery is a Pezizaceae. fact11: That pottery is a kind of a Pezizaceae if that pottery is a Lamiaceae. fact12: That noreaster does habited candlepower. fact13: If that pottery is ideological that noreaster is a Pezizaceae. fact14: That pottery is ideological if that noreaster is a Pezizaceae. fact15: If that pottery does rev Ulmus then that noreaster is a Pezizaceae. fact16: That noreaster is ideological if that noreaster revs Ulmus. fact17: Some person is a Pezizaceae and it does rev Ulmus if the fact that it is not ideological is not incorrect. fact18: The fact that that noreaster is a Pezizaceae is true. fact19: If that pottery is ideological that noreaster revs Ulmus. fact20: That pottery suburbanises 1850s if that noreaster is a Pezizaceae. ; $hypothesis$ = If that noreaster revs Ulmus that pottery is a Pezizaceae. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that that noreaster revs Ulmus.; fact16 & assump1 -> int1: That noreaster is ideological.; int1 & fact6 -> int2: That that pottery is a Pezizaceae is right.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

Ellen is not a kind of a tyrolean and/or the thing does frustrate Seeger.

(¬{D}{a} v {B}{a})

fact1: The fact that Ellen is not an equality and/or it is a pronunciamento is incorrect. fact2: If somebody is not a Monnet and/or is not a Umbellales then this person does not pool ileus. fact3: Ellen does not frustrate Seeger if that is polydactyl. fact4: The fact that something is not a Albugo but it is polydactyl is incorrect if it does not pool ileus. fact5: Ellen is polydactyl. fact6: The hootch frustrates Seeger. fact7: If the fact that that survivor is not a Albugo but polydactyl does not hold then Ellen is not a tyrolean. fact8: Something is not a Monnet if that it is a Monnet but not a troubling does not hold.

fact1: ¬(¬{GO}{a} v {HB}{a}) fact2: (x): (¬{F}x v ¬{G}x) -> ¬{E}x fact3: {A}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} fact4: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & {A}x) fact5: {A}{a} fact6: {B}{dd} fact7: ¬(¬{C}{b} & {A}{b}) -> ¬{D}{a} fact8: (x): ¬({F}x & ¬{I}x) -> ¬{F}x

Ellen is not a kind of a tyrolean and/or the thing does frustrate Seeger.

(¬{D}{a} v {B}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: The fact that Ellen is not an equality and/or it is a pronunciamento is incorrect. fact2: If somebody is not a Monnet and/or is not a Umbellales then this person does not pool ileus. fact3: Ellen does not frustrate Seeger if that is polydactyl. fact4: The fact that something is not a Albugo but it is polydactyl is incorrect if it does not pool ileus. fact5: Ellen is polydactyl. fact6: The hootch frustrates Seeger. fact7: If the fact that that survivor is not a Albugo but polydactyl does not hold then Ellen is not a tyrolean. fact8: Something is not a Monnet if that it is a Monnet but not a troubling does not hold. ; $hypothesis$ = Ellen is not a kind of a tyrolean and/or the thing does frustrate Seeger. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

The fact that if that vanquishing Sapindales does not occurs then this laniariness but notthat vanquishing Sapindales occurs is false.

¬(¬{C} -> ({B} & ¬{C}))

fact1: That the fact that that theoreticalness does not occurs is correct does not hold. fact2: That sack happens. fact3: The non-laniariness is brought about by that that vanquishing Sapindales happens and this quadraphonicness happens. fact4: That vanquishing Sapindales is brought about by that that arthropodanness does not occurs and that harmattan does not occurs. fact5: If that theoreticalness happens this laniariness occurs. fact6: That isentropicness happens if this laniariness does not occurs and that theoreticalness does not occurs.

fact1: {A} fact2: {N} fact3: ({C} & {D}) -> ¬{B} fact4: (¬{E} & ¬{G}) -> {C} fact5: {A} -> {B} fact6: (¬{B} & ¬{A}) -> {CM}

That isentropicness happens.

{CM}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That the fact that that theoreticalness does not occurs is correct does not hold. fact2: That sack happens. fact3: The non-laniariness is brought about by that that vanquishing Sapindales happens and this quadraphonicness happens. fact4: That vanquishing Sapindales is brought about by that that arthropodanness does not occurs and that harmattan does not occurs. fact5: If that theoreticalness happens this laniariness occurs. fact6: That isentropicness happens if this laniariness does not occurs and that theoreticalness does not occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that if that vanquishing Sapindales does not occurs then this laniariness but notthat vanquishing Sapindales occurs is false. ; $proof$ =

fact5 & fact1 -> int1: This laniariness occurs.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that that vanquishing Sapindales does not occurs.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: This laniariness but notthat vanquishing Sapindales occurs.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

This birdbrain is nonpregnant.

{A}{a}

fact1: This chela drawls Cajanus. fact2: If that this birdbrain centres Merluccius hold then this birdbrain drawls Cajanus. fact3: If the fact that the gallfly is not a rondelet and detests vertu is incorrect then the gallfly is an adage. fact4: The fact that somebody is not a kind of a myalgia and it does not enlighten tariff is false if that it is unaddicted is true. fact5: This darkie is a fifth and is a confabulation if that clit is not a myalgia. fact6: If this birdbrain is not unaddicted then that is a kind of a myalgia and that is a confabulation. fact7: If the fact that that Whig is not a myalgia and it does not enlighten tariff is false then that clit is not a kind of a myalgia. fact8: That this birdbrain is not a Haemulidae but it is an adage is incorrect. fact9: Someone is pregnant if the person does not drawl Cajanus. fact10: If the fact that somebody is a kind of a Haemulidae is true then the one is a invisibleness. fact11: If this darkie is a confabulation then this birdbrain is a kind of a fifth. fact12: Something is a confabulation if it is not unaddicted and it is not a myalgia. fact13: If the fact that someone drawls Cajanus is true then it is nonpregnant. fact14: Something that is a fifth drawls Cajanus and is not nonpregnant. fact15: This birdbrain is pregnant thing that drawls Cajanus if this darkie is a fifth. fact16: Something is unaddicted if that either it does not recollect or it is a Michelangelo or both is wrong. fact17: Somebody drawls Cajanus if this one is a creditworthiness. fact18: Some person is an adage if it is nonpregnant. fact19: This birdbrain drawls Cajanus if the fact that this birdbrain is not a kind of a Haemulidae but it is an adage does not hold. fact20: Someone does not drawl Cajanus and is not a fifth if that it is a confabulation hold. fact21: That this birdbrain drawls Cajanus is correct if this birdbrain is not an adage.

fact1: {B}{bu} fact2: {CL}{a} -> {B}{a} fact3: ¬(¬{ES}{gb} & {L}{gb}) -> {AB}{gb} fact4: (x): {F}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{G}x) fact5: ¬{E}{c} -> ({C}{b} & {D}{b}) fact6: ¬{F}{a} -> ({E}{a} & {D}{a}) fact7: ¬(¬{E}{d} & ¬{G}{d}) -> ¬{E}{c} fact8: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) fact9: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{A}x fact10: (x): {AA}x -> {AJ}x fact11: {D}{b} -> {C}{a} fact12: (x): (¬{F}x & ¬{E}x) -> {D}x fact13: (x): {B}x -> {A}x fact14: (x): {C}x -> ({B}x & ¬{A}x) fact15: {C}{b} -> (¬{A}{a} & {B}{a}) fact16: (x): ¬(¬{I}x v {H}x) -> {F}x fact17: (x): {AT}x -> {B}x fact18: (x): {A}x -> {AB}x fact19: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} fact20: (x): {D}x -> (¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) fact21: ¬{AB}{a} -> {B}{a}

This birdbrain drawls Cajanus if this birdbrain is a kind of a creditworthiness.

{AT}{a} -> {B}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$facts$ = fact1: This chela drawls Cajanus. fact2: If that this birdbrain centres Merluccius hold then this birdbrain drawls Cajanus. fact3: If the fact that the gallfly is not a rondelet and detests vertu is incorrect then the gallfly is an adage. fact4: The fact that somebody is not a kind of a myalgia and it does not enlighten tariff is false if that it is unaddicted is true. fact5: This darkie is a fifth and is a confabulation if that clit is not a myalgia. fact6: If this birdbrain is not unaddicted then that is a kind of a myalgia and that is a confabulation. fact7: If the fact that that Whig is not a myalgia and it does not enlighten tariff is false then that clit is not a kind of a myalgia. fact8: That this birdbrain is not a Haemulidae but it is an adage is incorrect. fact9: Someone is pregnant if the person does not drawl Cajanus. fact10: If the fact that somebody is a kind of a Haemulidae is true then the one is a invisibleness. fact11: If this darkie is a confabulation then this birdbrain is a kind of a fifth. fact12: Something is a confabulation if it is not unaddicted and it is not a myalgia. fact13: If the fact that someone drawls Cajanus is true then it is nonpregnant. fact14: Something that is a fifth drawls Cajanus and is not nonpregnant. fact15: This birdbrain is pregnant thing that drawls Cajanus if this darkie is a fifth. fact16: Something is unaddicted if that either it does not recollect or it is a Michelangelo or both is wrong. fact17: Somebody drawls Cajanus if this one is a creditworthiness. fact18: Some person is an adage if it is nonpregnant. fact19: This birdbrain drawls Cajanus if the fact that this birdbrain is not a kind of a Haemulidae but it is an adage does not hold. fact20: Someone does not drawl Cajanus and is not a fifth if that it is a confabulation hold. fact21: That this birdbrain drawls Cajanus is correct if this birdbrain is not an adage. ; $hypothesis$ = This birdbrain is nonpregnant. ; $proof$ =

fact19 & fact8 -> int1: This birdbrain does drawl Cajanus.; fact13 -> int2: If this birdbrain drawls Cajanus then this birdbrain is nonpregnant.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

This quadrature does not occurs.

¬{C}

fact1: That crystalliseding Marduk does not occurs and that hunting Falstaff does not happens if that wobble happens. fact2: This aerophilatelicness occurs. fact3: This sphacelus does not occurs if that this nabbing Thylacinus does not occurs and/or this quadrature does not occurs is incorrect. fact4: That that hunting Falstaff does not occurs leads to that that picturing and this assaying occurs. fact5: The fact that this nabbing Thylacinus does not happens and/or this quadrature does not happens is wrong if that picturing occurs. fact6: This sphacelus happens.

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

That assuming USA does not occurs.

¬{HB}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That crystalliseding Marduk does not occurs and that hunting Falstaff does not happens if that wobble happens. fact2: This aerophilatelicness occurs. fact3: This sphacelus does not occurs if that this nabbing Thylacinus does not occurs and/or this quadrature does not occurs is incorrect. fact4: That that hunting Falstaff does not occurs leads to that that picturing and this assaying occurs. fact5: The fact that this nabbing Thylacinus does not happens and/or this quadrature does not happens is wrong if that picturing occurs. fact6: This sphacelus happens. ; $hypothesis$ = This quadrature does not occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

Lourdes is an ecru.

{C}{a}

fact1: If this bladder does not ebb Aarhus and that person is not explicit this monomer is not a kind of a Yamamoto. fact2: The fact that the fact that this bladder is both not a arcsine and not non-spicate is incorrect if that achimenes displumes Alaska is correct. fact3: The vetch is a kind of a paddle and is a ineligibility. fact4: Lourdes is diametral. fact5: Lourdes is a ineligibility. fact6: Lourdes is a ineligibility and a Gondwanaland. fact7: Something is non-spicate if that it is not a arcsine and it is non-spicate does not hold. fact8: If something is not spicate it does not ebb Aarhus and it is not explicit. fact9: That achimenes beatifies steamed and is a Sahara if that achimenes does not backhanded. fact10: If Lourdes is a kind of a Gondwanaland then this person is an ecru. fact11: That achimenes does not refuse pandemonium if that achimenes does beatify steamed and it is a kind of a Sahara. fact12: That achimenes displumes Alaska and it is a Spraguea if it does not refuse pandemonium. fact13: Lourdes is a kind of a Gondwanaland and it is a ineligibility if this monomer is not a Yamamoto.

fact1: (¬{F}{c} & ¬{E}{c}) -> ¬{D}{b} fact2: {H}{d} -> ¬(¬{I}{c} & {G}{c}) fact3: ({GO}{ao} & {A}{ao}) fact4: {HI}{a} fact5: {A}{a} fact6: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) fact7: (x): ¬(¬{I}x & {G}x) -> ¬{G}x fact8: (x): ¬{G}x -> (¬{F}x & ¬{E}x) fact9: ¬{N}{d} -> ({M}{d} & {L}{d}) fact10: {B}{a} -> {C}{a} fact11: ({M}{d} & {L}{d}) -> ¬{K}{d} fact12: ¬{K}{d} -> ({H}{d} & {J}{d}) fact13: ¬{D}{b} -> ({B}{a} & {A}{a})

Lourdes is not an ecru.

¬{C}{a}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If this bladder does not ebb Aarhus and that person is not explicit this monomer is not a kind of a Yamamoto. fact2: The fact that the fact that this bladder is both not a arcsine and not non-spicate is incorrect if that achimenes displumes Alaska is correct. fact3: The vetch is a kind of a paddle and is a ineligibility. fact4: Lourdes is diametral. fact5: Lourdes is a ineligibility. fact6: Lourdes is a ineligibility and a Gondwanaland. fact7: Something is non-spicate if that it is not a arcsine and it is non-spicate does not hold. fact8: If something is not spicate it does not ebb Aarhus and it is not explicit. fact9: That achimenes beatifies steamed and is a Sahara if that achimenes does not backhanded. fact10: If Lourdes is a kind of a Gondwanaland then this person is an ecru. fact11: That achimenes does not refuse pandemonium if that achimenes does beatify steamed and it is a kind of a Sahara. fact12: That achimenes displumes Alaska and it is a Spraguea if it does not refuse pandemonium. fact13: Lourdes is a kind of a Gondwanaland and it is a ineligibility if this monomer is not a Yamamoto. ; $hypothesis$ = Lourdes is an ecru. ; $proof$ =

fact6 -> int1: Lourdes is a Gondwanaland.; int1 & fact10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

The fact that this alligator is neckless and is a stumble is false.

¬({C}{a} & {D}{a})

fact1: This alligator is both a Borago and a Oestridae. fact2: This alligator is a kind of a Oestridae. fact3: This alligator is a literal and it is a federal. fact4: A Borago is neckless. fact5: If something is a kind of a literal then it is a stumble. fact6: This alligator relies and conscripts Suomi.

fact1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) fact2: {B}{a} fact3: ({E}{a} & {F}{a}) fact4: (x): {A}x -> {C}x fact5: (x): {E}x -> {D}x fact6: ({FU}{a} & {GM}{a})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$facts$ = fact1: This alligator is both a Borago and a Oestridae. fact2: This alligator is a kind of a Oestridae. fact3: This alligator is a literal and it is a federal. fact4: A Borago is neckless. fact5: If something is a kind of a literal then it is a stumble. fact6: This alligator relies and conscripts Suomi. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that this alligator is neckless and is a stumble is false. ; $proof$ =

fact1 -> int1: This alligator is a kind of a Borago.; fact4 -> int2: If the fact that this alligator is a Borago hold this alligator is not necked.; int1 & int2 -> int3: This alligator is neckless.; fact3 -> int4: This alligator is a literal.; fact5 -> int5: This alligator is a kind of a stumble if this alligator is a literal.; int4 & int5 -> int6: This alligator is a stumble.; int3 & int6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That bilimbi reminds amyotrophia.

{A}{a}

fact1: The fact that that bilimbi is a cucurbit and this is a kind of a potential does not hold if the fact that this diplomatist is not a kind of a Saginaw is not wrong. fact2: If that bilimbi is not a knowledge then the fact that this diplomatist does not remind amyotrophia is correct. fact3: If someone is a knowledge then the fact that he/she is a kind of non-ropy one that reminds amyotrophia is false. fact4: If something is not a kind of a cucurbit it debauches Harris and is a knowledge. fact5: That weedkiller is not a cucurbit if that that bilimbi is a cucurbit that is a kind of a potential does not hold. fact6: That that obscurantist is a kind of a Saginaw but it is not a arctangent is wrong if it does not dissonate Dorotheanthus. fact7: The fact that someone is a kind of a knowledge that is not ropy is incorrect if the one does remind amyotrophia. fact8: This nipa is a knowledge. fact9: If this armguard is a kind of a Saginaw and this is scarce this diplomatist is not a Saginaw. fact10: If the fact that some person is both a knowledge and not ropy is wrong then he is not a kind of a knowledge. fact11: If something is not a cucurbit then it does remind amyotrophia and debauches Harris. fact12: If that that obscurantist dissonates Dorotheanthus and is not Columbian does not hold that obscurantist does not dissonates Dorotheanthus. fact13: This armguard is a kind of a Saginaw if the fact that that obscurantist is a Saginaw but it is not a arctangent is incorrect. fact14: That bilimbi is not a knowledge if this diplomatist does not remind amyotrophia. fact15: If that bilimbi does not remind amyotrophia this diplomatist is not a kind of a knowledge. fact16: If that some person is a kind of non-ropy person that reminds amyotrophia does not hold then it does not reminds amyotrophia. fact17: This diplomatist does collar psychosexuality. fact18: This diplomatist is a knowledge.

fact1: ¬{G}{b} -> ¬({E}{a} & {F}{a}) fact2: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬{A}{b} fact3: (x): {B}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & {A}x) fact4: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({D}x & {B}x) fact5: ¬({E}{a} & {F}{a}) -> ¬{E}{fr} fact6: ¬{I}{d} -> ¬({G}{d} & ¬{J}{d}) fact7: (x): {A}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x) fact8: {B}{dc} fact9: ({G}{c} & {H}{c}) -> ¬{G}{b} fact10: (x): ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{B}x fact11: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({A}x & {D}x) fact12: ¬({I}{d} & ¬{K}{d}) -> ¬{I}{d} fact13: ¬({G}{d} & ¬{J}{d}) -> {G}{c} fact14: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬{B}{a} fact15: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} fact16: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & {A}x) -> ¬{A}x fact17: {AD}{b} fact18: {B}{b}

That weedkiller is not a kind of a knowledge.

¬{B}{fr}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: The fact that that bilimbi is a cucurbit and this is a kind of a potential does not hold if the fact that this diplomatist is not a kind of a Saginaw is not wrong. fact2: If that bilimbi is not a knowledge then the fact that this diplomatist does not remind amyotrophia is correct. fact3: If someone is a knowledge then the fact that he/she is a kind of non-ropy one that reminds amyotrophia is false. fact4: If something is not a kind of a cucurbit it debauches Harris and is a knowledge. fact5: That weedkiller is not a cucurbit if that that bilimbi is a cucurbit that is a kind of a potential does not hold. fact6: That that obscurantist is a kind of a Saginaw but it is not a arctangent is wrong if it does not dissonate Dorotheanthus. fact7: The fact that someone is a kind of a knowledge that is not ropy is incorrect if the one does remind amyotrophia. fact8: This nipa is a knowledge. fact9: If this armguard is a kind of a Saginaw and this is scarce this diplomatist is not a Saginaw. fact10: If the fact that some person is both a knowledge and not ropy is wrong then he is not a kind of a knowledge. fact11: If something is not a cucurbit then it does remind amyotrophia and debauches Harris. fact12: If that that obscurantist dissonates Dorotheanthus and is not Columbian does not hold that obscurantist does not dissonates Dorotheanthus. fact13: This armguard is a kind of a Saginaw if the fact that that obscurantist is a Saginaw but it is not a arctangent is incorrect. fact14: That bilimbi is not a knowledge if this diplomatist does not remind amyotrophia. fact15: If that bilimbi does not remind amyotrophia this diplomatist is not a kind of a knowledge. fact16: If that some person is a kind of non-ropy person that reminds amyotrophia does not hold then it does not reminds amyotrophia. fact17: This diplomatist does collar psychosexuality. fact18: This diplomatist is a knowledge. ; $hypothesis$ = That bilimbi reminds amyotrophia. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that that bilimbi does not remind amyotrophia.; fact15 & assump1 -> int1: This diplomatist is not a knowledge.; int1 & fact18 -> int2: This is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

That clintonia does not whirl Respighi.

¬{A}{a}

fact1: The fact that Megan is not Liverpudlian is true. fact2: There is nothing that does isolate and is epical. fact3: That Megan isolates and the person whirls Respighi is incorrect. fact4: The fact that Megan whirls Respighi and it isolates does not hold. fact5: If Megan does not isolate then that clintonia does not whirl Respighi. fact6: The fact that that clintonia contracts Daviesia and does whirl Respighi is wrong. fact7: That that clintonia does whirl Respighi and is epical is wrong. fact8: That that twister is both a distinctiveness and a beaten is not right. fact9: If something stretches Tolbukhin then it whirls Respighi. fact10: That clintonia stretches Tolbukhin if that rockcress does not garnishee oriented and does not stretches Tolbukhin. fact11: There exists no person such that he strafes covered and he is icterogenic. fact12: That that clintonia is epical and it whirls Respighi does not hold. fact13: That Megan is epical and it whirls Respighi is wrong. fact14: That that clintonia is not epical hold. fact15: If that that clintonia whirls Respighi and isolates does not hold Megan is not epical. fact16: There is no one that is a bearing and a lilting. fact17: If that Megan isolates and this is epical is incorrect then that clintonia does not whirl Respighi.

fact1: ¬{II}{aa} fact2: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) fact3: ¬({AA}{aa} & {A}{aa}) fact4: ¬({A}{aa} & {AA}{aa}) fact5: ¬{AA}{aa} -> ¬{A}{a} fact6: ¬({CJ}{a} & {A}{a}) fact7: ¬({A}{a} & {AB}{a}) fact8: ¬({JB}{gt} & {CL}{gt}) fact9: (x): {B}x -> {A}x fact10: (¬{D}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> {B}{a} fact11: (x): ¬({CS}x & {BB}x) fact12: ¬({AB}{a} & {A}{a}) fact13: ¬({AB}{aa} & {A}{aa}) fact14: ¬{AB}{a} fact15: ¬({A}{a} & {AA}{a}) -> ¬{AB}{aa} fact16: (x): ¬({EB}x & {EO}x) fact17: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{a}

That clintonia whirls Respighi.

{A}{a}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: The fact that Megan is not Liverpudlian is true. fact2: There is nothing that does isolate and is epical. fact3: That Megan isolates and the person whirls Respighi is incorrect. fact4: The fact that Megan whirls Respighi and it isolates does not hold. fact5: If Megan does not isolate then that clintonia does not whirl Respighi. fact6: The fact that that clintonia contracts Daviesia and does whirl Respighi is wrong. fact7: That that clintonia does whirl Respighi and is epical is wrong. fact8: That that twister is both a distinctiveness and a beaten is not right. fact9: If something stretches Tolbukhin then it whirls Respighi. fact10: That clintonia stretches Tolbukhin if that rockcress does not garnishee oriented and does not stretches Tolbukhin. fact11: There exists no person such that he strafes covered and he is icterogenic. fact12: That that clintonia is epical and it whirls Respighi does not hold. fact13: That Megan is epical and it whirls Respighi is wrong. fact14: That that clintonia is not epical hold. fact15: If that that clintonia whirls Respighi and isolates does not hold Megan is not epical. fact16: There is no one that is a bearing and a lilting. fact17: If that Megan isolates and this is epical is incorrect then that clintonia does not whirl Respighi. ; $hypothesis$ = That clintonia does not whirl Respighi. ; $proof$ =

fact2 -> int1: The fact that Megan isolates and it is not non-epical is false.; int1 & fact17 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

That labyrinthineness does not occurs.

¬{C}

fact1: The fact that that labyrinthineness does not occurs is true if that either that revising Zalophus does not occurs or this windlessness occurs or both does not hold. fact2: If that that revising Zalophus happens is true that labyrinthineness happens. fact3: That this windlessness happens causes that labyrinthineness. fact4: That revising Zalophus and/or this windlessness occurs. fact5: That electroshock does not occurs if that the fact that both that noncrystallineness and this Goring seated happens is true is incorrect. fact6: That that revising Zalophus does not occurs and/or this windlessness happens is false if that electroshock does not happens.

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

That labyrinthineness does not occurs.

¬{C}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: The fact that that labyrinthineness does not occurs is true if that either that revising Zalophus does not occurs or this windlessness occurs or both does not hold. fact2: If that that revising Zalophus happens is true that labyrinthineness happens. fact3: That this windlessness happens causes that labyrinthineness. fact4: That revising Zalophus and/or this windlessness occurs. fact5: That electroshock does not occurs if that the fact that both that noncrystallineness and this Goring seated happens is true is incorrect. fact6: That that revising Zalophus does not occurs and/or this windlessness happens is false if that electroshock does not happens. ; $hypothesis$ = That labyrinthineness does not occurs. ; $proof$ =

fact4 & fact2 & fact3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

This thrips is not a Cunoniaceae and it is non-blastematic.

(¬{A}{b} & ¬{B}{b})

fact1: That this thrips is not a kind of a Cunoniaceae and is blastematic is incorrect. fact2: Everything is not a kind of a pit or is not a Octopoda or both. fact3: If that that pop is not a kind of a Pomolobus and it is not uncharged hold that pop is not blastematic. fact4: That somebody is both not a hatful and mucopurulent does not hold if it is not sublunary. fact5: The fact that that schizanthus is both not ahistorical and not a Cunoniaceae is wrong. fact6: If some man is not a Pinophytina that person is not a Cunoniaceae and that person is not blastematic. fact7: If either something is not a pit or it is not a Octopoda or both then it is not a Octopoda. fact8: If this thrips is not blastematic then the fact that that pop is not a Cunoniaceae and it is not blastematic does not hold. fact9: That pop is not blastematic if he is not a Pomolobus and he is uncharged. fact10: That pop is not a Pomolobus and not uncharged. fact11: The fact that this thrips is not a Cunoniaceae but that is blastematic is false if that pop is not blastematic. fact12: If this arrowhead is a Pinophytina then that pop is a Pinophytina. fact13: That this thrips is a Cunoniaceae and is not blastematic does not hold. fact14: If that that pop is an irredentism and is not a kind of an ambulatory is not true this thrips is not sublunary. fact15: If that pop is a Pomolobus but it is not uncharged it is not blastematic. fact16: If that pop is not blastematic that this thrips is a Cunoniaceae and is not blastematic is not correct. fact17: That some person is an irredentism and is not a kind of an ambulatory does not hold if it is not a kind of a Octopoda. fact18: If that pop is a Pinophytina this thrips is not a Cunoniaceae and is not blastematic. fact19: The fact that this thrips is not a kind of a Cunoniaceae and is not blastematic is wrong if that pop is not blastematic.

fact1: ¬(¬{A}{b} & {B}{b}) fact2: (x): (¬{K}x v ¬{I}x) fact3: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} fact4: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & {E}x) fact5: ¬(¬{BB}{ig} & ¬{A}{ig}) fact6: (x): ¬{C}x -> (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) fact7: (x): (¬{K}x v ¬{I}x) -> ¬{I}x fact8: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬(¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) fact9: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} fact10: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) fact11: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬(¬{A}{b} & {B}{b}) fact12: {C}{c} -> {C}{a} fact13: ¬({A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) fact14: ¬({G}{a} & ¬{H}{a}) -> ¬{F}{b} fact15: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} fact16: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬({A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) fact17: (x): ¬{I}x -> ¬({G}x & ¬{H}x) fact18: {C}{a} -> (¬{A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) fact19: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬(¬{A}{b} & ¬{B}{b})

This thrips is not a Cunoniaceae and it is non-blastematic.

(¬{A}{b} & ¬{B}{b})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That this thrips is not a kind of a Cunoniaceae and is blastematic is incorrect. fact2: Everything is not a kind of a pit or is not a Octopoda or both. fact3: If that that pop is not a kind of a Pomolobus and it is not uncharged hold that pop is not blastematic. fact4: That somebody is both not a hatful and mucopurulent does not hold if it is not sublunary. fact5: The fact that that schizanthus is both not ahistorical and not a Cunoniaceae is wrong. fact6: If some man is not a Pinophytina that person is not a Cunoniaceae and that person is not blastematic. fact7: If either something is not a pit or it is not a Octopoda or both then it is not a Octopoda. fact8: If this thrips is not blastematic then the fact that that pop is not a Cunoniaceae and it is not blastematic does not hold. fact9: That pop is not blastematic if he is not a Pomolobus and he is uncharged. fact10: That pop is not a Pomolobus and not uncharged. fact11: The fact that this thrips is not a Cunoniaceae but that is blastematic is false if that pop is not blastematic. fact12: If this arrowhead is a Pinophytina then that pop is a Pinophytina. fact13: That this thrips is a Cunoniaceae and is not blastematic does not hold. fact14: If that that pop is an irredentism and is not a kind of an ambulatory is not true this thrips is not sublunary. fact15: If that pop is a Pomolobus but it is not uncharged it is not blastematic. fact16: If that pop is not blastematic that this thrips is a Cunoniaceae and is not blastematic is not correct. fact17: That some person is an irredentism and is not a kind of an ambulatory does not hold if it is not a kind of a Octopoda. fact18: If that pop is a Pinophytina this thrips is not a Cunoniaceae and is not blastematic. fact19: The fact that this thrips is not a kind of a Cunoniaceae and is not blastematic is wrong if that pop is not blastematic. ; $hypothesis$ = This thrips is not a Cunoniaceae and it is non-blastematic. ; $proof$ =

fact3 & fact10 -> int1: That pop is non-blastematic.; int1 & fact19 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That telephoner does not lead.

¬{A}{a}

fact1: Something leads and is a Coptic if the fact that the thing is not a incisura hold. fact2: The chamois leads. fact3: That telephoner does lead.

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

This AR leads.

{A}{ao}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: Something leads and is a Coptic if the fact that the thing is not a incisura hold. fact2: The chamois leads. fact3: That telephoner does lead. ; $hypothesis$ = That telephoner does not lead. ; $proof$ =

fact3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

There is nobody such that it is not an incrimination or it does not argufy shortlist or both.

(x): ¬(¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x)

fact1: Everything is an adolescence. fact2: There is none such that either it is not a palaeogeology or it is not a kind of a antiquarian or both. fact3: Everything does kibbitz Gogh. fact4: There is nothing such that it is not a pique or not a safe or both. fact5: Every person is a amphibia. fact6: There is nothing that is not a amphibia or does not remain fervidness or both. fact7: Everything is an incrimination. fact8: There exists nothing such that it is not apophatic or does not frock schwa or both. fact9: There exists no man such that it is not a kind of a teratology and/or is not a wellbeing. fact10: There exists nothing such that it is not abomasal or it is not a spatiality or both. fact11: That everybody generals is right. fact12: There exists no man such that it either does not mate penn'orth or is not a labeled or both.

fact1: (x): {BI}x fact2: (x): ¬(¬{BF}x v ¬{HA}x) fact3: (x): {BN}x fact4: (x): ¬(¬{HD}x v ¬{BC}x) fact5: (x): {FS}x fact6: (x): ¬(¬{FS}x v ¬{FE}x) fact7: (x): {AA}x fact8: (x): ¬(¬{CN}x v ¬{GM}x) fact9: (x): ¬(¬{IN}x v ¬{FL}x) fact10: (x): ¬(¬{HN}x v ¬{BB}x) fact11: (x): {HJ}x fact12: (x): ¬(¬{EB}x v ¬{AT}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: Everything is an adolescence. fact2: There is none such that either it is not a palaeogeology or it is not a kind of a antiquarian or both. fact3: Everything does kibbitz Gogh. fact4: There is nothing such that it is not a pique or not a safe or both. fact5: Every person is a amphibia. fact6: There is nothing that is not a amphibia or does not remain fervidness or both. fact7: Everything is an incrimination. fact8: There exists nothing such that it is not apophatic or does not frock schwa or both. fact9: There exists no man such that it is not a kind of a teratology and/or is not a wellbeing. fact10: There exists nothing such that it is not abomasal or it is not a spatiality or both. fact11: That everybody generals is right. fact12: There exists no man such that it either does not mate penn'orth or is not a labeled or both. ; $hypothesis$ = There is nobody such that it is not an incrimination or it does not argufy shortlist or both. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That unfathomableness does not happens.

¬{D}

fact1: The repressing covalence does not happens if both the jostling and the apportionment happens. fact2: That this jingling happens is prevented by that non-inwardness or that non-philatelicalness or both. fact3: That both this philatelicalness and the claim occurs prevents that that unfathomableness happens. fact4: The immortalness and that purging happens. fact5: This disintegrativeness occurs. fact6: The colourlessness happens. fact7: That subluxating Fagaceae and the claim happens. fact8: The attacking occurs. fact9: The Apocalypse happens. fact10: That intimidating Verdi does not occurs.

fact1: ({GB} & {HM}) -> ¬{GF} fact2: (¬{B} v ¬{A}) -> ¬{CK} fact3: ({A} & {C}) -> ¬{D} fact4: ({FF} & {EP}) fact5: {N} fact6: {AB} fact7: ({E} & {C}) fact8: {BH} fact9: {M} fact10: ¬{FQ}

This jingling does not occurs.

¬{CK}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: The repressing covalence does not happens if both the jostling and the apportionment happens. fact2: That this jingling happens is prevented by that non-inwardness or that non-philatelicalness or both. fact3: That both this philatelicalness and the claim occurs prevents that that unfathomableness happens. fact4: The immortalness and that purging happens. fact5: This disintegrativeness occurs. fact6: The colourlessness happens. fact7: That subluxating Fagaceae and the claim happens. fact8: The attacking occurs. fact9: The Apocalypse happens. fact10: That intimidating Verdi does not occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = That unfathomableness does not happens. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That that Hull does not nauseate lambdacism hold.

¬{C}{a}

fact1: If something is not a rifled it is a kind of a Alar and it is multilevel. fact2: If something that is not a Alar is not a kind of a rifled it does not nauseate lambdacism. fact3: Something does face if that it punctuates qintar and it does not face is false. fact4: That that Hull does not nauseate lambdacism and is a Alar is incorrect if that mastoid does not uglify retentivity. fact5: If the fact that that esthete besets and is a kind of a keratomalacia is false that esthete does not punctuate qintar. fact6: This robin is not riparian and it is not a verification. fact7: That Hull is not a kind of a Swammerdam. fact8: There is nothing such that it punctuates qintar and does not face. fact9: If someone does not punctuate qintar then he/she faces or he/she predestines Valerianella or both. fact10: If this robin is both not riparian and not a verification then that esthete does not park. fact11: The fact that that Hull is non-multilevel and it does not fructify reflectiveness does not hold. fact12: If someone is not a kind of a Alar then it nauseates lambdacism and it is a kind of a rifled. fact13: That that something does beset and is a keratomalacia is true does not hold if this thing does not park. fact14: That Hull uglifies retentivity if that mastoid is anasarcous.

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

The bonxie is not a rifled.

¬{A}{ck}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If something is not a rifled it is a kind of a Alar and it is multilevel. fact2: If something that is not a Alar is not a kind of a rifled it does not nauseate lambdacism. fact3: Something does face if that it punctuates qintar and it does not face is false. fact4: That that Hull does not nauseate lambdacism and is a Alar is incorrect if that mastoid does not uglify retentivity. fact5: If the fact that that esthete besets and is a kind of a keratomalacia is false that esthete does not punctuate qintar. fact6: This robin is not riparian and it is not a verification. fact7: That Hull is not a kind of a Swammerdam. fact8: There is nothing such that it punctuates qintar and does not face. fact9: If someone does not punctuate qintar then he/she faces or he/she predestines Valerianella or both. fact10: If this robin is both not riparian and not a verification then that esthete does not park. fact11: The fact that that Hull is non-multilevel and it does not fructify reflectiveness does not hold. fact12: If someone is not a kind of a Alar then it nauseates lambdacism and it is a kind of a rifled. fact13: That that something does beset and is a keratomalacia is true does not hold if this thing does not park. fact14: That Hull uglifies retentivity if that mastoid is anasarcous. ; $hypothesis$ = That that Hull does not nauseate lambdacism hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That oriflamme is a Hispanic.

{D}{d}

fact1: If this mutation does not redirect Fraulein that share is not a Spock and/or it is not citrous. fact2: Something does not redirect Fraulein if it does not tote sliminess. fact3: The fact that if this dolmen is nonprofessional then this Norse is a kind of a Serbian is correct. fact4: That this mutation twirls Ononis is correct. fact5: This dolmen is not a trine if that this Norse is a kind of non-hidrotic thing that Writingses dysthymia is wrong. fact6: Someone is not a Hispanic if this person either is not a kind of a trine or is not a Bathyergus or both. fact7: If this dolmen is not a trine that housewrecker is a Serbian but it is not a kind of a Bathyergus. fact8: Something that is not a kind of a Spock is dimorphic and is a Gregarinida. fact9: This mutation does not tote sliminess if that this mutation is not succinic and the person is not pharmacological does not hold. fact10: If that share is not a kind of a Spock and/or is not citrous that housewrecker is not a Spock. fact11: Something is nonprofessional and/or the thing is a Serbian if the thing is not irresolute. fact12: That oriflamme is not a trine or it is not a Bathyergus or both if this Norse is a Serbian. fact13: If that housewrecker is both a Serbian and a Bathyergus that that oriflamme is not a kind of a Hispanic is false. fact14: This dolmen is not irresolute if there are non-irresolute things. fact15: If this mutation twirls Ononis then the fact that this mutation is both not succinic and not pharmacological is not correct. fact16: If this dolmen is not a kind of a Hispanic then this Norse is a kind of a trine that does not Writings dysthymia. fact17: If that housewrecker is a Serbian but it is not a Bathyergus that oriflamme is a kind of a Hispanic. fact18: Something is not irresolute but that is mesodermal if that is dimorphic.

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

That oriflamme is not a Hispanic.

¬{D}{d}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If this mutation does not redirect Fraulein that share is not a Spock and/or it is not citrous. fact2: Something does not redirect Fraulein if it does not tote sliminess. fact3: The fact that if this dolmen is nonprofessional then this Norse is a kind of a Serbian is correct. fact4: That this mutation twirls Ononis is correct. fact5: This dolmen is not a trine if that this Norse is a kind of non-hidrotic thing that Writingses dysthymia is wrong. fact6: Someone is not a Hispanic if this person either is not a kind of a trine or is not a Bathyergus or both. fact7: If this dolmen is not a trine that housewrecker is a Serbian but it is not a kind of a Bathyergus. fact8: Something that is not a kind of a Spock is dimorphic and is a Gregarinida. fact9: This mutation does not tote sliminess if that this mutation is not succinic and the person is not pharmacological does not hold. fact10: If that share is not a kind of a Spock and/or is not citrous that housewrecker is not a Spock. fact11: Something is nonprofessional and/or the thing is a Serbian if the thing is not irresolute. fact12: That oriflamme is not a trine or it is not a Bathyergus or both if this Norse is a Serbian. fact13: If that housewrecker is both a Serbian and a Bathyergus that that oriflamme is not a kind of a Hispanic is false. fact14: This dolmen is not irresolute if there are non-irresolute things. fact15: If this mutation twirls Ononis then the fact that this mutation is both not succinic and not pharmacological is not correct. fact16: If this dolmen is not a kind of a Hispanic then this Norse is a kind of a trine that does not Writings dysthymia. fact17: If that housewrecker is a Serbian but it is not a Bathyergus that oriflamme is a kind of a Hispanic. fact18: Something is not irresolute but that is mesodermal if that is dimorphic. ; $hypothesis$ = That oriflamme is a Hispanic. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That cataloger is a Mahan.

{B}{b}

fact1: The fact that something is Saharan thing that does not twinkle INLA does not hold if it is not gaseous. fact2: Somebody is a kind of attributable one that does not melanize. fact3: The fact that that cataloger is a kind of a Mahan hold if the fact that that sourdine needles unexchangeability hold. fact4: That sourdine needles unexchangeability if there exists some person such that it does melanize. fact5: Clifton is not anabolic if the fact that that shroud is Saharan but this thing does not twinkle INLA does not hold. fact6: There is something such that that that thing is attributable and melanizes is false. fact7: That sourdine needles unexchangeability and is not a kind of a Mahan if Clifton is not anabolic. fact8: That cataloger is not a Mahan if that sourdine does needle unexchangeability and is not a Mahan. fact9: There exists something such that the fact that the thing is attributable and the thing does not melanize is incorrect.

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

The fact that that cataloger is not a Mahan hold.

¬{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: The fact that something is Saharan thing that does not twinkle INLA does not hold if it is not gaseous. fact2: Somebody is a kind of attributable one that does not melanize. fact3: The fact that that cataloger is a kind of a Mahan hold if the fact that that sourdine needles unexchangeability hold. fact4: That sourdine needles unexchangeability if there exists some person such that it does melanize. fact5: Clifton is not anabolic if the fact that that shroud is Saharan but this thing does not twinkle INLA does not hold. fact6: There is something such that that that thing is attributable and melanizes is false. fact7: That sourdine needles unexchangeability and is not a kind of a Mahan if Clifton is not anabolic. fact8: That cataloger is not a Mahan if that sourdine does needle unexchangeability and is not a Mahan. fact9: There exists something such that the fact that the thing is attributable and the thing does not melanize is incorrect. ; $hypothesis$ = That cataloger is a Mahan. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That if that glycerole does not unfit then that waterway is not interstitial is false.

¬(¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{b})

fact1: If that glycerole does not unfit then the fact that it parts omnipresence or it resinateds or both does not hold. fact2: That glycerole does not part omnipresence. fact3: If that that glycerole parts omnipresence or it resinateds or both is incorrect then that waterway is not non-interstitial. fact4: That waterway is not non-interstitial if that glycerole does not unfit. fact5: If that glycerole unfits that waterway is not interstitial. fact6: If that waterway does not rain diversity then that glycerole is not defiant. fact7: If that somebody does unfit and that one parts omnipresence does not hold that one does not parts omnipresence. fact8: If that glycerole is not interstitial then that either that glycerole resinateds or the thing parts omnipresence or both is wrong. fact9: If the fact that that glycerole parts omnipresence or it does resinated or both is not true then that waterway is not interstitial. fact10: That either that glycerole is lobeliaceous or it is a Kordofanian or both is false.

fact1: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) fact2: ¬{AA}{a} fact3: ¬({AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} fact4: ¬{A}{a} -> {B}{b} fact5: {A}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} fact6: ¬{D}{b} -> ¬{C}{a} fact7: (x): ¬({A}x & {AA}x) -> ¬{AA}x fact8: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬({AB}{a} v {AA}{a}) fact9: ¬({AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} fact10: ¬({JH}{a} v {EU}{a})

That bandelette does not part omnipresence.

¬{AA}{am}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If that glycerole does not unfit then the fact that it parts omnipresence or it resinateds or both does not hold. fact2: That glycerole does not part omnipresence. fact3: If that that glycerole parts omnipresence or it resinateds or both is incorrect then that waterway is not non-interstitial. fact4: That waterway is not non-interstitial if that glycerole does not unfit. fact5: If that glycerole unfits that waterway is not interstitial. fact6: If that waterway does not rain diversity then that glycerole is not defiant. fact7: If that somebody does unfit and that one parts omnipresence does not hold that one does not parts omnipresence. fact8: If that glycerole is not interstitial then that either that glycerole resinateds or the thing parts omnipresence or both is wrong. fact9: If the fact that that glycerole parts omnipresence or it does resinated or both is not true then that waterway is not interstitial. fact10: That either that glycerole is lobeliaceous or it is a Kordofanian or both is false. ; $hypothesis$ = That if that glycerole does not unfit then that waterway is not interstitial is false. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that that glycerole does not unfit.; fact1 & assump1 -> int1: The fact that the fact that that glycerole parts omnipresence and/or it resinateds is not false is not true.; int1 & fact9 -> int2: That waterway is non-interstitial.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

The fact that there is some man such that if it is a Lagothrix then that it cloisters BTU and it does not coal Macowanites does not hold does not hold.

¬((Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x))

fact1: There exists something such that if it is a kind of a Rhynia it does barf fame and does not obtrude. fact2: If that monazite is a Lagothrix then that that monazite cloisters BTU and coals Macowanites is wrong.

fact1: (Ex): {IJ}x -> ({D}x & ¬{BC}x) fact2: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: There exists something such that if it is a kind of a Rhynia it does barf fame and does not obtrude. fact2: If that monazite is a Lagothrix then that that monazite cloisters BTU and coals Macowanites is wrong. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that there is some man such that if it is a Lagothrix then that it cloisters BTU and it does not coal Macowanites does not hold does not hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That atorvastatin is a kind of a pontificate.

{B}{a}

fact1: The fact that some person is not impersonal and proves hogged does not hold if it netmails. fact2: That atorvastatin is not a kind of a pontificate if that that does not transliterate toed and that is a kind of a vocal does not hold. fact3: This cotinga does not bang penury if that it is not a kind of a pontificate and it circumnavigates discreetness does not hold. fact4: That atorvastatin does not concretise Khabarovsk. fact5: If something is not a Calochortus then it is a pontificate and netmails. fact6: That the fact that that atorvastatin does not export Managua and is appendicular hold is false. fact7: If the fact that that atorvastatin is both not a vocal and cosmogenic is wrong this one is not a statistics. fact8: The fact that that atorvastatin withdraws enanthema and proves hogged is wrong.

fact1: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{GL}x & {EQ}x) fact2: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} fact3: ¬(¬{B}{gu} & {BB}{gu}) -> ¬{DK}{gu} fact4: ¬{BC}{a} fact5: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & {A}x) fact6: ¬(¬{BQ}{a} & {M}{a}) fact7: ¬(¬{AB}{a} & {U}{a}) -> ¬{IH}{a} fact8: ¬({IF}{a} & {EQ}{a})

The fact that that that atorvastatin is a kind of non-impersonal thing that proves hogged does not hold hold.

¬(¬{GL}{a} & {EQ}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: The fact that some person is not impersonal and proves hogged does not hold if it netmails. fact2: That atorvastatin is not a kind of a pontificate if that that does not transliterate toed and that is a kind of a vocal does not hold. fact3: This cotinga does not bang penury if that it is not a kind of a pontificate and it circumnavigates discreetness does not hold. fact4: That atorvastatin does not concretise Khabarovsk. fact5: If something is not a Calochortus then it is a pontificate and netmails. fact6: That the fact that that atorvastatin does not export Managua and is appendicular hold is false. fact7: If the fact that that atorvastatin is both not a vocal and cosmogenic is wrong this one is not a statistics. fact8: The fact that that atorvastatin withdraws enanthema and proves hogged is wrong. ; $hypothesis$ = That atorvastatin is a kind of a pontificate. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That Peripatetic is divalent.

{B}{a}

fact1: If that that Peripatetic is a Hela is true then the fact that it is not divalent is true. fact2: If that someone stonewashes Dowland and is not divalent is false then it is divalent.

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

That Peripatetic is divalent.

{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If that that Peripatetic is a Hela is true then the fact that it is not divalent is true. fact2: If that someone stonewashes Dowland and is not divalent is false then it is divalent. ; $hypothesis$ = That Peripatetic is divalent. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

The fact that both that pensioning ecphonesis and that non-labialness happens does not hold.

¬({A} & ¬{B})

fact1: The fact that both that pensioning ecphonesis and that non-labialness occurs is false if that cognizantness happens. fact2: This fading happens. fact3: That savaging allure and that non-aphaereticness happens. fact4: The labialness does not occurs. fact5: That pensioning ecphonesis happens. fact6: The remediating hebephrenia occurs. fact7: The quarrelling does not occurs. fact8: The bionicness does not happens.

fact1: {C} -> ¬({A} & ¬{B}) fact2: {DJ} fact3: ({IQ} & ¬{JK}) fact4: ¬{B} fact5: {A} fact6: {FO} fact7: ¬{T} fact8: ¬{BA}

The fact that both that pensioning ecphonesis and that non-labialness happens does not hold.

¬({A} & ¬{B})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: The fact that both that pensioning ecphonesis and that non-labialness occurs is false if that cognizantness happens. fact2: This fading happens. fact3: That savaging allure and that non-aphaereticness happens. fact4: The labialness does not occurs. fact5: That pensioning ecphonesis happens. fact6: The remediating hebephrenia occurs. fact7: The quarrelling does not occurs. fact8: The bionicness does not happens. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that both that pensioning ecphonesis and that non-labialness happens does not hold. ; $proof$ =

fact5 & fact4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That that punk is not a Pythius is right.

¬{A}{a}

fact1: If that bimbo is non-scapular but it is augitic that wallflower is not non-scapular. fact2: Someone is not a Vinca if the fact that that it is a Vinca that is a Saktism is true is false. fact3: That that bimbo is a Cyprian that is tuberous does not hold. fact4: That bimbo is both not scapular and augitic if it is a Vinca. fact5: That bimbo is a Colorado and is a Vinca if that does not cavort sciatica. fact6: If some person is not non-scapular he is a Republican. fact7: This saddleback is a Pythius. fact8: That punk is a kind of a Spartan. fact9: That that filmmaker does not burn ic and is not a Pythius is not true if that punk is a kind of a Republican. fact10: Something that is not a Copenhagen is a Colorado that is a Tinca. fact11: If that wallflower is not scapular that guzzler burns ic and is a kind of a Republican. fact12: If that guzzler is not augitic and he/she is not a Vinca then that punk is a Vinca. fact13: That wallflower is not a Copenhagen. fact14: That punk is a kind of a Pythius. fact15: If some person is a kind of a Colorado it does not cavort sciatica and is not augitic. fact16: If the fact that that wallflower does not cavort sciatica and that thing is not augitic is correct that guzzler is not augitic. fact17: If that bimbo is not a Dalmatian then that that guzzler is a Vinca and this is a kind of a Saktism is incorrect. fact18: If that somebody does not burn ic and is not a Pythius is not right then it is a kind of a Pythius. fact19: Something is scapular if that it is a Vinca is right. fact20: Somebody is not a kind of a Dalmatian if she/he is not a kind of a Livingston. fact21: If the fact that some man is a kind of a Cyprian and is tuberous is wrong it is not a Livingston.

fact1: (¬{D}{d} & {F}{d}) -> ¬{D}{c} fact2: (x): ¬({E}x & {J}x) -> ¬{E}x fact3: ¬({O}{d} & {N}{d}) fact4: {E}{d} -> (¬{D}{d} & {F}{d}) fact5: ¬{H}{d} -> ({G}{d} & {E}{d}) fact6: (x): {D}x -> {C}x fact7: {A}{au} fact8: {FD}{a} fact9: {C}{a} -> ¬(¬{B}{je} & ¬{A}{je}) fact10: (x): ¬{L}x -> ({G}x & {K}x) fact11: ¬{D}{c} -> ({B}{b} & {C}{b}) fact12: (¬{F}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) -> {E}{a} fact13: ¬{L}{c} fact14: {A}{a} fact15: (x): {G}x -> (¬{H}x & ¬{F}x) fact16: (¬{H}{c} & ¬{F}{c}) -> ¬{F}{b} fact17: ¬{I}{d} -> ¬({E}{b} & {J}{b}) fact18: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) -> {A}x fact19: (x): {E}x -> {D}x fact20: (x): ¬{M}x -> ¬{I}x fact21: (x): ¬({O}x & {N}x) -> ¬{M}x

That filmmaker is a Pythius.

{A}{je}

DISPROVED

PROVED

DISPROVED

PROVED

$facts$ = fact1: If that bimbo is non-scapular but it is augitic that wallflower is not non-scapular. fact2: Someone is not a Vinca if the fact that that it is a Vinca that is a Saktism is true is false. fact3: That that bimbo is a Cyprian that is tuberous does not hold. fact4: That bimbo is both not scapular and augitic if it is a Vinca. fact5: That bimbo is a Colorado and is a Vinca if that does not cavort sciatica. fact6: If some person is not non-scapular he is a Republican. fact7: This saddleback is a Pythius. fact8: That punk is a kind of a Spartan. fact9: That that filmmaker does not burn ic and is not a Pythius is not true if that punk is a kind of a Republican. fact10: Something that is not a Copenhagen is a Colorado that is a Tinca. fact11: If that wallflower is not scapular that guzzler burns ic and is a kind of a Republican. fact12: If that guzzler is not augitic and he/she is not a Vinca then that punk is a Vinca. fact13: That wallflower is not a Copenhagen. fact14: That punk is a kind of a Pythius. fact15: If some person is a kind of a Colorado it does not cavort sciatica and is not augitic. fact16: If the fact that that wallflower does not cavort sciatica and that thing is not augitic is correct that guzzler is not augitic. fact17: If that bimbo is not a Dalmatian then that that guzzler is a Vinca and this is a kind of a Saktism is incorrect. fact18: If that somebody does not burn ic and is not a Pythius is not right then it is a kind of a Pythius. fact19: Something is scapular if that it is a Vinca is right. fact20: Somebody is not a kind of a Dalmatian if she/he is not a kind of a Livingston. fact21: If the fact that some man is a kind of a Cyprian and is tuberous is wrong it is not a Livingston. ; $hypothesis$ = That that punk is not a Pythius is right. ; $proof$ =

fact14 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That misfire does not occurs.

¬{D}

fact1: This ipsilateralness happens if the plural occurs. fact2: That that robustness does not happens and that loads does not happens does not hold. fact3: If that robustness and this ipsilateralness occurs that misfire does not happens. fact4: That robustness happens if that that robustness does not happens and that loads does not happens does not hold. fact5: The plural occurs.

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

PROVED

PROVED

$facts$ = fact1: This ipsilateralness happens if the plural occurs. fact2: That that robustness does not happens and that loads does not happens does not hold. fact3: If that robustness and this ipsilateralness occurs that misfire does not happens. fact4: That robustness happens if that that robustness does not happens and that loads does not happens does not hold. fact5: The plural occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = That misfire does not occurs. ; $proof$ =

fact1 & fact5 -> int1: This ipsilateralness occurs.; fact2 & fact4 -> int2: That robustness happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: That robustness occurs and this ipsilateralness happens.; int3 & fact3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

That calfskin is both not a channels and Cyrillic.

(¬{C}{a} & {A}{a})

fact1: If that that calfskin is not honourable but a Ixodes does not hold the thing is not a 1000000000. fact2: The fact that that calfskin is not honourable but it is a Ixodes is false. fact3: If that calfskin is not a 1000000000 then the fact that that calfskin is both not a channels and Cyrillic is wrong.

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$facts$ = fact1: If that that calfskin is not honourable but a Ixodes does not hold the thing is not a 1000000000. fact2: The fact that that calfskin is not honourable but it is a Ixodes is false. fact3: If that calfskin is not a 1000000000 then the fact that that calfskin is both not a channels and Cyrillic is wrong. ; $hypothesis$ = That calfskin is both not a channels and Cyrillic. ; $proof$ =

fact1 & fact2 -> int1: That calfskin is not a 1000000000.; int1 & fact3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

The gumbo is academic.

{C}{c}

fact1: The bagging is not acaudal. fact2: If the bagging is not acaudal then the fact that this marbles formulates likelihood but the one does not stock Babylonia is correct. fact3: The fact that the gumbo formulates likelihood hold if this marbles is academic. fact4: The fact that the gumbo is not non-academic is right if this marbles boondoggles. fact5: The bagging does formulate likelihood but it does not stock Babylonia if this marbles is not acaudal.

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: The bagging is not acaudal. fact2: If the bagging is not acaudal then the fact that this marbles formulates likelihood but the one does not stock Babylonia is correct. fact3: The fact that the gumbo formulates likelihood hold if this marbles is academic. fact4: The fact that the gumbo is not non-academic is right if this marbles boondoggles. fact5: The bagging does formulate likelihood but it does not stock Babylonia if this marbles is not acaudal. ; $hypothesis$ = The gumbo is academic. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That quadruplet does confound contradiction.

{C}{b}

fact1: That quadruplet is not a judicatory. fact2: If this laager is centering she/he is metacarpal. fact3: This laager is centering. fact4: The fact that that tympan imbricates and that person Japans Francoa if this aspic does not agonize is right. fact5: Jim is unwelcome if this course is ferric. fact6: If that tympan is not a Calorie then this course is ferric and/or unwelcome. fact7: This aspic does not sour if this aspic desires cliche but this person is not a constant. fact8: If that quadruplet is not a judicatory then that quadruplet is not ferric but it is a Calorie. fact9: If something does not confound contradiction then that that thing is not metacarpal and that thing is not centering is wrong. fact10: This crucifer is not baring and/or it does not confound contradiction if this laager is unwelcome. fact11: This aspic desires cliche and is not a constant. fact12: Some man does not confound contradiction if the fact that it either is metacarpal or is centering or both is not correct. fact13: The fact that something does confound contradiction is true if it is metacarpal. fact14: If that Jim is not a topognosis but it is baring is false this laager is not baring. fact15: That that quadruplet is metacarpal and/or the thing is centering does not hold if this laager is not baring. fact16: If some man does not sour then she/he prospects Solzhenitsyn and does not agonize. fact17: That quadruplet is centering. fact18: If that quadruplet is not ferric then this laager is a topognosis that is unwelcome. fact19: Something does not confound contradiction if that is not baring or does not confound contradiction or both. fact20: The fact that something is not a topognosis but it is baring is false if it is unwelcome. fact21: That quadruplet is metacarpal if that this laager is centering hold. fact22: Someone is not a kind of a judicatory and it is not a Calorie if it does imbricate.

fact1: ¬{I}{b} fact2: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} fact3: {A}{a} fact4: ¬{L}{f} -> ({J}{e} & {K}{e}) fact5: {G}{d} -> {E}{c} fact6: ¬{H}{e} -> ({G}{d} v {E}{d}) fact7: ({P}{f} & ¬{O}{f}) -> ¬{N}{f} fact8: ¬{I}{b} -> (¬{G}{b} & {H}{b}) fact9: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) fact10: {E}{a} -> (¬{D}{cq} v ¬{C}{cq}) fact11: ({P}{f} & ¬{O}{f}) fact12: (x): ¬({B}x v {A}x) -> ¬{C}x fact13: (x): {B}x -> {C}x fact14: ¬(¬{F}{c} & {D}{c}) -> ¬{D}{a} fact15: ¬{D}{a} -> ¬({B}{b} v {A}{b}) fact16: (x): ¬{N}x -> ({M}x & ¬{L}x) fact17: {A}{b} fact18: ¬{G}{b} -> ({F}{a} & {E}{a}) fact19: (x): (¬{D}x v ¬{C}x) -> ¬{C}x fact20: (x): {E}x -> ¬(¬{F}x & {D}x) fact21: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} fact22: (x): {J}x -> (¬{I}x & ¬{H}x)

This crucifer is metacarpal.

{B}{cq}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That quadruplet is not a judicatory. fact2: If this laager is centering she/he is metacarpal. fact3: This laager is centering. fact4: The fact that that tympan imbricates and that person Japans Francoa if this aspic does not agonize is right. fact5: Jim is unwelcome if this course is ferric. fact6: If that tympan is not a Calorie then this course is ferric and/or unwelcome. fact7: This aspic does not sour if this aspic desires cliche but this person is not a constant. fact8: If that quadruplet is not a judicatory then that quadruplet is not ferric but it is a Calorie. fact9: If something does not confound contradiction then that that thing is not metacarpal and that thing is not centering is wrong. fact10: This crucifer is not baring and/or it does not confound contradiction if this laager is unwelcome. fact11: This aspic desires cliche and is not a constant. fact12: Some man does not confound contradiction if the fact that it either is metacarpal or is centering or both is not correct. fact13: The fact that something does confound contradiction is true if it is metacarpal. fact14: If that Jim is not a topognosis but it is baring is false this laager is not baring. fact15: That that quadruplet is metacarpal and/or the thing is centering does not hold if this laager is not baring. fact16: If some man does not sour then she/he prospects Solzhenitsyn and does not agonize. fact17: That quadruplet is centering. fact18: If that quadruplet is not ferric then this laager is a topognosis that is unwelcome. fact19: Something does not confound contradiction if that is not baring or does not confound contradiction or both. fact20: The fact that something is not a topognosis but it is baring is false if it is unwelcome. fact21: That quadruplet is metacarpal if that this laager is centering hold. fact22: Someone is not a kind of a judicatory and it is not a Calorie if it does imbricate. ; $hypothesis$ = That quadruplet does confound contradiction. ; $proof$ =

fact21 & fact3 -> int1: That quadruplet is metacarpal.; fact13 -> int2: If that quadruplet is metacarpal then that quadruplet does confound contradiction.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

That everyone does overrun is incorrect.

¬((x): {A}x)

fact1: Everybody does slash sickeningness. fact2: Everybody is an autonomy. fact3: Everything is a Saxon. fact4: Everybody is not non-cutaneal. fact5: Everything is a hypervelocity. fact6: Everyone is far. fact7: Everything overruns. fact8: Every person is a chord. fact9: The fact that every man is pycnotic hold. fact10: Every man replicates Macrocephalon.

fact1: (x): {H}x fact2: (x): {JK}x fact3: (x): {BE}x fact4: (x): {CH}x fact5: (x): {BC}x fact6: (x): {BB}x fact7: (x): {A}x fact8: (x): {D}x fact9: (x): {IT}x fact10: (x): {JF}x

Everybody is a leukemia.

(x): {EM}x

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: Everybody does slash sickeningness. fact2: Everybody is an autonomy. fact3: Everything is a Saxon. fact4: Everybody is not non-cutaneal. fact5: Everything is a hypervelocity. fact6: Everyone is far. fact7: Everything overruns. fact8: Every person is a chord. fact9: The fact that every man is pycnotic hold. fact10: Every man replicates Macrocephalon. ; $hypothesis$ = That everyone does overrun is incorrect. ; $proof$ =

fact7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

The fact that if this two does not bungle Chemnitz then this skateboarder does not mount Pyrausta is incorrect.

¬(¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{b})

fact1: This skateboarder does not mount Pyrausta if this skateboarder is not effectual. fact2: The fact that this skateboarder is effectual and that thing is juridical is incorrect if this two does not bungle Chemnitz. fact3: If this two bungles Chemnitz then this skateboarder does not mount Pyrausta. fact4: Some person is a stubbornness if that the fact that this person is a kind of a iridocyclitis and this person is impassable is true does not hold. fact5: If something is not a kind of a Canticles then it either is a Cryptogamia or is a kind of a DDS or both. fact6: If that somebody is effectual and is juridical is false it does not mount Pyrausta. fact7: That this skateboarder is juridical and bungles Chemnitz is incorrect. fact8: If the fact that something is a neighboring and that thing weans Pipistrellus is incorrect that thing does not contaminate. fact9: This two is not juridical. fact10: If this skateboarder does not bungle Chemnitz then the fact that this two mounts Pyrausta and is juridical is wrong. fact11: If this snuggling is impassable then it bungles Chemnitz. fact12: If something bungles Chemnitz and is a Cryptogamia then it does not mount Pyrausta. fact13: That this two mounts Pyrausta and bungles Chemnitz does not hold if this skateboarder is not juridical. fact14: This snuggling is impassable. fact15: The fact that this two bungles Chemnitz and that mounts Pyrausta does not hold if this skateboarder is not effectual. fact16: If some person is not effectual then it does not mount Pyrausta. fact17: If this two does not bungle Chemnitz then this skateboarder mounts Pyrausta. fact18: If this skateboarder does not bungle Chemnitz then this two does not mount Pyrausta.

fact1: ¬{AA}{b} -> ¬{B}{b} fact2: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) fact3: {A}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} fact4: (x): ¬({ET}x & {F}x) -> {BP}x fact5: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({C}x v {E}x) fact6: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x fact7: ¬({AB}{b} & {A}{b}) fact8: (x): ¬({AS}x & {JG}x) -> ¬{EA}x fact9: ¬{AB}{a} fact10: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬({B}{a} & {AB}{a}) fact11: {F}{go} -> {A}{go} fact12: (x): ({A}x & {C}x) -> ¬{B}x fact13: ¬{AB}{b} -> ¬({B}{a} & {A}{a}) fact14: {F}{go} fact15: ¬{AA}{b} -> ¬({A}{a} & {B}{a}) fact16: (x): ¬{AA}x -> ¬{B}x fact17: ¬{A}{a} -> {B}{b} fact18: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬{B}{a}

This snuggling does not mount Pyrausta.

¬{B}{go}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This skateboarder does not mount Pyrausta if this skateboarder is not effectual. fact2: The fact that this skateboarder is effectual and that thing is juridical is incorrect if this two does not bungle Chemnitz. fact3: If this two bungles Chemnitz then this skateboarder does not mount Pyrausta. fact4: Some person is a stubbornness if that the fact that this person is a kind of a iridocyclitis and this person is impassable is true does not hold. fact5: If something is not a kind of a Canticles then it either is a Cryptogamia or is a kind of a DDS or both. fact6: If that somebody is effectual and is juridical is false it does not mount Pyrausta. fact7: That this skateboarder is juridical and bungles Chemnitz is incorrect. fact8: If the fact that something is a neighboring and that thing weans Pipistrellus is incorrect that thing does not contaminate. fact9: This two is not juridical. fact10: If this skateboarder does not bungle Chemnitz then the fact that this two mounts Pyrausta and is juridical is wrong. fact11: If this snuggling is impassable then it bungles Chemnitz. fact12: If something bungles Chemnitz and is a Cryptogamia then it does not mount Pyrausta. fact13: That this two mounts Pyrausta and bungles Chemnitz does not hold if this skateboarder is not juridical. fact14: This snuggling is impassable. fact15: The fact that this two bungles Chemnitz and that mounts Pyrausta does not hold if this skateboarder is not effectual. fact16: If some person is not effectual then it does not mount Pyrausta. fact17: If this two does not bungle Chemnitz then this skateboarder mounts Pyrausta. fact18: If this skateboarder does not bungle Chemnitz then this two does not mount Pyrausta. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that if this two does not bungle Chemnitz then this skateboarder does not mount Pyrausta is incorrect. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that this two does not bungle Chemnitz.; fact2 & assump1 -> int1: That this skateboarder is a kind of effectual thing that is juridical does not hold.; fact6 -> int2: This skateboarder does not mount Pyrausta if that this is not non-effectual and this is juridical is wrong.; int1 & int2 -> int3: That this skateboarder does not mount Pyrausta is right.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That postulator does not prime.

¬{A}{aa}

fact1: The daylight is not official if that it is a stops and it is not a Heyerdahl is wrong. fact2: Something does not prime if the thing is official. fact3: If that Dramamine primes and is not a kind of a bug then that that postulator primes is not false. fact4: That that postulator is genetic and it is official is not right. fact5: If that something is genetic but this is not official is false this does not prime. fact6: There is nothing such that it is both genetic and official. fact7: There is nothing such that it lobbies despotism and does not side Feb. fact8: There is no man that is genetic and not official. fact9: If that some man is unvoluntary and does not inscribe is wrong then that one is not distal. fact10: If that postulator is official that postulator does not prime. fact11: The fact that somebody is semitropic and does not prime does not hold if she/he does not decry unwholesomeness.

fact1: ¬({AJ}{dd} & ¬{U}{dd}) -> ¬{AB}{dd} fact2: (x): {AB}x -> ¬{A}x fact3: ({A}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {A}{aa} fact4: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) fact5: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}x fact6: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) fact7: (x): ¬({EL}x & ¬{JC}x) fact8: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) fact9: (x): ¬({AD}x & ¬{BF}x) -> ¬{M}x fact10: {AB}{aa} -> ¬{A}{aa} fact11: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({AP}x & ¬{A}x)

That this cockchafer is semitropic and does not prime is false.

¬({AP}{dk} & ¬{A}{dk})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: The daylight is not official if that it is a stops and it is not a Heyerdahl is wrong. fact2: Something does not prime if the thing is official. fact3: If that Dramamine primes and is not a kind of a bug then that that postulator primes is not false. fact4: That that postulator is genetic and it is official is not right. fact5: If that something is genetic but this is not official is false this does not prime. fact6: There is nothing such that it is both genetic and official. fact7: There is nothing such that it lobbies despotism and does not side Feb. fact8: There is no man that is genetic and not official. fact9: If that some man is unvoluntary and does not inscribe is wrong then that one is not distal. fact10: If that postulator is official that postulator does not prime. fact11: The fact that somebody is semitropic and does not prime does not hold if she/he does not decry unwholesomeness. ; $hypothesis$ = That postulator does not prime. ; $proof$ =

fact8 -> int1: That that postulator is genetic but it is not official is incorrect.; fact5 -> int2: If that that postulator is genetic but it is not official is incorrect then that that postulator does not prime hold.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

This brainwave occurs.

{C}

fact1: This pediatricness does not happens and this unmotorisedness does not happens if the undervaluing Muhammad does not occurs. fact2: The arthrocentesis does not occurs and this leaching clotted does not happens. fact3: This brainwave does not occurs and that recruiting logbook does not happens if this lacking anamnesis does not happens. fact4: This engorging outrageousness happens. fact5: That that exclaiming year occurs is prevented by that the wading does not occurs. fact6: The quarterliness does not occurs. fact7: The graze does not occurs and this taking doubt does not occurs. fact8: That the burying does not happens is wrong. fact9: The turnround does not happens and that metarule does not occurs. fact10: The grazing does not occurs. fact11: Notthe saltiness but this postganglionicness occurs. fact12: That exclaiming year does not happens and this lacking anamnesis does not happens if that campaigning advertence occurs. fact13: The fact that the shlepping Sceloporus does not occurs hold. fact14: That that recruiting logbook does not occurs is triggered by that this lacking anamnesis does not occurs. fact15: The divulgement does not happens and the isotropicness does not occurs. fact16: The Provencalness does not happens but that proximateness occurs.

fact1: ¬{DI} -> (¬{FI} & ¬{IR}) fact2: (¬{FG} & ¬{DU}) fact3: ¬{A} -> (¬{C} & ¬{D}) fact4: {HP} fact5: ¬{DT} -> ¬{FJ} fact6: ¬{AQ} fact7: (¬{HF} & ¬{HN}) fact8: {HJ} fact9: (¬{JC} & ¬{CF}) fact10: ¬{K} fact11: (¬{AD} & {GD}) fact12: {B} -> (¬{FJ} & ¬{A}) fact13: ¬{IP} fact14: ¬{A} -> ¬{D} fact15: (¬{IF} & ¬{BG}) fact16: (¬{IG} & {I})

That exclaiming year does not happens.

¬{FJ}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This pediatricness does not happens and this unmotorisedness does not happens if the undervaluing Muhammad does not occurs. fact2: The arthrocentesis does not occurs and this leaching clotted does not happens. fact3: This brainwave does not occurs and that recruiting logbook does not happens if this lacking anamnesis does not happens. fact4: This engorging outrageousness happens. fact5: That that exclaiming year occurs is prevented by that the wading does not occurs. fact6: The quarterliness does not occurs. fact7: The graze does not occurs and this taking doubt does not occurs. fact8: That the burying does not happens is wrong. fact9: The turnround does not happens and that metarule does not occurs. fact10: The grazing does not occurs. fact11: Notthe saltiness but this postganglionicness occurs. fact12: That exclaiming year does not happens and this lacking anamnesis does not happens if that campaigning advertence occurs. fact13: The fact that the shlepping Sceloporus does not occurs hold. fact14: That that recruiting logbook does not occurs is triggered by that this lacking anamnesis does not occurs. fact15: The divulgement does not happens and the isotropicness does not occurs. fact16: The Provencalness does not happens but that proximateness occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = This brainwave occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That this suffragan is not aneurismal or that thing is a verge or both does not hold.

¬(¬{D}{b} v {E}{b})

fact1: If that Chimariko is a phantasmagoria then that antiepileptic is a dissolved. fact2: That antiepileptic is a phantasmagoria and/or is a verge if this suffragan is a kind of a dissolved. fact3: That antiepileptic is a kind of a phantasmagoria if that Chimariko is a kind of a dissolved. fact4: Either that Chimariko does not oblige Plagianthus or it is a verge or both if this suffragan is aneurismal. fact5: If that Chimariko is a verge then either this suffragan is not a dissolved or that person is aneurismal or both. fact6: Either this suffragan is a phantasmagoria or it is aneurismal or both. fact7: This suffragan is aneurismal and/or is a phantasmagoria. fact8: Either that Chimariko is a dissolved or this obliges Plagianthus or both. fact9: Either this suffragan is not a kind of a dissolved or it is a verge or both. fact10: This suffragan obliges Plagianthus if that Chimariko is a verge. fact11: If this suffragan is a phantasmagoria that antiepileptic is not aneurismal and/or it is a verge. fact12: That that antiepileptic is a phantasmagoria if that Chimariko obliges Plagianthus hold. fact13: That antiepileptic is a dissolved or it obliges Plagianthus or both if that antiepileptic is not a phantasmagoria. fact14: The Reef cackles Xylaria and/or blues hypercalcaemia. fact15: This suffragan is a dissolved or she/he is aneurismal or both. fact16: That Chimariko is aneurismal. fact17: This suffragan is not a dissolved and/or it is aneurismal. fact18: If that lawbreaker is a Helios the fact that that lawbreaker is not a phantasmagoria and it is not a Vuillard is correct. fact19: That embayment is aneurismal. fact20: That antiepileptic is a kind of a verge. fact21: If the fact that that antiepileptic is a phantasmagoria is correct this suffragan is not aneurismal and/or is a kind of a verge. fact22: That Chimariko obliges Plagianthus and/or it is a verge. fact23: That antiepileptic either is a brainpower or equates Kaaba or both. fact24: That antiepileptic is not a kind of a phantasmagoria if that lawbreaker is not a kind of a phantasmagoria.

fact1: {C}{a} -> {A}{c} fact2: {A}{b} -> ({C}{c} v {E}{c}) fact3: {A}{a} -> {C}{c} fact4: {D}{b} -> (¬{B}{a} v {E}{a}) fact5: {E}{a} -> (¬{A}{b} v {D}{b}) fact6: ({C}{b} v {D}{b}) fact7: ({D}{b} v {C}{b}) fact8: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}) fact9: (¬{A}{b} v {E}{b}) fact10: {E}{a} -> {B}{b} fact11: {C}{b} -> (¬{D}{c} v {E}{c}) fact12: {B}{a} -> {C}{c} fact13: ¬{C}{c} -> ({A}{c} v {B}{c}) fact14: ({IH}{gd} v {I}{gd}) fact15: ({A}{b} v {D}{b}) fact16: {D}{a} fact17: (¬{A}{b} v {D}{b}) fact18: {G}{d} -> (¬{C}{d} & ¬{F}{d}) fact19: {D}{j} fact20: {E}{c} fact21: {C}{c} -> (¬{D}{b} v {E}{b}) fact22: ({B}{a} v {E}{a}) fact23: ({BR}{c} v {EU}{c}) fact24: ¬{C}{d} -> ¬{C}{c}

That this suffragan is not aneurismal or that thing is a verge or both does not hold.

¬(¬{D}{b} v {E}{b})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If that Chimariko is a phantasmagoria then that antiepileptic is a dissolved. fact2: That antiepileptic is a phantasmagoria and/or is a verge if this suffragan is a kind of a dissolved. fact3: That antiepileptic is a kind of a phantasmagoria if that Chimariko is a kind of a dissolved. fact4: Either that Chimariko does not oblige Plagianthus or it is a verge or both if this suffragan is aneurismal. fact5: If that Chimariko is a verge then either this suffragan is not a dissolved or that person is aneurismal or both. fact6: Either this suffragan is a phantasmagoria or it is aneurismal or both. fact7: This suffragan is aneurismal and/or is a phantasmagoria. fact8: Either that Chimariko is a dissolved or this obliges Plagianthus or both. fact9: Either this suffragan is not a kind of a dissolved or it is a verge or both. fact10: This suffragan obliges Plagianthus if that Chimariko is a verge. fact11: If this suffragan is a phantasmagoria that antiepileptic is not aneurismal and/or it is a verge. fact12: That that antiepileptic is a phantasmagoria if that Chimariko obliges Plagianthus hold. fact13: That antiepileptic is a dissolved or it obliges Plagianthus or both if that antiepileptic is not a phantasmagoria. fact14: The Reef cackles Xylaria and/or blues hypercalcaemia. fact15: This suffragan is a dissolved or she/he is aneurismal or both. fact16: That Chimariko is aneurismal. fact17: This suffragan is not a dissolved and/or it is aneurismal. fact18: If that lawbreaker is a Helios the fact that that lawbreaker is not a phantasmagoria and it is not a Vuillard is correct. fact19: That embayment is aneurismal. fact20: That antiepileptic is a kind of a verge. fact21: If the fact that that antiepileptic is a phantasmagoria is correct this suffragan is not aneurismal and/or is a kind of a verge. fact22: That Chimariko obliges Plagianthus and/or it is a verge. fact23: That antiepileptic either is a brainpower or equates Kaaba or both. fact24: That antiepileptic is not a kind of a phantasmagoria if that lawbreaker is not a kind of a phantasmagoria. ; $hypothesis$ = That this suffragan is not aneurismal or that thing is a verge or both does not hold. ; $proof$ =

fact8 & fact3 & fact12 -> int1: That antiepileptic is a phantasmagoria.; int1 & fact21 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That fortune is not a Motacillidae.

¬{C}{aa}

fact1: That some person does not impress Plecoptera and mourns Lavoisier is wrong if it is not perceptive. fact2: If this teaser is a kind of a Motacillidae that fortune is a Motacillidae. fact3: That fortune is a kind of a ruminant. fact4: That fortune peeks. fact5: That fortune is cardiopulmonary and it is anticlockwise. fact6: That fortune is a kind of a wiggle. fact7: Everything reports Tubercularia. fact8: If that lifeguard does not fabricate sheepishness that that Wilton is not non-anticlockwise but he/she is not cardiopulmonary does not hold. fact9: If the apolemia is a kind of a copyright that is not perceptive then that lifeguard is not perceptive. fact10: This knitwear is not a Motacillidae. fact11: The herringbone is a kind of a BJS and he reports Tubercularia. fact12: If that Wilton is not anticlockwise then that caulk is a Motacillidae and/or reports Tubercularia. fact13: If that some man does not impress Plecoptera but it does mourn Lavoisier does not hold then it does not fabricate sheepishness. fact14: That the sharkskin is not likely is right if it is both anticlockwise and arteriosclerotic. fact15: If that fortune mellows Meleagris and this one is prudent then that fortune does not report Tubercularia.

fact1: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬(¬{F}x & {G}x) fact2: {C}{a} -> {C}{aa} fact3: {DL}{aa} fact4: {HF}{aa} fact5: ({D}{aa} & {B}{aa}) fact6: {DB}{aa} fact7: (x): {A}x fact8: ¬{E}{d} -> ¬({B}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) fact9: ({J}{e} & ¬{H}{e}) -> ¬{H}{d} fact10: ¬{C}{fq} fact11: ({DE}{da} & {A}{da}) fact12: ¬{B}{c} -> ({C}{b} v {A}{b}) fact13: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & {G}x) -> ¬{E}x fact14: ({B}{eo} & {BC}{eo}) -> ¬{AF}{eo} fact15: ({FK}{aa} & {AH}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{aa}

That fortune is a Motacillidae.

{C}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That some person does not impress Plecoptera and mourns Lavoisier is wrong if it is not perceptive. fact2: If this teaser is a kind of a Motacillidae that fortune is a Motacillidae. fact3: That fortune is a kind of a ruminant. fact4: That fortune peeks. fact5: That fortune is cardiopulmonary and it is anticlockwise. fact6: That fortune is a kind of a wiggle. fact7: Everything reports Tubercularia. fact8: If that lifeguard does not fabricate sheepishness that that Wilton is not non-anticlockwise but he/she is not cardiopulmonary does not hold. fact9: If the apolemia is a kind of a copyright that is not perceptive then that lifeguard is not perceptive. fact10: This knitwear is not a Motacillidae. fact11: The herringbone is a kind of a BJS and he reports Tubercularia. fact12: If that Wilton is not anticlockwise then that caulk is a Motacillidae and/or reports Tubercularia. fact13: If that some man does not impress Plecoptera but it does mourn Lavoisier does not hold then it does not fabricate sheepishness. fact14: That the sharkskin is not likely is right if it is both anticlockwise and arteriosclerotic. fact15: If that fortune mellows Meleagris and this one is prudent then that fortune does not report Tubercularia. ; $hypothesis$ = That fortune is not a Motacillidae. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That doge is not calycled.

¬{C}{b}

fact1: That doge is not anaphasic. fact2: If that doge is calycled person that is anaphasic this pseudopod is not a kind of a productiveness. fact3: This pseudopod is anaphasic. fact4: If that doge does not kit Hathaway then the fact that this pseudopod is flowerless but it is not a patency does not hold. fact5: The flaxseed is not a productiveness if this pseudopod is not anaphasic and it is not a productiveness. fact6: If that potholer is not a kind of a shine the fact that that potholer is a kind of a Sundanese and is not unmoving is false. fact7: This pseudopod is not calycled if that doge is anaphasic and it is a productiveness. fact8: That doge is not a productiveness. fact9: This pseudopod does not list. fact10: This pseudopod is a patency if that potholer does not kit Hathaway but the thing suffices. fact11: This pseudopod is a productiveness. fact12: If someone is flowerless then it bicycles Dakar. fact13: Something is not calycled if that thing is not a Alopex and/or does not bicycle Dakar. fact14: Something does not bicycle Dakar if that it is flowerless and it is not a patency does not hold. fact15: The fact that Consuelo is calycled is correct. fact16: That potholer is unmoving if the fact that that one is a Sundanese that is not unmoving is wrong. fact17: That that doge is flowerless hold if this pseudopod is a patency. fact18: Someone does not kit Hathaway and suffices if it is unmoving. fact19: Something is not anaphasic and that is not a kind of a productiveness if that is not calycled. fact20: If the fact that some man kits Hathaway but it is moving does not hold then the fact that it does not kits Hathaway hold. fact21: If that potholer is a compounded that potholer is not a shine and it is not a inhospitableness. fact22: If this pseudopod is anaphasic and this one is a productiveness that doge is not calycled.

fact1: ¬{A}{b} fact2: ({C}{b} & {A}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} fact3: {A}{a} fact4: ¬{H}{b} -> ¬({F}{a} & ¬{G}{a}) fact5: (¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{B}{gb} fact6: ¬{K}{c} -> ¬({L}{c} & ¬{J}{c}) fact7: ({A}{b} & {B}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} fact8: ¬{B}{b} fact9: ¬{CR}{a} fact10: (¬{H}{c} & {I}{c}) -> {G}{a} fact11: {B}{a} fact12: (x): {F}x -> {E}x fact13: (x): (¬{D}x v ¬{E}x) -> ¬{C}x fact14: (x): ¬({F}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{E}x fact15: {C}{fd} fact16: ¬({L}{c} & ¬{J}{c}) -> {J}{c} fact17: {G}{a} -> {F}{b} fact18: (x): {J}x -> (¬{H}x & {I}x) fact19: (x): ¬{C}x -> (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) fact20: (x): ¬({H}x & ¬{J}x) -> ¬{H}x fact21: {N}{c} -> (¬{K}{c} & ¬{M}{c}) fact22: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b}

That doge is not non-calycled.

{C}{b}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That doge is not anaphasic. fact2: If that doge is calycled person that is anaphasic this pseudopod is not a kind of a productiveness. fact3: This pseudopod is anaphasic. fact4: If that doge does not kit Hathaway then the fact that this pseudopod is flowerless but it is not a patency does not hold. fact5: The flaxseed is not a productiveness if this pseudopod is not anaphasic and it is not a productiveness. fact6: If that potholer is not a kind of a shine the fact that that potholer is a kind of a Sundanese and is not unmoving is false. fact7: This pseudopod is not calycled if that doge is anaphasic and it is a productiveness. fact8: That doge is not a productiveness. fact9: This pseudopod does not list. fact10: This pseudopod is a patency if that potholer does not kit Hathaway but the thing suffices. fact11: This pseudopod is a productiveness. fact12: If someone is flowerless then it bicycles Dakar. fact13: Something is not calycled if that thing is not a Alopex and/or does not bicycle Dakar. fact14: Something does not bicycle Dakar if that it is flowerless and it is not a patency does not hold. fact15: The fact that Consuelo is calycled is correct. fact16: That potholer is unmoving if the fact that that one is a Sundanese that is not unmoving is wrong. fact17: That that doge is flowerless hold if this pseudopod is a patency. fact18: Someone does not kit Hathaway and suffices if it is unmoving. fact19: Something is not anaphasic and that is not a kind of a productiveness if that is not calycled. fact20: If the fact that some man kits Hathaway but it is moving does not hold then the fact that it does not kits Hathaway hold. fact21: If that potholer is a compounded that potholer is not a shine and it is not a inhospitableness. fact22: If this pseudopod is anaphasic and this one is a productiveness that doge is not calycled. ; $hypothesis$ = That doge is not calycled. ; $proof$ =

fact3 & fact11 -> int1: This pseudopod is anaphasic and that one is a productiveness.; int1 & fact22 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

There is something such that if that it records Brihaspati is true the fact that it is not sacramental and is not non-carposporic does not hold.

(Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x)

fact1: There exists some man such that if this person is cranial then this person is both not maladjusted and a grotesqueness. fact2: There exists somebody such that if he is lithophytic then the fact that he does not boycott comparative and adverts hematocyst does not hold. fact3: If this cutthroat is sacramental then the fact that it is not vascular and does toe conceitedness is wrong. fact4: There is something such that if that the fact that this thing does not portion is right is not right then this thing is both not a scattered and a grotesqueness. fact5: The fact that this cutthroat is sacramental and it is not non-carposporic does not hold if it records Brihaspati. fact6: There exists some man such that if it records Brihaspati then that it is both sacramental and carposporic is incorrect. fact7: The fact that this cutthroat is non-sacramental but it is not non-carposporic does not hold if this cutthroat records Brihaspati. fact8: The fact that something is not a powwow and is a Rameau does not hold if this is a windward. fact9: If this cutthroat records Brihaspati then this cutthroat is not sacramental but she/he is carposporic. fact10: If this cutthroat is sacramental the fact that it is non-immunological and it is ambiguous is wrong.

fact1: (Ex): {DB}x -> (¬{BF}x & {IJ}x) fact2: (Ex): {GM}x -> ¬(¬{JG}x & {JJ}x) fact3: {AA}{aa} -> ¬(¬{GI}{aa} & {DD}{aa}) fact4: (Ex): {HI}x -> (¬{JK}x & {IJ}x) fact5: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) fact6: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) fact7: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) fact8: (x): {DO}x -> ¬(¬{FH}x & {CH}x) fact9: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) fact10: {AA}{aa} -> ¬(¬{BE}{aa} & {BH}{aa})

If the dirt is a windward then the fact that the dirt is not a powwow but it is a kind of a Rameau is wrong.

{DO}{hf} -> ¬(¬{FH}{hf} & {CH}{hf})

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$facts$ = fact1: There exists some man such that if this person is cranial then this person is both not maladjusted and a grotesqueness. fact2: There exists somebody such that if he is lithophytic then the fact that he does not boycott comparative and adverts hematocyst does not hold. fact3: If this cutthroat is sacramental then the fact that it is not vascular and does toe conceitedness is wrong. fact4: There is something such that if that the fact that this thing does not portion is right is not right then this thing is both not a scattered and a grotesqueness. fact5: The fact that this cutthroat is sacramental and it is not non-carposporic does not hold if it records Brihaspati. fact6: There exists some man such that if it records Brihaspati then that it is both sacramental and carposporic is incorrect. fact7: The fact that this cutthroat is non-sacramental but it is not non-carposporic does not hold if this cutthroat records Brihaspati. fact8: The fact that something is not a powwow and is a Rameau does not hold if this is a windward. fact9: If this cutthroat records Brihaspati then this cutthroat is not sacramental but she/he is carposporic. fact10: If this cutthroat is sacramental the fact that it is non-immunological and it is ambiguous is wrong. ; $hypothesis$ = There is something such that if that it records Brihaspati is true the fact that it is not sacramental and is not non-carposporic does not hold. ; $proof$ =

fact7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

Socorro is unsold or this thing is not a contiguousness or both.

({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a})

fact1: The fact that that gooseberry is a Varuna and/or not a contiguousness is wrong. fact2: That Socorro is unsold and/or is not a contiguousness does not hold. fact3: Socorro consternates Gruiformes. fact4: The countinghouse is a contiguousness.

fact1: ¬({FH}{bp} v ¬{AB}{bp}) fact2: ¬({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) fact3: {GN}{a} fact4: {AB}{ap}

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$facts$ = fact1: The fact that that gooseberry is a Varuna and/or not a contiguousness is wrong. fact2: That Socorro is unsold and/or is not a contiguousness does not hold. fact3: Socorro consternates Gruiformes. fact4: The countinghouse is a contiguousness. ; $hypothesis$ = Socorro is unsold or this thing is not a contiguousness or both. ; $proof$ =

fact2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That vinery engineers.

{D}{b}

fact1: Something engineers if this is a Microstrobos. fact2: If this abomasum is a Microstrobos and is hospitable that vinery does not engineer. fact3: If this abomasum engineers and is a kind of a Microstrobos then that vinery is not hospitable. fact4: This Pm is a kind of a unionism and does not chortle. fact5: This abomasum is a unionism and hospitable. fact6: That vinery is a Kanara and it chortles. fact7: This hominoid is a Microstrobos and retreads frazzle. fact8: That that vinery is a unionism and is hospitable is false if that vinery does not alarm Parietaria. fact9: This abomasum is a unionism. fact10: This abomasum is a Microstrobos but that one does not feast kinanesthesia. fact11: This abomasum graves hospitableness and chortles. fact12: Some person that does not feast kinanesthesia is a kind of a unionism that is a Microstrobos. fact13: If that that vinery is both a beginning and not tangible is not right then it does not alarm Parietaria. fact14: This abomasum does lade Crotalidae and it deafens lyricism. fact15: If that vinery is hospitable thing that feasts kinanesthesia this abomasum does not engineer. fact16: That vinery feasts kinanesthesia. fact17: Something is not hospitable if that it is both a unionism and not hospitable does not hold.

fact1: (x): {A}x -> {D}x fact2: ({A}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} fact3: ({D}{a} & {A}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} fact4: ({E}{cd} & ¬{CN}{cd}) fact5: ({E}{a} & {C}{a}) fact6: ({BQ}{b} & {CN}{b}) fact7: ({A}{da} & {HJ}{da}) fact8: ¬{F}{b} -> ¬({E}{b} & {C}{b}) fact9: {E}{a} fact10: ({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) fact11: ({DB}{a} & {CN}{a}) fact12: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({E}x & {A}x) fact13: ¬({G}{b} & {H}{b}) -> ¬{F}{b} fact14: ({DO}{a} & {HS}{a}) fact15: ({C}{b} & {B}{b}) -> ¬{D}{a} fact16: {B}{b} fact17: (x): ¬({E}x & {C}x) -> ¬{C}x

That vinery engineers.

{D}{b}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: Something engineers if this is a Microstrobos. fact2: If this abomasum is a Microstrobos and is hospitable that vinery does not engineer. fact3: If this abomasum engineers and is a kind of a Microstrobos then that vinery is not hospitable. fact4: This Pm is a kind of a unionism and does not chortle. fact5: This abomasum is a unionism and hospitable. fact6: That vinery is a Kanara and it chortles. fact7: This hominoid is a Microstrobos and retreads frazzle. fact8: That that vinery is a unionism and is hospitable is false if that vinery does not alarm Parietaria. fact9: This abomasum is a unionism. fact10: This abomasum is a Microstrobos but that one does not feast kinanesthesia. fact11: This abomasum graves hospitableness and chortles. fact12: Some person that does not feast kinanesthesia is a kind of a unionism that is a Microstrobos. fact13: If that that vinery is both a beginning and not tangible is not right then it does not alarm Parietaria. fact14: This abomasum does lade Crotalidae and it deafens lyricism. fact15: If that vinery is hospitable thing that feasts kinanesthesia this abomasum does not engineer. fact16: That vinery feasts kinanesthesia. fact17: Something is not hospitable if that it is both a unionism and not hospitable does not hold. ; $hypothesis$ = That vinery engineers. ; $proof$ =

fact10 -> int1: This abomasum is a Microstrobos.; fact5 -> int2: This abomasum is hospitable.; int1 & int2 -> int3: This abomasum is a Microstrobos and is hospitable.; int3 & fact2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

The fact that every person cleans ft is false.

¬((x): {A}x)

fact1: Everything is a kind of a Wisdom. fact2: Everything is a kind of a rickettsialpox. fact3: Everybody swells shaitan. fact4: Everything cleans ft. fact5: Everyone is a perennial. fact6: Everything is not non-azotemic. fact7: Everything is an ambulatory. fact8: Everything is a Cimex. fact9: Everything is a mope. fact10: Everything is phylogenetic. fact11: Every person is a Greeley. fact12: Every person is unascribable. fact13: Everything is a Hilo. fact14: Everything is autumnal. fact15: That everything is a kind of a shed hold. fact16: Everything is a mindlessness. fact17: Everything is ameban. fact18: Everything is a kind of a nosology. fact19: Everyone airlifts Nacimiento. fact20: Everything is a clearcutness. fact21: Every man jars morbidness.

fact1: (x): {IN}x fact2: (x): {FU}x fact3: (x): {BL}x fact4: (x): {A}x fact5: (x): {DF}x fact6: (x): {EE}x fact7: (x): {JJ}x fact8: (x): {FE}x fact9: (x): {IL}x fact10: (x): {FD}x fact11: (x): {DS}x fact12: (x): {E}x fact13: (x): {F}x fact14: (x): {GL}x fact15: (x): {EF}x fact16: (x): {IO}x fact17: (x): {ET}x fact18: (x): {JK}x fact19: (x): {FJ}x fact20: (x): {HI}x fact21: (x): {DA}x

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$facts$ = fact1: Everything is a kind of a Wisdom. fact2: Everything is a kind of a rickettsialpox. fact3: Everybody swells shaitan. fact4: Everything cleans ft. fact5: Everyone is a perennial. fact6: Everything is not non-azotemic. fact7: Everything is an ambulatory. fact8: Everything is a Cimex. fact9: Everything is a mope. fact10: Everything is phylogenetic. fact11: Every person is a Greeley. fact12: Every person is unascribable. fact13: Everything is a Hilo. fact14: Everything is autumnal. fact15: That everything is a kind of a shed hold. fact16: Everything is a mindlessness. fact17: Everything is ameban. fact18: Everything is a kind of a nosology. fact19: Everyone airlifts Nacimiento. fact20: Everything is a clearcutness. fact21: Every man jars morbidness. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that every person cleans ft is false. ; $proof$ =

fact4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

There exists something such that it is a Smyrna.

(Ex): {A}x

fact1: There exists somebody such that she smarts. fact2: That calculus is energetic if that calculus does not regain. fact3: Some person is a Dakar if the fact that this one is not a Dakar and this one is not logarithmic is wrong. fact4: That aquilege is both not a Gallinago and not undrained if Carrie is a Smyrna. fact5: If that something is integumental and it does cloak does not hold it does not cloak. fact6: Someone is arthrosporic. fact7: Chandler is undrained if that aquilege is both not a Gallinago and not undrained. fact8: Someone is Wordsworthian. fact9: If something is a kind of a Dakar it is a Smyrna. fact10: Something is euphoric if it is energetic. fact11: That calculus does not regain. fact12: If some person does not cloak the fact that that person is not a kind of a Dakar and that person is not logarithmic does not hold.

fact1: (Ex): {IH}x fact2: ¬{I}{d} -> {H}{d} fact3: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{D}x) -> {C}x fact4: {A}{c} -> (¬{B}{b} & ¬{HC}{b}) fact5: (x): ¬({F}x & {E}x) -> ¬{E}x fact6: (Ex): {DT}x fact7: (¬{B}{b} & ¬{HC}{b}) -> {HC}{a} fact8: (Ex): {FT}x fact9: (x): {C}x -> {A}x fact10: (x): {H}x -> {G}x fact11: ¬{I}{d} fact12: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{D}x)

There exists somebody such that the person is not drained.

(Ex): {HC}x

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: There exists somebody such that she smarts. fact2: That calculus is energetic if that calculus does not regain. fact3: Some person is a Dakar if the fact that this one is not a Dakar and this one is not logarithmic is wrong. fact4: That aquilege is both not a Gallinago and not undrained if Carrie is a Smyrna. fact5: If that something is integumental and it does cloak does not hold it does not cloak. fact6: Someone is arthrosporic. fact7: Chandler is undrained if that aquilege is both not a Gallinago and not undrained. fact8: Someone is Wordsworthian. fact9: If something is a kind of a Dakar it is a Smyrna. fact10: Something is euphoric if it is energetic. fact11: That calculus does not regain. fact12: If some person does not cloak the fact that that person is not a kind of a Dakar and that person is not logarithmic does not hold. ; $hypothesis$ = There exists something such that it is a Smyrna. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

This sinking happens.

{C}

fact1: That that slashing does not occurs causes that this sinking happens and that outing occurs. fact2: If that dating unfaithfulness does not happens then both this sinking and this boneiness occurs. fact3: If that this boneiness occurs and that dating unfaithfulness happens is correct this sinking does not occurs. fact4: If that dating unfaithfulness does not happens and this boneiness happens then that photosensitizing allegement does not happens. fact5: This boneiness happens. fact6: That that outing does not occurs results in that that dating unfaithfulness does not happens.

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

That photosensitizing allegement does not occurs.

¬{FP}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That that slashing does not occurs causes that this sinking happens and that outing occurs. fact2: If that dating unfaithfulness does not happens then both this sinking and this boneiness occurs. fact3: If that this boneiness occurs and that dating unfaithfulness happens is correct this sinking does not occurs. fact4: If that dating unfaithfulness does not happens and this boneiness happens then that photosensitizing allegement does not happens. fact5: This boneiness happens. fact6: That that outing does not occurs results in that that dating unfaithfulness does not happens. ; $hypothesis$ = This sinking happens. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

This eutrophicness does not happens.

¬{B}

fact1: If that lienalness does not happens then that deflating happens. fact2: The empathizing searching happens. fact3: The resiling contextualism happens if this etherealness does not occurs. fact4: That thematicness happens if this hypertonicness does not occurs. fact5: This attraction occurs. fact6: That Kechuanness does not happens. fact7: That watchfulness does not happens. fact8: If this alveolarness does not occurs that northerly but notthis puking occurs. fact9: This unbolteding Acarina occurs. fact10: That northerly does not occurs. fact11: If that glamorisation does not happens then the paroxysmalness happens. fact12: If that that reconstructing Karelia does not occurs hold the tightness happens. fact13: That that northerly does not happens prevents that this eutrophicness does not happens. fact14: This Minoan happens. fact15: This eutrophicness does not occurs if that northerly happens but this puking does not happens.

fact1: ¬{DT} -> {ID} fact2: {DI} fact3: ¬{GO} -> {FD} fact4: ¬{EJ} -> {BE} fact5: {GB} fact6: ¬{I} fact7: ¬{DM} fact8: ¬{D} -> ({A} & ¬{C}) fact9: {GI} fact10: ¬{A} fact11: ¬{E} -> {IQ} fact12: ¬{BA} -> {IJ} fact13: ¬{A} -> {B} fact14: {CD} fact15: ({A} & ¬{C}) -> ¬{B}

This eutrophicness does not happens.

¬{B}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If that lienalness does not happens then that deflating happens. fact2: The empathizing searching happens. fact3: The resiling contextualism happens if this etherealness does not occurs. fact4: That thematicness happens if this hypertonicness does not occurs. fact5: This attraction occurs. fact6: That Kechuanness does not happens. fact7: That watchfulness does not happens. fact8: If this alveolarness does not occurs that northerly but notthis puking occurs. fact9: This unbolteding Acarina occurs. fact10: That northerly does not occurs. fact11: If that glamorisation does not happens then the paroxysmalness happens. fact12: If that that reconstructing Karelia does not occurs hold the tightness happens. fact13: That that northerly does not happens prevents that this eutrophicness does not happens. fact14: This Minoan happens. fact15: This eutrophicness does not occurs if that northerly happens but this puking does not happens. ; $hypothesis$ = This eutrophicness does not happens. ; $proof$ =

fact13 & fact10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That this colour discriminates XXI hold.

{C}{a}

fact1: The brake does not discriminate XXI if that this colour does not discriminate XXI and is welcome is wrong. fact2: The birdbath is not a Saxony. fact3: This colour is not unwelcome. fact4: This colour is bordered. fact5: If that this athlete is a Saxony is not false then the fact that this colour does not discriminate XXI and that one is not unwelcome is wrong. fact6: If that somebody is a kind of non-unwelcome one that is not a Saxony is false then she/he does not discriminate XXI. fact7: This athlete discriminates XXI and/or is a Saxony if that donor is not unwelcome. fact8: This athlete is a Saxony and is awkward if this athlete is not a metric. fact9: That this colour is not welcome but she/he is not a kind of a Saxony is false. fact10: If some person is both not awkward and a metric that that person is not unwelcome is true. fact11: That if this colour is not welcome then this colour does not discriminate XXI hold. fact12: Somebody does not discriminate XXI if he is unwelcome. fact13: If something is a Shute that cocoons Montaigne it is not a metric. fact14: The fact that this colour is a Saxony hold.

fact1: ¬(¬{C}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> ¬{C}{gr} fact2: ¬{B}{hl} fact3: ¬{A}{a} fact4: ¬{K}{a} fact5: {B}{b} -> ¬(¬{C}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) fact6: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{C}x fact7: ¬{A}{c} -> ({C}{b} v {B}{b}) fact8: ¬{E}{b} -> ({B}{b} & {D}{b}) fact9: ¬({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) fact10: (x): (¬{D}x & {E}x) -> ¬{A}x fact11: {A}{a} -> ¬{C}{a} fact12: (x): {A}x -> ¬{C}x fact13: (x): ({F}x & {G}x) -> ¬{E}x fact14: {B}{a}

The brake does not discriminate XXI.

¬{C}{gr}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: The brake does not discriminate XXI if that this colour does not discriminate XXI and is welcome is wrong. fact2: The birdbath is not a Saxony. fact3: This colour is not unwelcome. fact4: This colour is bordered. fact5: If that this athlete is a Saxony is not false then the fact that this colour does not discriminate XXI and that one is not unwelcome is wrong. fact6: If that somebody is a kind of non-unwelcome one that is not a Saxony is false then she/he does not discriminate XXI. fact7: This athlete discriminates XXI and/or is a Saxony if that donor is not unwelcome. fact8: This athlete is a Saxony and is awkward if this athlete is not a metric. fact9: That this colour is not welcome but she/he is not a kind of a Saxony is false. fact10: If some person is both not awkward and a metric that that person is not unwelcome is true. fact11: That if this colour is not welcome then this colour does not discriminate XXI hold. fact12: Somebody does not discriminate XXI if he is unwelcome. fact13: If something is a Shute that cocoons Montaigne it is not a metric. fact14: The fact that this colour is a Saxony hold. ; $hypothesis$ = That this colour discriminates XXI hold. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that this colour is not unwelcome and it is not a kind of a Saxony.; assump1 -> int1: This colour is not a Saxony.; int1 & fact14 -> int2: This is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: That this colour is not unwelcome and that one is not a Saxony is not right.; fact6 -> int4: This colour does not discriminate XXI if that she is not unwelcome and she is not a Saxony is incorrect.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

This sphingid is paleoanthropological and that thing tops Ganesha.

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

fact1: If this sphingid is a stopple then this sphingid is not non-paleoanthropological. fact2: This sphingid is chemic. fact3: This pheniramine is a stopple. fact4: The fact that this waterline is paleoanthropological but he/she does not top Ganesha does not hold. fact5: This sphingid tops Ganesha and is a Phyllitis. fact6: If something that is not paleoanthropological is a kind of a stopple then it is a Freyr. fact7: This sphingid is not a Phyllitis and it is not a Rajidae if the village does not disincarnate multiplicand. fact8: The hyson is a kind of a stopple. fact9: This sphingid is a stopple. fact10: If this sphingid is not a Phyllitis and it is not a Rajidae this waterline is a Rajidae.

fact1: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} fact2: {HG}{a} fact3: {A}{p} fact4: ¬({B}{m} & ¬{C}{m}) fact5: ({C}{a} & {D}{a}) fact6: (x): (¬{B}x & {A}x) -> {DQ}x fact7: ¬{E}{b} -> (¬{D}{a} & ¬{FU}{a}) fact8: {A}{hh} fact9: {A}{a} fact10: (¬{D}{a} & ¬{FU}{a}) -> {FU}{m}

This waterline is a Rajidae and it is a kind of a Freyr.

({FU}{m} & {DQ}{m})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If this sphingid is a stopple then this sphingid is not non-paleoanthropological. fact2: This sphingid is chemic. fact3: This pheniramine is a stopple. fact4: The fact that this waterline is paleoanthropological but he/she does not top Ganesha does not hold. fact5: This sphingid tops Ganesha and is a Phyllitis. fact6: If something that is not paleoanthropological is a kind of a stopple then it is a Freyr. fact7: This sphingid is not a Phyllitis and it is not a Rajidae if the village does not disincarnate multiplicand. fact8: The hyson is a kind of a stopple. fact9: This sphingid is a stopple. fact10: If this sphingid is not a Phyllitis and it is not a Rajidae this waterline is a Rajidae. ; $hypothesis$ = This sphingid is paleoanthropological and that thing tops Ganesha. ; $proof$ =

fact1 & fact9 -> int1: This sphingid is paleoanthropological.; fact5 -> int2: This sphingid tops Ganesha.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

This ploughshare does not exhaust poliomyelitis.

¬{B}{b}

fact1: If this joiner convolves publicity and she/he is unfeathered this ploughshare does not exhaust poliomyelitis. fact2: This joiner is non-suburban and/or the one does not exhaust poliomyelitis if this ploughshare is not blastomeric. fact3: This joiner convolves publicity and is unfeathered.

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

Tess does not exhaust poliomyelitis.

¬{B}{ed}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If this joiner convolves publicity and she/he is unfeathered this ploughshare does not exhaust poliomyelitis. fact2: This joiner is non-suburban and/or the one does not exhaust poliomyelitis if this ploughshare is not blastomeric. fact3: This joiner convolves publicity and is unfeathered. ; $hypothesis$ = This ploughshare does not exhaust poliomyelitis. ; $proof$ =

fact1 & fact3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

The fact that that psychophysicist is a kind of a sooth that does not wound vindictiveness is false.

¬({C}{c} & ¬{B}{c})

fact1: That psychophysicist does not wound vindictiveness if that accoucheur is not a kind of a monorchidism. fact2: That something is not indiscernible and/or the thing mooches Humber does not hold if the thing is not a frowning. fact3: That psychophysicist affronts Erving if that that ikon does refine is true. fact4: If the fact that that hemodialyzer is discernible and/or it mooches Humber does not hold then Valentina does not mooches Humber. fact5: That ikon is a kind of a monorchidism. fact6: That accoucheur does not cybernate manner if that ikon does not affront Erving. fact7: That the guib is a rota or non-ciliate or both is wrong. fact8: That ikon does not affront Erving. fact9: If that accoucheur is not a monorchidism that psychophysicist is a sooth and does not wound vindictiveness. fact10: this Erving does not affront ikon. fact11: If that that accoucheur is unmotivated is correct that ikon is not spiritualistic. fact12: If that ikon does not affront Erving then that accoucheur does not cybernate manner and is not a monorchidism. fact13: That psychophysicist does not wound vindictiveness. fact14: Something that does not mooch Humber is either a chilblains or not unmotivated or both. fact15: That that accoucheur does not cybernate manner is true. fact16: That some man is a kind of a sooth and does not wound vindictiveness is not true if she/he affronts Erving. fact17: If Valentina is a chilblains or it is motivated or both that accoucheur is motivated. fact18: Something does refine and it flutes Dorotheanthus if it is not spiritualistic.

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

The fact that that psychophysicist is a kind of a sooth that does not wound vindictiveness is false.

¬({C}{c} & ¬{B}{c})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That psychophysicist does not wound vindictiveness if that accoucheur is not a kind of a monorchidism. fact2: That something is not indiscernible and/or the thing mooches Humber does not hold if the thing is not a frowning. fact3: That psychophysicist affronts Erving if that that ikon does refine is true. fact4: If the fact that that hemodialyzer is discernible and/or it mooches Humber does not hold then Valentina does not mooches Humber. fact5: That ikon is a kind of a monorchidism. fact6: That accoucheur does not cybernate manner if that ikon does not affront Erving. fact7: That the guib is a rota or non-ciliate or both is wrong. fact8: That ikon does not affront Erving. fact9: If that accoucheur is not a monorchidism that psychophysicist is a sooth and does not wound vindictiveness. fact10: this Erving does not affront ikon. fact11: If that that accoucheur is unmotivated is correct that ikon is not spiritualistic. fact12: If that ikon does not affront Erving then that accoucheur does not cybernate manner and is not a monorchidism. fact13: That psychophysicist does not wound vindictiveness. fact14: Something that does not mooch Humber is either a chilblains or not unmotivated or both. fact15: That that accoucheur does not cybernate manner is true. fact16: That some man is a kind of a sooth and does not wound vindictiveness is not true if she/he affronts Erving. fact17: If Valentina is a chilblains or it is motivated or both that accoucheur is motivated. fact18: Something does refine and it flutes Dorotheanthus if it is not spiritualistic. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that that psychophysicist is a kind of a sooth that does not wound vindictiveness is false. ; $proof$ =

fact12 & fact8 -> int1: That accoucheur does not cybernate manner and he is not a monorchidism.; int1 -> int2: That accoucheur is not a monorchidism.; int2 & fact9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That Garland does not disunite.

¬{D}{d}

fact1: That this fledgeling ripens negativeness and tarries tenosynovitis is false if that ethologist does not Polish lcm. fact2: If that this fledgeling ripens negativeness and tarries tenosynovitis is not right that harpsichord is not emulous. fact3: If the fact that this owner is bimetallic and/or is a covertness is incorrect then that that Garland does not disunite hold. fact4: Someone that is not emulous is a bewitchery and a Chadian. fact5: That ethologist does not Polish lcm if the fact that it Polish lcm and it does not foment nutritiveness is wrong. fact6: Something does not uncover maturity if the fact that either this is a Chadian or this is not a covertness or both does not hold. fact7: That ethologist does not uncover maturity if this fledgeling is not psychometric. fact8: If that Garland is noninstitutional this owner is noninstitutional. fact9: That Garland is not institutional. fact10: Some person is a covertness if she is a Chadian. fact11: The fact that the fact that either this owner is bimetallic or this thing is a kind of a covertness or both does not hold is right if that ethologist does not uncover maturity. fact12: That ethologist does not uncover maturity if the fact that that that this fledgeling is psychometric but this one is not ecologic hold is wrong is correct. fact13: The fact that this fledgeling is psychometric and is not ecologic does not hold. fact14: If somebody is not bimetallic that that one disunites and/or that one devises Madrid is incorrect. fact15: If this owner is not institutional the fact that that ethologist does Polish lcm and does not foment nutritiveness is incorrect. fact16: The fact that something is not bimetallic and it does not uncover maturity is true if it is a covertness.

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

That that harpsichord disunites and/or it devises Madrid is incorrect.

¬({D}{em} v {HO}{em})

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$facts$ = fact1: That this fledgeling ripens negativeness and tarries tenosynovitis is false if that ethologist does not Polish lcm. fact2: If that this fledgeling ripens negativeness and tarries tenosynovitis is not right that harpsichord is not emulous. fact3: If the fact that this owner is bimetallic and/or is a covertness is incorrect then that that Garland does not disunite hold. fact4: Someone that is not emulous is a bewitchery and a Chadian. fact5: That ethologist does not Polish lcm if the fact that it Polish lcm and it does not foment nutritiveness is wrong. fact6: Something does not uncover maturity if the fact that either this is a Chadian or this is not a covertness or both does not hold. fact7: That ethologist does not uncover maturity if this fledgeling is not psychometric. fact8: If that Garland is noninstitutional this owner is noninstitutional. fact9: That Garland is not institutional. fact10: Some person is a covertness if she is a Chadian. fact11: The fact that the fact that either this owner is bimetallic or this thing is a kind of a covertness or both does not hold is right if that ethologist does not uncover maturity. fact12: That ethologist does not uncover maturity if the fact that that that this fledgeling is psychometric but this one is not ecologic hold is wrong is correct. fact13: The fact that this fledgeling is psychometric and is not ecologic does not hold. fact14: If somebody is not bimetallic that that one disunites and/or that one devises Madrid is incorrect. fact15: If this owner is not institutional the fact that that ethologist does Polish lcm and does not foment nutritiveness is incorrect. fact16: The fact that something is not bimetallic and it does not uncover maturity is true if it is a covertness. ; $hypothesis$ = That Garland does not disunite. ; $proof$ =

fact12 & fact13 -> int1: That ethologist does not uncover maturity.; int1 & fact11 -> int2: The fact that this owner is bimetallic and/or it is a kind of a covertness does not hold.; int2 & fact3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

The fact that this backspace is uninvolved but not a squiggle is incorrect.

¬({C}{aa} & ¬{B}{aa})

fact1: The fact that this backspace is uninvolved but that is not a squiggle is false if that comestible is not a 50. fact2: The set stars and that mingles RI. fact3: This Englishwoman is larval if the fact that this Englishwoman is a Marrubium hold. fact4: Something is uninvolved if this is larval. fact5: The fact that that comestible is a kind of a squiggle and/or is not a kind of a Marrubium if that comestible is not larval is right. fact6: If something is not a Zhukov that thing is a Marrubium and that thing is larval. fact7: That comestible is not larval. fact8: If something is a 50 then that thing is a manfulness. fact9: This backspace is a kind of a 50 and is a Zhukov. fact10: This backspace is a manfulness if that comestible is a manfulness. fact11: This Englishwoman is a Marrubium if that that expectorator is not a Marrubium and the thing is not a academism is incorrect. fact12: This backspace is a Zhukov. fact13: Some person is a 50 if she is uninvolved. fact14: If that comestible is a kind of a squiggle then this backspace is not a squiggle. fact15: That comestible is a racing. fact16: If that comestible is not a Marrubium then this backspace is not a squiggle. fact17: The fact that that either some person is not a Jagannatha or it is not a academism or both hold is false if it is bathyal. fact18: Something is not a kind of a Zhukov if the fact that that is not a kind of a Jagannatha or that is not a kind of a academism or both does not hold. fact19: If this Englishwoman is larval that comestible is not a 50.

fact1: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({C}{aa} & ¬{B}{aa}) fact2: ({EM}{el} & {GF}{el}) fact3: {E}{b} -> {D}{b} fact4: (x): {D}x -> {C}x fact5: ¬{D}{a} -> ({B}{a} v ¬{E}{a}) fact6: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({E}x & {D}x) fact7: ¬{D}{a} fact8: (x): {A}x -> {HE}x fact9: ({A}{aa} & {F}{aa}) fact10: {HE}{a} -> {HE}{aa} fact11: ¬(¬{E}{c} & ¬{G}{c}) -> {E}{b} fact12: {F}{aa} fact13: (x): {C}x -> {A}x fact14: {B}{a} -> ¬{B}{aa} fact15: {DC}{a} fact16: ¬{E}{a} -> ¬{B}{aa} fact17: (x): {I}x -> ¬(¬{H}x v ¬{G}x) fact18: (x): ¬(¬{H}x v ¬{G}x) -> ¬{F}x fact19: {D}{b} -> ¬{A}{a}

The fact that this backspace is uninvolved but not a squiggle is incorrect.

¬({C}{aa} & ¬{B}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: The fact that this backspace is uninvolved but that is not a squiggle is false if that comestible is not a 50. fact2: The set stars and that mingles RI. fact3: This Englishwoman is larval if the fact that this Englishwoman is a Marrubium hold. fact4: Something is uninvolved if this is larval. fact5: The fact that that comestible is a kind of a squiggle and/or is not a kind of a Marrubium if that comestible is not larval is right. fact6: If something is not a Zhukov that thing is a Marrubium and that thing is larval. fact7: That comestible is not larval. fact8: If something is a 50 then that thing is a manfulness. fact9: This backspace is a kind of a 50 and is a Zhukov. fact10: This backspace is a manfulness if that comestible is a manfulness. fact11: This Englishwoman is a Marrubium if that that expectorator is not a Marrubium and the thing is not a academism is incorrect. fact12: This backspace is a Zhukov. fact13: Some person is a 50 if she is uninvolved. fact14: If that comestible is a kind of a squiggle then this backspace is not a squiggle. fact15: That comestible is a racing. fact16: If that comestible is not a Marrubium then this backspace is not a squiggle. fact17: The fact that that either some person is not a Jagannatha or it is not a academism or both hold is false if it is bathyal. fact18: Something is not a kind of a Zhukov if the fact that that is not a kind of a Jagannatha or that is not a kind of a academism or both does not hold. fact19: If this Englishwoman is larval that comestible is not a 50. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that this backspace is uninvolved but not a squiggle is incorrect. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

The fact that that vegetiveness and that courageousness happens is not correct.

¬({B} & {A})

fact1: If this carboxylness does not happens the fact that this disposing Cercidiphyllaceae but notthe housekeeping occurs does not hold. fact2: If the fact that this disposing Cercidiphyllaceae but notthe housekeeping happens is not correct this dance does not occurs. fact3: This skirting ulalgia does not occurs. fact4: If this draught does not happens the fact that that vegetiveness and that courageousness occurs is incorrect. fact5: That that staying does not occurs and this disobliging Paxton happens is brought about by that this picket occurs. fact6: This decortication occurs if that this dark happens is right. fact7: The aetiologicalness does not occurs. fact8: If that that aneurysmaticness does not occurs hold the completion happens and that Jamesianness occurs. fact9: If this decortication happens that adduction occurs. fact10: That this skirting ulalgia does not occurs and that syntacticalness occurs is caused by that Jamesianness. fact11: If the fact that that that analogousness happens and/or the swat does not happens is false is right the googling Satyridae does not happens. fact12: That that perambulating Louisiana does not happens is prevented by that this dance does not occurs. fact13: That non-carboxylness is triggered by that syntacticalness. fact14: That perambulating Louisiana prevents that this picket does not occurs. fact15: If that syntacticalness does not occurs and this skirting ulalgia occurs that vegetiveness occurs. fact16: This draught does not occurs if this prowling happens. fact17: That vegetiveness happens if that syntacticalness does not happens and this skirting ulalgia does not occurs. fact18: That adduction causes that this prowling happens and the gastroduodenalness does not happens. fact19: That courageousness happens. fact20: That aneurysmaticness does not occurs if the fact that both that aneurysmaticness and that meteoricness happens is wrong. fact21: If that staying does not occurs that either that analogousness occurs or the swat does not happens or both does not hold. fact22: That syntacticalness does not occurs and this skirting ulalgia does not occurs. fact23: Either the mystification occurs or that underrating Kigali happens or both if the googling Satyridae does not happens.

fact1: ¬{U} -> ¬({S} & ¬{T}) fact2: ¬({S} & ¬{T}) -> ¬{R} fact3: ¬{AB} fact4: ¬{C} -> ¬({B} & {A}) fact5: {P} -> (¬{N} & {O}) fact6: {H} -> {G} fact7: ¬{ED} fact8: ¬{AE} -> ({AD} & {AC}) fact9: {G} -> {F} fact10: {AC} -> (¬{AB} & {AA}) fact11: ¬({L} v ¬{M}) -> ¬{K} fact12: ¬{R} -> {Q} fact13: {AA} -> ¬{U} fact14: {Q} -> {P} fact15: (¬{AA} & {AB}) -> {B} fact16: {D} -> ¬{C} fact17: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} fact18: {F} -> ({D} & ¬{E}) fact19: {A} fact20: ¬({AE} & {AG}) -> ¬{AE} fact21: ¬{N} -> ¬({L} v ¬{M}) fact22: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) fact23: ¬{K} -> ({I} v {J})

The fact that that vegetiveness and that courageousness happens is not correct.

¬({B} & {A})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If this carboxylness does not happens the fact that this disposing Cercidiphyllaceae but notthe housekeeping occurs does not hold. fact2: If the fact that this disposing Cercidiphyllaceae but notthe housekeeping happens is not correct this dance does not occurs. fact3: This skirting ulalgia does not occurs. fact4: If this draught does not happens the fact that that vegetiveness and that courageousness occurs is incorrect. fact5: That that staying does not occurs and this disobliging Paxton happens is brought about by that this picket occurs. fact6: This decortication occurs if that this dark happens is right. fact7: The aetiologicalness does not occurs. fact8: If that that aneurysmaticness does not occurs hold the completion happens and that Jamesianness occurs. fact9: If this decortication happens that adduction occurs. fact10: That this skirting ulalgia does not occurs and that syntacticalness occurs is caused by that Jamesianness. fact11: If the fact that that that analogousness happens and/or the swat does not happens is false is right the googling Satyridae does not happens. fact12: That that perambulating Louisiana does not happens is prevented by that this dance does not occurs. fact13: That non-carboxylness is triggered by that syntacticalness. fact14: That perambulating Louisiana prevents that this picket does not occurs. fact15: If that syntacticalness does not occurs and this skirting ulalgia occurs that vegetiveness occurs. fact16: This draught does not occurs if this prowling happens. fact17: That vegetiveness happens if that syntacticalness does not happens and this skirting ulalgia does not occurs. fact18: That adduction causes that this prowling happens and the gastroduodenalness does not happens. fact19: That courageousness happens. fact20: That aneurysmaticness does not occurs if the fact that both that aneurysmaticness and that meteoricness happens is wrong. fact21: If that staying does not occurs that either that analogousness occurs or the swat does not happens or both does not hold. fact22: That syntacticalness does not occurs and this skirting ulalgia does not occurs. fact23: Either the mystification occurs or that underrating Kigali happens or both if the googling Satyridae does not happens. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that that vegetiveness and that courageousness happens is not correct. ; $proof$ =

fact17 & fact22 -> int1: That that vegetiveness occurs is correct.; int1 & fact19 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That that illuminating Mr. and that gastroduodenalness occurs hold.

({B} & {C})

fact1: That aweing Pali occurs. fact2: That dissipating and that illuminating Mr. occurs. fact3: That both that illuminating Mr. and that gastroduodenalness occurs does not hold if the fact that that dissipating does not occurs is right. fact4: The paleoanthropologicalness and that Garland happens. fact5: That exogamicness happens and that tetralogy occurs. fact6: This coiling occurs. fact7: This shadowing happens if the freshness occurs. fact8: That exogamicness occurs and that dissipating happens if that illuminating Mr. does not happens. fact9: That that gastroduodenalness does not happens is caused by that this monovalentness and/or that non-sturdyness occurs. fact10: That sturdiness occurs. fact11: That this waging promptbook does not occurs is prevented by the moshing. fact12: That dissipating happens. fact13: That gastroduodenalness occurs if that sturdiness happens. fact14: The smut occurs.

fact1: {GT} fact2: ({A} & {B}) fact3: ¬{A} -> ¬({B} & {C}) fact4: ({ID} & {EB}) fact5: ({AN} & {EK}) fact6: {GQ} fact7: {JD} -> {HU} fact8: ¬{B} -> ({AN} & {A}) fact9: ({E} v ¬{D}) -> ¬{C} fact10: {D} fact11: {HS} -> {BN} fact12: {A} fact13: {D} -> {C} fact14: {HD}

That that illuminating Mr. occurs and that gastroduodenalness occurs does not hold.

¬({B} & {C})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That aweing Pali occurs. fact2: That dissipating and that illuminating Mr. occurs. fact3: That both that illuminating Mr. and that gastroduodenalness occurs does not hold if the fact that that dissipating does not occurs is right. fact4: The paleoanthropologicalness and that Garland happens. fact5: That exogamicness happens and that tetralogy occurs. fact6: This coiling occurs. fact7: This shadowing happens if the freshness occurs. fact8: That exogamicness occurs and that dissipating happens if that illuminating Mr. does not happens. fact9: That that gastroduodenalness does not happens is caused by that this monovalentness and/or that non-sturdyness occurs. fact10: That sturdiness occurs. fact11: That this waging promptbook does not occurs is prevented by the moshing. fact12: That dissipating happens. fact13: That gastroduodenalness occurs if that sturdiness happens. fact14: The smut occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = That that illuminating Mr. and that gastroduodenalness occurs hold. ; $proof$ =

fact2 -> int1: That illuminating Mr. happens.; fact10 & fact13 -> int2: That gastroduodenalness occurs.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

That that actomyosin scrutinises Labyrinthodontia and it is a Marquette is false.

¬({A}{aa} & {B}{aa})

fact1: If something sups CNPZ and is a drooping then that this thing is a Saccharomycetaceae does not hold. fact2: The fact that every man scrutinises Labyrinthodontia hold. fact3: This Naqua is angelic if this vulcanite is a kind of a leeward. fact4: If that herrerasaur does not question archaeology then that herrerasaur is not non-angelic and this person is a Marquette. fact5: If that menhir does not metamorphose then that this vulcanite naturalizes but it is not a drooping is wrong. fact6: That that period stars Nimravus and questions archaeology does not hold if it is not a listed. fact7: That actomyosin scrutinises Labyrinthodontia. fact8: Every man does zone Adriatic and is not non-chiromantic. fact9: If the fact that this Naqua stars Nimravus and is a leeward is not true then this Naqua does not stars Nimravus. fact10: This Naqua does not star Nimravus if there exists something such that that this star Nimravus and questions archaeology does not hold. fact11: That herrerasaur does not question archaeology and that one is not a listed. fact12: If Doris is Finnish a listed that period is not a kind of a listed. fact13: Some man is a leeward if it is not a Saccharomycetaceae. fact14: Something does sup CNPZ and that is cheerful if that is not a loved. fact15: If something is not haemolytic then that that thing scrutinises Labyrinthodontia and is a Marquette is incorrect. fact16: Something is a kind of a drooping if that it naturalizes and it is not a drooping is not right. fact17: Every man does scrutinise Labyrinthodontia and it is a Marquette. fact18: This vulcanite is not a loved. fact19: If something is not haemolytic and scrutinises Labyrinthodontia it is a trenchancy. fact20: That actomyosin is non-haemolytic if this Naqua does not star Nimravus and is angelic. fact21: Doris is Finnish thing that is a listed.

fact1: (x): ({K}x & {J}x) -> ¬{I}x fact2: (x): {A}x fact3: {F}{b} -> {E}{a} fact4: ¬{G}{fk} -> ({E}{fk} & {B}{fk}) fact5: ¬{P}{e} -> ¬({L}{b} & ¬{J}{b}) fact6: ¬{H}{c} -> ¬({D}{c} & {G}{c}) fact7: {A}{aa} fact8: (x): ({FI}x & {BG}x) fact9: ¬({D}{a} & {F}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a} fact10: (x): ¬({D}x & {G}x) -> ¬{D}{a} fact11: (¬{G}{fk} & ¬{H}{fk}) fact12: ({O}{d} & {H}{d}) -> ¬{H}{c} fact13: (x): ¬{I}x -> {F}x fact14: (x): ¬{N}x -> ({K}x & {M}x) fact15: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({A}x & {B}x) fact16: (x): ¬({L}x & ¬{J}x) -> {J}x fact17: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) fact18: ¬{N}{b} fact19: (x): (¬{C}x & {A}x) -> {DM}x fact20: (¬{D}{a} & {E}{a}) -> ¬{C}{aa} fact21: ({O}{d} & {H}{d})

That herrerasaur is a Marquette and a trenchancy.

({B}{fk} & {DM}{fk})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If something sups CNPZ and is a drooping then that this thing is a Saccharomycetaceae does not hold. fact2: The fact that every man scrutinises Labyrinthodontia hold. fact3: This Naqua is angelic if this vulcanite is a kind of a leeward. fact4: If that herrerasaur does not question archaeology then that herrerasaur is not non-angelic and this person is a Marquette. fact5: If that menhir does not metamorphose then that this vulcanite naturalizes but it is not a drooping is wrong. fact6: That that period stars Nimravus and questions archaeology does not hold if it is not a listed. fact7: That actomyosin scrutinises Labyrinthodontia. fact8: Every man does zone Adriatic and is not non-chiromantic. fact9: If the fact that this Naqua stars Nimravus and is a leeward is not true then this Naqua does not stars Nimravus. fact10: This Naqua does not star Nimravus if there exists something such that that this star Nimravus and questions archaeology does not hold. fact11: That herrerasaur does not question archaeology and that one is not a listed. fact12: If Doris is Finnish a listed that period is not a kind of a listed. fact13: Some man is a leeward if it is not a Saccharomycetaceae. fact14: Something does sup CNPZ and that is cheerful if that is not a loved. fact15: If something is not haemolytic then that that thing scrutinises Labyrinthodontia and is a Marquette is incorrect. fact16: Something is a kind of a drooping if that it naturalizes and it is not a drooping is not right. fact17: Every man does scrutinise Labyrinthodontia and it is a Marquette. fact18: This vulcanite is not a loved. fact19: If something is not haemolytic and scrutinises Labyrinthodontia it is a trenchancy. fact20: That actomyosin is non-haemolytic if this Naqua does not star Nimravus and is angelic. fact21: Doris is Finnish thing that is a listed. ; $hypothesis$ = That that actomyosin scrutinises Labyrinthodontia and it is a Marquette is false. ; $proof$ =

fact17 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That that photometer does not subdue soviet and this is not unrhythmical does not hold.

¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

fact1: That photometer is not mucocutaneous and not a Upupa. fact2: The weigela is both not a Nergal and not unrhythmical. fact3: That photometer is both not a smothering and not a washday. fact4: That photometer is a tenableness. fact5: This Nanna is not unrhythmical and it is imperceptible if this Nanna is a Reaumur. fact6: Esther is not subdural and it is not unrhythmical if it is a Sinbad. fact7: The kaleidoscope is unrhythmical. fact8: This domine is unrhythmical. fact9: That photometer does not subdue soviet. fact10: That photometer internalizes Tobago. fact11: The fact that that photometer irritates hold. fact12: That photometer is not a Lateran and does not subdue soviet. fact13: If that photometer warehouses Taft then that photometer is not a tutorial and is not unrhythmical. fact14: If that photometer is a tenableness then that photometer does not subdue soviet. fact15: If this dubbin is unrhythmical the one is not pyrotechnical and the one is not a Chamaeleonidae. fact16: That photometer is not unrhythmical and it is not a kind of a Liechtenstein if that photometer Snows. fact17: This dubbin is unrhythmical. fact18: The sparkler is not unrhythmical and not a 25. fact19: That photometer does not remediate Ajuga and does not subdue soviet.

fact1: (¬{S}{a} & ¬{DE}{a}) fact2: (¬{IO}{g} & ¬{AB}{g}) fact3: (¬{HG}{a} & ¬{G}{a}) fact4: {A}{a} fact5: {CH}{fg} -> (¬{AB}{fg} & ¬{T}{fg}) fact6: {AO}{ei} -> (¬{HU}{ei} & ¬{AB}{ei}) fact7: {AB}{hg} fact8: {AB}{as} fact9: ¬{AA}{a} fact10: {DL}{a} fact11: {DQ}{a} fact12: (¬{AU}{a} & ¬{AA}{a}) fact13: {GE}{a} -> (¬{IL}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) fact14: {A}{a} -> ¬{AA}{a} fact15: {AB}{gn} -> (¬{D}{gn} & ¬{HS}{gn}) fact16: {GO}{a} -> (¬{AB}{a} & ¬{IS}{a}) fact17: {AB}{gn} fact18: (¬{AB}{dr} & ¬{IC}{dr}) fact19: (¬{CE}{a} & ¬{AA}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That photometer is not mucocutaneous and not a Upupa. fact2: The weigela is both not a Nergal and not unrhythmical. fact3: That photometer is both not a smothering and not a washday. fact4: That photometer is a tenableness. fact5: This Nanna is not unrhythmical and it is imperceptible if this Nanna is a Reaumur. fact6: Esther is not subdural and it is not unrhythmical if it is a Sinbad. fact7: The kaleidoscope is unrhythmical. fact8: This domine is unrhythmical. fact9: That photometer does not subdue soviet. fact10: That photometer internalizes Tobago. fact11: The fact that that photometer irritates hold. fact12: That photometer is not a Lateran and does not subdue soviet. fact13: If that photometer warehouses Taft then that photometer is not a tutorial and is not unrhythmical. fact14: If that photometer is a tenableness then that photometer does not subdue soviet. fact15: If this dubbin is unrhythmical the one is not pyrotechnical and the one is not a Chamaeleonidae. fact16: That photometer is not unrhythmical and it is not a kind of a Liechtenstein if that photometer Snows. fact17: This dubbin is unrhythmical. fact18: The sparkler is not unrhythmical and not a 25. fact19: That photometer does not remediate Ajuga and does not subdue soviet. ; $hypothesis$ = That that photometer does not subdue soviet and this is not unrhythmical does not hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

This amputation does not happens.

¬{C}

fact1: This indeterminableness occurs. fact2: The tensing leads to the traveling. fact3: If the fact that this smuggling Otho happens but this compiling does not occurs is incorrect this moderating occurs. fact4: If this indeterminableness happens the fact that the fact that this smuggling Otho but notthis compiling happens hold does not hold. fact5: If this moderating occurs this amputation happens. fact6: If the fact that both this amputation and this indeterminableness happens does not hold then this amputation does not occurs. fact7: The fact that this jeopardizing balboa occurs and this atheist happens is not right. fact8: That this smuggling Otho occurs and this compiling occurs is incorrect. fact9: If that joke does not happens then the fact that that terminating does not occurs and this unpublishedness does not occurs does not hold. fact10: That this amputation occurs and this indeterminableness occurs is incorrect if this moderating does not happens. fact11: This moderating does not occurs if that that terminating does not happens and this unpublishedness does not happens is incorrect.

fact1: {A} fact2: {AK} -> {DP} fact3: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} fact4: {A} -> ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) fact5: {B} -> {C} fact6: ¬({C} & {A}) -> ¬{C} fact7: ¬({GN} & {ES}) fact8: ¬({AA} & {AB}) fact9: ¬{F} -> ¬(¬{D} & ¬{E}) fact10: ¬{B} -> ¬({C} & {A}) fact11: ¬(¬{D} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{B}

This amputation does not happens.

¬{C}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This indeterminableness occurs. fact2: The tensing leads to the traveling. fact3: If the fact that this smuggling Otho happens but this compiling does not occurs is incorrect this moderating occurs. fact4: If this indeterminableness happens the fact that the fact that this smuggling Otho but notthis compiling happens hold does not hold. fact5: If this moderating occurs this amputation happens. fact6: If the fact that both this amputation and this indeterminableness happens does not hold then this amputation does not occurs. fact7: The fact that this jeopardizing balboa occurs and this atheist happens is not right. fact8: That this smuggling Otho occurs and this compiling occurs is incorrect. fact9: If that joke does not happens then the fact that that terminating does not occurs and this unpublishedness does not occurs does not hold. fact10: That this amputation occurs and this indeterminableness occurs is incorrect if this moderating does not happens. fact11: This moderating does not occurs if that that terminating does not happens and this unpublishedness does not happens is incorrect. ; $hypothesis$ = This amputation does not happens. ; $proof$ =

fact4 & fact1 -> int1: That this smuggling Otho occurs but this compiling does not happens is wrong.; int1 & fact3 -> int2: This moderating happens.; int2 & fact5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That tapir does not badger Baiomys.

¬{B}{a}

fact1: The schoolfriend is not accommodational but it is a beastliness. fact2: If this feminisation badgers Baiomys but it is non-accommodational then that tapir does not badgers Baiomys. fact3: If the schoolfriend is non-accommodational a beastliness this feminisation is not accommodational. fact4: That bubble is a morals. fact5: There are extensible things. fact6: That tapir does badger Baiomys and is not accommodational if some person is extensible.

fact1: (¬{C}{f} & {E}{f}) fact2: ({B}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} fact3: (¬{C}{f} & {E}{f}) -> ¬{C}{b} fact4: {HM}{ft} fact5: (Ex): {A}x fact6: (x): {A}x -> ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a})

That tapir does not badger Baiomys.

¬{B}{a}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: The schoolfriend is not accommodational but it is a beastliness. fact2: If this feminisation badgers Baiomys but it is non-accommodational then that tapir does not badgers Baiomys. fact3: If the schoolfriend is non-accommodational a beastliness this feminisation is not accommodational. fact4: That bubble is a morals. fact5: There are extensible things. fact6: That tapir does badger Baiomys and is not accommodational if some person is extensible. ; $hypothesis$ = That tapir does not badger Baiomys. ; $proof$ =

fact5 & fact6 -> int1: That tapir badgers Baiomys but that thing is not accommodational.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

The fact that that thyroxin does not subscribe intensiveness and is not trihydroxy is incorrect.

¬(¬{C}{b} & ¬{D}{b})

fact1: Some person that does not punctuate nephroptosis is leaning person that is a sextette. fact2: This thermostat is not leaning and not a sextette. fact3: The fact that someone does not subscribe intensiveness and he/she is non-trihydroxy is false if he/she is leaning. fact4: This thermostat punctuates nephroptosis and is trihydroxy if that thyroxin is not a kind of a skepticism. fact5: That thyroxin does not subscribe intensiveness. fact6: If something is a sextette and it subscribes intensiveness then it is not leaning. fact7: If that this thermostat is not a kind of a sextette is not wrong that thyroxin does not subscribe intensiveness and is not trihydroxy. fact8: If this thermostat is trihydroxy that tarweed does subscribe intensiveness. fact9: That thyroxin is not a kind of a sextette and does not subscribe intensiveness. fact10: Something is a sextette if that is non-roofless thing that is a selfsameness.

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

The fact that that thyroxin does not subscribe intensiveness and is not trihydroxy is incorrect.

¬(¬{C}{b} & ¬{D}{b})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: Some person that does not punctuate nephroptosis is leaning person that is a sextette. fact2: This thermostat is not leaning and not a sextette. fact3: The fact that someone does not subscribe intensiveness and he/she is non-trihydroxy is false if he/she is leaning. fact4: This thermostat punctuates nephroptosis and is trihydroxy if that thyroxin is not a kind of a skepticism. fact5: That thyroxin does not subscribe intensiveness. fact6: If something is a sextette and it subscribes intensiveness then it is not leaning. fact7: If that this thermostat is not a kind of a sextette is not wrong that thyroxin does not subscribe intensiveness and is not trihydroxy. fact8: If this thermostat is trihydroxy that tarweed does subscribe intensiveness. fact9: That thyroxin is not a kind of a sextette and does not subscribe intensiveness. fact10: Something is a sextette if that is non-roofless thing that is a selfsameness. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that that thyroxin does not subscribe intensiveness and is not trihydroxy is incorrect. ; $proof$ =

fact2 -> int1: This thermostat is not a sextette.; int1 & fact7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

Every person is a kind of a uniformity.

(x): {A}x

fact1: Some person is a Benet but the one does not handcuff LBJ if the one is not a overmuch. fact2: Something calcifies if it is a uniformity. fact3: Every person is a kind of a uniformity. fact4: Everybody furls shivering.

fact1: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({B}x & ¬{C}x) fact2: (x): {A}x -> {FD}x fact3: (x): {A}x fact4: (x): {IB}x

Every person calcifies.

(x): {FD}x

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: Some person is a Benet but the one does not handcuff LBJ if the one is not a overmuch. fact2: Something calcifies if it is a uniformity. fact3: Every person is a kind of a uniformity. fact4: Everybody furls shivering. ; $hypothesis$ = Every person is a kind of a uniformity. ; $proof$ =

fact3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

That asker is not pyrogenetic.

¬{B}{a}

fact1: The fact that that asker deceases dreamworld and is not a kind of a keratonosus does not hold. fact2: The fact that that asker is not clearheaded and that person is not a servitude is false if the fact that that militarist does not honied salacity hold. fact3: The fact that that asker unionizes topos but it does not split cytotoxicity is wrong. fact4: Somebody is not unoriented if that it is non-clearheaded and is not a servitude is false. fact5: If the fact that that asker is a kind of a Solingen but this thing does not unionize topos is incorrect that that asker is pyrogenetic is right. fact6: If this murphy is maximal that militarist does not honied salacity and is consolable. fact7: If someone is not unoriented then that it is a Masorah and is a skinful is false. fact8: If the fact that that asker is not uncrystallized is correct that asker does seep Haywood. fact9: If the fact that that asker is not a robustness is true then that one is a Solingen. fact10: The fact that that asker is a Solingen but it does not unionize topos is wrong. fact11: If that something is a Masorah and a skinful is incorrect then it is not pyrogenetic.

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

That asker is not pyrogenetic.

¬{B}{a}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: The fact that that asker deceases dreamworld and is not a kind of a keratonosus does not hold. fact2: The fact that that asker is not clearheaded and that person is not a servitude is false if the fact that that militarist does not honied salacity hold. fact3: The fact that that asker unionizes topos but it does not split cytotoxicity is wrong. fact4: Somebody is not unoriented if that it is non-clearheaded and is not a servitude is false. fact5: If the fact that that asker is a kind of a Solingen but this thing does not unionize topos is incorrect that that asker is pyrogenetic is right. fact6: If this murphy is maximal that militarist does not honied salacity and is consolable. fact7: If someone is not unoriented then that it is a Masorah and is a skinful is false. fact8: If the fact that that asker is not uncrystallized is correct that asker does seep Haywood. fact9: If the fact that that asker is not a robustness is true then that one is a Solingen. fact10: The fact that that asker is a Solingen but it does not unionize topos is wrong. fact11: If that something is a Masorah and a skinful is incorrect then it is not pyrogenetic. ; $hypothesis$ = That asker is not pyrogenetic. ; $proof$ =

fact5 & fact10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That fascicle disarms.

{C}{a}

fact1: That something does not stalinise mawkishness and is not a Automeris does not hold if this thing does not disarm. fact2: that mawkishness stalinises fascicle. fact3: That mestiza does not disarm if that mestiza is noncaloric. fact4: If something is not a Automeris then that that does not disarm hold. fact5: If Lana does unclad Formicidae that sleeping unclad Formicidae. fact6: If that Arabist is a kind of an outset then Lana unclads Formicidae. fact7: That rancher is a Automeris and it does stalinise mawkishness if the fact that something is a Pepin hold. fact8: That fascicle stalinises mawkishness. fact9: That sleeping is a kind of a Pepin if that sleeping unclads Formicidae. fact10: That fascicle is not a Automeris if it stalinises mawkishness. fact11: If that someone is not a kind of an arm is true then it is an outset and/or it unclads Formicidae. fact12: If that Arabist unclads Formicidae then Lana unclads Formicidae. fact13: That Arabist is not an arm but he is Vietnamese.

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

That fascicle disarms.

{C}{a}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That something does not stalinise mawkishness and is not a Automeris does not hold if this thing does not disarm. fact2: that mawkishness stalinises fascicle. fact3: That mestiza does not disarm if that mestiza is noncaloric. fact4: If something is not a Automeris then that that does not disarm hold. fact5: If Lana does unclad Formicidae that sleeping unclad Formicidae. fact6: If that Arabist is a kind of an outset then Lana unclads Formicidae. fact7: That rancher is a Automeris and it does stalinise mawkishness if the fact that something is a Pepin hold. fact8: That fascicle stalinises mawkishness. fact9: That sleeping is a kind of a Pepin if that sleeping unclads Formicidae. fact10: That fascicle is not a Automeris if it stalinises mawkishness. fact11: If that someone is not a kind of an arm is true then it is an outset and/or it unclads Formicidae. fact12: If that Arabist unclads Formicidae then Lana unclads Formicidae. fact13: That Arabist is not an arm but he is Vietnamese. ; $hypothesis$ = That fascicle disarms. ; $proof$ =

fact10 & fact8 -> int1: That fascicle is not a Automeris.; fact4 -> int2: That fascicle does not disarm if that fascicle is not a Automeris.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

This phycomycosis does not frisk.

¬{B}{b}

fact1: If that something is not a kind of a Tasso and does not frisk is not wrong that thing is not a branchiopod. fact2: This phycomycosis is not a Tasso and not a branchiopod. fact3: If this monoplane is a branchiopod this phycomycosis does not enshroud Parnell and is not a kind of a Tasso. fact4: If some man does not enshroud Parnell and that one is not a Tasso that one does not frisk. fact5: If something that is not a branchiopod does not perpetrate fibroid then this thing frisks. fact6: This phycomycosis is a hypoplasia. fact7: This monoplane is a branchiopod. fact8: If something crisscrosses Kroto then the thing is not a branchiopod and does not perpetrate fibroid. fact9: If this monoplane does not spellbind this phycomycosis is a kind of a licking and crisscrosses Kroto.

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

This phycomycosis frisks.

{B}{b}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If that something is not a kind of a Tasso and does not frisk is not wrong that thing is not a branchiopod. fact2: This phycomycosis is not a Tasso and not a branchiopod. fact3: If this monoplane is a branchiopod this phycomycosis does not enshroud Parnell and is not a kind of a Tasso. fact4: If some man does not enshroud Parnell and that one is not a Tasso that one does not frisk. fact5: If something that is not a branchiopod does not perpetrate fibroid then this thing frisks. fact6: This phycomycosis is a hypoplasia. fact7: This monoplane is a branchiopod. fact8: If something crisscrosses Kroto then the thing is not a branchiopod and does not perpetrate fibroid. fact9: If this monoplane does not spellbind this phycomycosis is a kind of a licking and crisscrosses Kroto. ; $hypothesis$ = This phycomycosis does not frisk. ; $proof$ =

fact3 & fact7 -> int1: This phycomycosis does not enshroud Parnell and that one is not a Tasso.; fact4 -> int2: This phycomycosis does not frisk if it does not enshroud Parnell and is not a Tasso.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

If that charcoal does not ground catalepsy and is a demyelination then the fact that that charcoal does not adapt hold.

(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}

fact1: If something that does not ground catalepsy is a demyelination this does not adapt. fact2: If that charcoal is a demyelination and that is a kind of a sextillion that does not pronounce asexuality. fact3: If this hothead is not bright but it is a demyelination then it is not non-nativistic.

fact1: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x fact2: ({AB}{aa} & {GT}{aa}) -> ¬{GU}{aa} fact3: (¬{JG}{cb} & {AB}{cb}) -> {AL}{cb}

PROVED

PROVED

$facts$ = fact1: If something that does not ground catalepsy is a demyelination this does not adapt. fact2: If that charcoal is a demyelination and that is a kind of a sextillion that does not pronounce asexuality. fact3: If this hothead is not bright but it is a demyelination then it is not non-nativistic. ; $hypothesis$ = If that charcoal does not ground catalepsy and is a demyelination then the fact that that charcoal does not adapt hold. ; $proof$ =

fact1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

That afters either is not tame or is not archaeological or both.

(¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a})

fact1: If that afters is a Podalyria that either that goldfish is not phosphoric or it does not anele Lyon or both does not hold. fact2: If somebody is not rhetorical it shits Antigonus and is a Podalyria. fact3: The fact that that afters is not tame and/or is not archaeological does not hold. fact4: That afters is not rhetorical and it does not mismated Kumasi if that afters is not apsidal.

fact1: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{FL}{gl} v ¬{CO}{gl}) fact2: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & {A}x) fact3: ¬(¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) fact4: ¬{E}{a} -> (¬{C}{a} & ¬{D}{a})

That that that goldfish either is not phosphoric or does not anele Lyon or both hold does not hold.

¬(¬{FL}{gl} v ¬{CO}{gl})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If that afters is a Podalyria that either that goldfish is not phosphoric or it does not anele Lyon or both does not hold. fact2: If somebody is not rhetorical it shits Antigonus and is a Podalyria. fact3: The fact that that afters is not tame and/or is not archaeological does not hold. fact4: That afters is not rhetorical and it does not mismated Kumasi if that afters is not apsidal. ; $hypothesis$ = That afters either is not tame or is not archaeological or both. ; $proof$ =

fact3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

The fact that that homespun is not umbellar but it is uncoated is wrong.

¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})

fact1: Somebody is a brunt if that it is both Donatist and not a brunt is not correct. fact2: That that polymorphism is not uncoated but it is oncological is true. fact3: Some person does not assign taken and is non-soteriological if he/she is a subculture. fact4: This diabetic does not blow Jacobi if that videotape is not tuberculoid. fact5: That homespun is not a Gleditsia but it is denotive. fact6: If someone does not assign taken and is not soteriological then that it is not a rich is true. fact7: If that that marmot does not sync Tectaria is true then that marmot is not a eventration but it is umbellar. fact8: The fact that this alumbloom is not a yawn is true if this piazza beams quality and is not a yawn. fact9: If this alumbloom is not a yawn that this hailstorm is not chalybeate but it is a kwashiorkor is true. fact10: That Seine is plausible and this is a hopeful if this Livonian is not a kind of a rich. fact11: If something is non-chalybeate thing that is a kind of a kwashiorkor then the fact that this is not transeunt hold. fact12: If somebody does sync Tectaria then that this one is not umbellar and this one is uncoated does not hold. fact13: If this hailstorm is not transeunt that that totara is both Donatist and not a brunt does not hold. fact14: If the fact that that videotape is both not coldhearted and thermionic does not hold then it is not tuberculoid. fact15: If that totara is a brunt that sarcosporidian is a kind of a Male and does not sync Tectaria. fact16: If that sarcosporidian is a kind of a Male that does not sync Tectaria then that homespun does sync Tectaria. fact17: That homespun is uncoated. fact18: This Livonian is a subculture and is alterable if this diabetic does not blow Jacobi. fact19: The fact that that that videotape is not coldhearted but it is thermionic hold is wrong.

fact1: (x): ¬({E}x & ¬{B}x) -> {B}x fact2: (¬{AB}{ao} & {HI}{ao}) fact3: (x): {O}x -> (¬{M}x & ¬{N}x) fact4: ¬{R}{j} -> ¬{Q}{i} fact5: (¬{BU}{a} & {AF}{a}) fact6: (x): (¬{M}x & ¬{N}x) -> ¬{L}x fact7: ¬{A}{eu} -> (¬{JA}{eu} & {AA}{eu}) fact8: ({J}{f} & ¬{H}{f}) -> ¬{H}{e} fact9: ¬{H}{e} -> (¬{G}{d} & {F}{d}) fact10: ¬{L}{h} -> ({K}{g} & {I}{g}) fact11: (x): (¬{G}x & {F}x) -> ¬{D}x fact12: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) fact13: ¬{D}{d} -> ¬({E}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) fact14: ¬(¬{T}{j} & {S}{j}) -> ¬{R}{j} fact15: {B}{c} -> ({C}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) fact16: ({C}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) -> {A}{a} fact17: {AB}{a} fact18: ¬{Q}{i} -> ({O}{h} & {P}{h}) fact19: ¬(¬{T}{j} & {S}{j})

The fact that that homespun is not umbellar but it is uncoated is wrong.

¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: Somebody is a brunt if that it is both Donatist and not a brunt is not correct. fact2: That that polymorphism is not uncoated but it is oncological is true. fact3: Some person does not assign taken and is non-soteriological if he/she is a subculture. fact4: This diabetic does not blow Jacobi if that videotape is not tuberculoid. fact5: That homespun is not a Gleditsia but it is denotive. fact6: If someone does not assign taken and is not soteriological then that it is not a rich is true. fact7: If that that marmot does not sync Tectaria is true then that marmot is not a eventration but it is umbellar. fact8: The fact that this alumbloom is not a yawn is true if this piazza beams quality and is not a yawn. fact9: If this alumbloom is not a yawn that this hailstorm is not chalybeate but it is a kwashiorkor is true. fact10: That Seine is plausible and this is a hopeful if this Livonian is not a kind of a rich. fact11: If something is non-chalybeate thing that is a kind of a kwashiorkor then the fact that this is not transeunt hold. fact12: If somebody does sync Tectaria then that this one is not umbellar and this one is uncoated does not hold. fact13: If this hailstorm is not transeunt that that totara is both Donatist and not a brunt does not hold. fact14: If the fact that that videotape is both not coldhearted and thermionic does not hold then it is not tuberculoid. fact15: If that totara is a brunt that sarcosporidian is a kind of a Male and does not sync Tectaria. fact16: If that sarcosporidian is a kind of a Male that does not sync Tectaria then that homespun does sync Tectaria. fact17: That homespun is uncoated. fact18: This Livonian is a subculture and is alterable if this diabetic does not blow Jacobi. fact19: The fact that that that videotape is not coldhearted but it is thermionic hold is wrong. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that that homespun is not umbellar but it is uncoated is wrong. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That this soymilk does not foment penchant hold.

¬{A}{a}

fact1: This soymilk is a native. fact2: The brontosaurus foments penchant. fact3: That infielder foments penchant. fact4: This soymilk is ambrosian. fact5: This soymilk foments penchant. fact6: The mocker foments penchant. fact7: this penchant foments soymilk. fact8: This soymilk reinstates mesomorphy. fact9: This soymilk whimpers. fact10: If something leafs majesty then this foments penchant. fact11: The raspberry foments penchant.

fact1: {EA}{a} fact2: {A}{ht} fact3: {A}{fr} fact4: {AB}{a} fact5: {A}{a} fact6: {A}{hf} fact7: {AA}{aa} fact8: {IM}{a} fact9: {DC}{a} fact10: (x): {B}x -> {A}x fact11: {A}{ca}

That petunia foments penchant.

{A}{q}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This soymilk is a native. fact2: The brontosaurus foments penchant. fact3: That infielder foments penchant. fact4: This soymilk is ambrosian. fact5: This soymilk foments penchant. fact6: The mocker foments penchant. fact7: this penchant foments soymilk. fact8: This soymilk reinstates mesomorphy. fact9: This soymilk whimpers. fact10: If something leafs majesty then this foments penchant. fact11: The raspberry foments penchant. ; $hypothesis$ = That this soymilk does not foment penchant hold. ; $proof$ =

fact5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

This bovine or that apprehending or both happens.

({A} v {B})

fact1: The shuddering vaginitis occurs. fact2: That apprehending happens. fact3: This unfitness occurs. fact4: The fencing and/or the Shanghaiing adequacy occurs. fact5: Either the auscultatoriness happens or that matric happens or both. fact6: That apprehending does not happens if the fact that the homostylicness does not occurs and this Malaysianness does not occurs does not hold. fact7: This scalableness or this corposant or both occurs. fact8: That that steadiedness occurs or the thudding millimicron happens or both hold. fact9: The segmenting Myxine occurs and/or the sizzle occurs.

fact1: {AP} fact2: {B} fact3: {BN} fact4: ({CF} v {P}) fact5: ({HC} v {GL}) fact6: ¬(¬{C} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{B} fact7: ({EL} v {GP}) fact8: ({HR} v {CP}) fact9: ({FJ} v {HQ})

This proctorship happens or that Circus happens or both.

({EF} v {CC})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: The shuddering vaginitis occurs. fact2: That apprehending happens. fact3: This unfitness occurs. fact4: The fencing and/or the Shanghaiing adequacy occurs. fact5: Either the auscultatoriness happens or that matric happens or both. fact6: That apprehending does not happens if the fact that the homostylicness does not occurs and this Malaysianness does not occurs does not hold. fact7: This scalableness or this corposant or both occurs. fact8: That that steadiedness occurs or the thudding millimicron happens or both hold. fact9: The segmenting Myxine occurs and/or the sizzle occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = This bovine or that apprehending or both happens. ; $proof$ =

fact2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

That shambling stagecraft does not occurs.

¬{B}

fact1: If either that ascent does not occurs or that shambling stagecraft does not occurs or both that shambling stagecraft does not happens. fact2: That unfitting Konoye is prevented by that this falsifying happens. fact3: This cousinliness and that garmenting haemoglobinopathy occurs if this Caucasian does not happens. fact4: This stealing booboisie does not occurs if that this wharfing does not happens and this falsifying does not occurs is incorrect. fact5: If this cousinliness happens that ascent does not happens and/or that shambling stagecraft does not happens. fact6: Both that ascent and this cousinliness happens if that garmenting haemoglobinopathy does not occurs. fact7: The fact that this Caucasian and that unfitting Konoye occurs does not hold if this stealing booboisie does not occurs. fact8: That garmenting haemoglobinopathy is prevented by that this stealing booboisie does not occurs but this Caucasian occurs. fact9: That glorifying does not happens if the fact that notthis rising but that glorifying happens is false. fact10: Notthis stealing booboisie but this Caucasian occurs if that unfitting Konoye does not happens. fact11: That this wharfing does not happens and this falsifying does not occurs is false if that glorifying does not occurs. fact12: That this rising does not happens and that glorifying occurs is not true if that swabbing does not occurs. fact13: That that glorifying does not happens causes that this falsifying happens and this wharfing occurs. fact14: If this annexalness occurs that shambling stagecraft happens. fact15: This annexalness occurs. fact16: If the fact that this Caucasian and that unfitting Konoye happens is incorrect then this Caucasian does not happens.

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

That shambling stagecraft does not occurs.

¬{B}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If either that ascent does not occurs or that shambling stagecraft does not occurs or both that shambling stagecraft does not happens. fact2: That unfitting Konoye is prevented by that this falsifying happens. fact3: This cousinliness and that garmenting haemoglobinopathy occurs if this Caucasian does not happens. fact4: This stealing booboisie does not occurs if that this wharfing does not happens and this falsifying does not occurs is incorrect. fact5: If this cousinliness happens that ascent does not happens and/or that shambling stagecraft does not happens. fact6: Both that ascent and this cousinliness happens if that garmenting haemoglobinopathy does not occurs. fact7: The fact that this Caucasian and that unfitting Konoye occurs does not hold if this stealing booboisie does not occurs. fact8: That garmenting haemoglobinopathy is prevented by that this stealing booboisie does not occurs but this Caucasian occurs. fact9: That glorifying does not happens if the fact that notthis rising but that glorifying happens is false. fact10: Notthis stealing booboisie but this Caucasian occurs if that unfitting Konoye does not happens. fact11: That this wharfing does not happens and this falsifying does not occurs is false if that glorifying does not occurs. fact12: That this rising does not happens and that glorifying occurs is not true if that swabbing does not occurs. fact13: That that glorifying does not happens causes that this falsifying happens and this wharfing occurs. fact14: If this annexalness occurs that shambling stagecraft happens. fact15: This annexalness occurs. fact16: If the fact that this Caucasian and that unfitting Konoye happens is incorrect then this Caucasian does not happens. ; $hypothesis$ = That shambling stagecraft does not occurs. ; $proof$ =

fact14 & fact15 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

Brad does not speak.

¬{D}{c}

fact1: This brow is a kind of headless one that does not tend nanophthalmos if this brow is a conceptuality. fact2: Brad is ipsilateral if this scorper speaks. fact3: If this coccobacillus is planted the fact that this scorper is not ipsilateral is true. fact4: This brow is a conceptuality. fact5: This wiper is a Craigie. fact6: Brad speaks if this scorper is not planted. fact7: If this wiper is a Craigie then this scorper is ipsilateral. fact8: Brad is a Craigie. fact9: This scorper does smart pocketful.

fact1: {G}{e} -> ({F}{e} & ¬{E}{e}) fact2: {D}{b} -> {B}{c} fact3: ¬{C}{d} -> ¬{B}{b} fact4: {G}{e} fact5: {A}{a} fact6: {C}{b} -> {D}{c} fact7: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} fact8: {A}{c} fact9: {EU}{b}

Brad does not speak.

¬{D}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This brow is a kind of headless one that does not tend nanophthalmos if this brow is a conceptuality. fact2: Brad is ipsilateral if this scorper speaks. fact3: If this coccobacillus is planted the fact that this scorper is not ipsilateral is true. fact4: This brow is a conceptuality. fact5: This wiper is a Craigie. fact6: Brad speaks if this scorper is not planted. fact7: If this wiper is a Craigie then this scorper is ipsilateral. fact8: Brad is a Craigie. fact9: This scorper does smart pocketful. ; $hypothesis$ = Brad does not speak. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

Notthat perpetuating particularism but that remonstrance occurs.

(¬{AA} & {AB})

fact1: That that delegating occurs triggers that that perpetuating particularism does not occurs and that remonstrance happens. fact2: That delegating occurs.

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

PROVED

PROVED

$facts$ = fact1: That that delegating occurs triggers that that perpetuating particularism does not occurs and that remonstrance happens. fact2: That delegating occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = Notthat perpetuating particularism but that remonstrance occurs. ; $proof$ =

fact1 & fact2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

This tribulating rebroadcast and/or that discuss occurs.

({B} v {C})

fact1: That this lapidating flashpoint does not occurs is prevented by this objection. fact2: The fact that this schooling happens is true. fact3: If that fathomableness happens this objection occurs. fact4: If that this tribulating rebroadcast does not occurs and that gentrification does not occurs is incorrect then the reassigning crowned happens. fact5: This tribulating rebroadcast happens if that gentrification occurs. fact6: If that fazing cantata does not happens then that fathomableness but notthis Hell occurs. fact7: If that gentrification does not happens then the fact that either this tribulating rebroadcast or that discuss or both happens is false. fact8: That that jogging does not happens is prevented by that that gentrification does not occurs. fact9: That that revenge happens is prevented by that this objection does not happens and that fathomableness does not happens. fact10: That that revenge does not occurs or that that gentrification does not occurs or both yields that that gentrification does not happens. fact11: That gentrification happens. fact12: This countermeasure and/or the gap happens. fact13: That birlinging happens and/or the sprucing Primulaceae happens. fact14: If that that gentrification and this lapidating flashpoint happens is false then that gentrification does not occurs. fact15: If that revenge does not occurs the fact that that both that gentrification and this lapidating flashpoint occurs does not hold is right. fact16: The anguisheding animatronics occurs or that overtiring occurs or both.

fact1: {F} -> {E} fact2: {AH} fact3: {G} -> {F} fact4: ¬(¬{B} & ¬{A}) -> {EG} fact5: {A} -> {B} fact6: ¬{I} -> ({G} & ¬{H}) fact7: ¬{A} -> ¬({B} v {C}) fact8: ¬{A} -> {CT} fact9: (¬{F} & ¬{G}) -> ¬{D} fact10: (¬{D} v ¬{A}) -> ¬{A} fact11: {A} fact12: ({IH} v {HL}) fact13: ({CJ} v {GS}) fact14: ¬({A} & {E}) -> ¬{A} fact15: ¬{D} -> ¬({A} & {E}) fact16: ({DB} v {AR})

That either this tribulating rebroadcast happens or that discuss happens or both does not hold.

¬({B} v {C})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That this lapidating flashpoint does not occurs is prevented by this objection. fact2: The fact that this schooling happens is true. fact3: If that fathomableness happens this objection occurs. fact4: If that this tribulating rebroadcast does not occurs and that gentrification does not occurs is incorrect then the reassigning crowned happens. fact5: This tribulating rebroadcast happens if that gentrification occurs. fact6: If that fazing cantata does not happens then that fathomableness but notthis Hell occurs. fact7: If that gentrification does not happens then the fact that either this tribulating rebroadcast or that discuss or both happens is false. fact8: That that jogging does not happens is prevented by that that gentrification does not occurs. fact9: That that revenge happens is prevented by that this objection does not happens and that fathomableness does not happens. fact10: That that revenge does not occurs or that that gentrification does not occurs or both yields that that gentrification does not happens. fact11: That gentrification happens. fact12: This countermeasure and/or the gap happens. fact13: That birlinging happens and/or the sprucing Primulaceae happens. fact14: If that that gentrification and this lapidating flashpoint happens is false then that gentrification does not occurs. fact15: If that revenge does not occurs the fact that that both that gentrification and this lapidating flashpoint occurs does not hold is right. fact16: The anguisheding animatronics occurs or that overtiring occurs or both. ; $hypothesis$ = This tribulating rebroadcast and/or that discuss occurs. ; $proof$ =

fact5 & fact11 -> int1: This tribulating rebroadcast happens.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

This polluter is a hickey.

{B}{a}

fact1: That locale is a Aboriginal. fact2: This polluter is a Aboriginal and does not scar tizzy. fact3: If this polluter is not a kind of a centennial and/or it repines Shavuoth then that orderly is not a hickey. fact4: This polluter is not a hickey if it is a kind of a Aboriginal and it does not scar tizzy.

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

That orderly is not a hickey.

¬{B}{ad}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That locale is a Aboriginal. fact2: This polluter is a Aboriginal and does not scar tizzy. fact3: If this polluter is not a kind of a centennial and/or it repines Shavuoth then that orderly is not a hickey. fact4: This polluter is not a hickey if it is a kind of a Aboriginal and it does not scar tizzy. ; $hypothesis$ = This polluter is a hickey. ; $proof$ =

fact4 & fact2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

This Sin does not occurs.

¬{A}

fact1: This describing does not occurs if this playfulness occurs. fact2: This Sin occurs. fact3: That this describing does not occurs leads to that this Sin does not occurs but that exposure occurs.

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

This Sin does not occurs.

¬{A}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This describing does not occurs if this playfulness occurs. fact2: This Sin occurs. fact3: That this describing does not occurs leads to that this Sin does not occurs but that exposure occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = This Sin does not occurs. ; $proof$ =

fact2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That bicentennialness does not occurs.

¬{A}

fact1: This dancing happens. fact2: If this dancing happens and the CBR does not occurs that that pacing Poland does not occurs hold. fact3: That crabbing and this enthronisation occurs if the apocalypse does not occurs. fact4: This pulverising reportage happens. fact5: That faucalness occurs. fact6: If this acetylenicness does not occurs this dancing but notthe CBR occurs. fact7: The cutaneousness occurs. fact8: The apocalypse does not happens. fact9: The fact that that laceration happens and that strikebreaking does not occurs is wrong if that bang happens. fact10: If that laceration does not happens and this deficientness does not occurs that bicentennialness does not happens. fact11: This ESR happens. fact12: If that crabbing happens then that bang occurs. fact13: If that pacing Poland does not occurs then notthis deficientness but the president occurs. fact14: That laceration does not occurs if the fact that that laceration but notthat strikebreaking happens is false. fact15: This runaway occurs. fact16: That nonimitativeness occurs. fact17: That bicentennialness happens.

fact1: {K} fact2: ({K} & ¬{J}) -> ¬{H} fact3: ¬{P} -> ({G} & {I}) fact4: {CB} fact5: {EG} fact6: ¬{L} -> ({K} & ¬{J}) fact7: {IS} fact8: ¬{P} fact9: {E} -> ¬({B} & ¬{D}) fact10: (¬{B} & ¬{C}) -> ¬{A} fact11: {JD} fact12: {G} -> {E} fact13: ¬{H} -> (¬{C} & {F}) fact14: ¬({B} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{B} fact15: {DT} fact16: {FB} fact17: {A}

That bicentennialness does not occurs.

¬{A}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This dancing happens. fact2: If this dancing happens and the CBR does not occurs that that pacing Poland does not occurs hold. fact3: That crabbing and this enthronisation occurs if the apocalypse does not occurs. fact4: This pulverising reportage happens. fact5: That faucalness occurs. fact6: If this acetylenicness does not occurs this dancing but notthe CBR occurs. fact7: The cutaneousness occurs. fact8: The apocalypse does not happens. fact9: The fact that that laceration happens and that strikebreaking does not occurs is wrong if that bang happens. fact10: If that laceration does not happens and this deficientness does not occurs that bicentennialness does not happens. fact11: This ESR happens. fact12: If that crabbing happens then that bang occurs. fact13: If that pacing Poland does not occurs then notthis deficientness but the president occurs. fact14: That laceration does not occurs if the fact that that laceration but notthat strikebreaking happens is false. fact15: This runaway occurs. fact16: That nonimitativeness occurs. fact17: That bicentennialness happens. ; $hypothesis$ = That bicentennialness does not occurs. ; $proof$ =

fact17 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

This leotard is not a Venezuela.

¬{C}{b}

fact1: Peyton is not a Pyrularia if this leotard is not a Pyrularia. fact2: That endospore is not a kind of a Venezuela. fact3: If something that does not poison Poulenc is not heterologic that this thing is not a nonsteroidal hold. fact4: If the fact that Peyton does not poison Poulenc is not incorrect then this leotard is not a Pyrularia and does not poison Poulenc. fact5: Someone is not heterologic if the person is not a kind of a Venezuela and the person does not poison Poulenc. fact6: Peyton does not ration Steatornis and is not a Venezuela. fact7: If the fact that this leotard poisons Poulenc or the person is a Pyrularia or both is wrong then this leotard is not heterologic. fact8: Some person is not a Venezuela if she/he is not a Pyrularia and she/he does not poison Poulenc. fact9: This leotard does not needle. fact10: This leotard does not poison Poulenc and is non-heterologic if Peyton is not non-heterologic. fact11: That Peyton is a nonsteroidal or that one squincheds Branchiostegidae or both is not correct. fact12: Peyton is not heterologic if that the fact that Peyton is a Venezuela and/or she poisons Poulenc does not hold is correct. fact13: Peyton does not poison Poulenc if that Peyton is not a Pyrularia and it is not a nonsteroidal is not incorrect. fact14: This leotard does not poison Poulenc. fact15: This leotard does not speck sackful. fact16: Peyton is not a nonsteroidal. fact17: If Peyton does not poison Poulenc then this leotard does not poison Poulenc. fact18: If someone that does not poison Poulenc is not a nonsteroidal then it is not heterologic. fact19: This leotard does not overgorge Wegener. fact20: Peyton does not poison Poulenc if the fact that Peyton is a kind of a nonsteroidal and/or the thing is heterologic is false. fact21: That Peyton is a nonsteroidal or that is heterologic or both is not true. fact22: If something that poisons Poulenc is not a Pyrularia then it is a Venezuela.

fact1: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬{A}{a} fact2: ¬{C}{ho} fact3: (x): (¬{B}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{AA}x fact4: ¬{B}{a} -> (¬{A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) fact5: (x): (¬{C}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{AB}x fact6: (¬{AS}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) fact7: ¬({B}{b} v {A}{b}) -> ¬{AB}{b} fact8: (x): (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{C}x fact9: ¬{FO}{b} fact10: ¬{AB}{a} -> (¬{B}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) fact11: ¬({AA}{a} v {JH}{a}) fact12: ¬({C}{a} v {B}{a}) -> ¬{AB}{a} fact13: (¬{A}{a} & ¬{AA}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} fact14: ¬{B}{b} fact15: ¬{AM}{b} fact16: ¬{AA}{a} fact17: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} fact18: (x): (¬{B}x & ¬{AA}x) -> ¬{AB}x fact19: ¬{AN}{b} fact20: ¬({AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} fact21: ¬({AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) fact22: (x): ({B}x & ¬{A}x) -> {C}x

This leotard is a kind of a Venezuela.

{C}{b}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: Peyton is not a Pyrularia if this leotard is not a Pyrularia. fact2: That endospore is not a kind of a Venezuela. fact3: If something that does not poison Poulenc is not heterologic that this thing is not a nonsteroidal hold. fact4: If the fact that Peyton does not poison Poulenc is not incorrect then this leotard is not a Pyrularia and does not poison Poulenc. fact5: Someone is not heterologic if the person is not a kind of a Venezuela and the person does not poison Poulenc. fact6: Peyton does not ration Steatornis and is not a Venezuela. fact7: If the fact that this leotard poisons Poulenc or the person is a Pyrularia or both is wrong then this leotard is not heterologic. fact8: Some person is not a Venezuela if she/he is not a Pyrularia and she/he does not poison Poulenc. fact9: This leotard does not needle. fact10: This leotard does not poison Poulenc and is non-heterologic if Peyton is not non-heterologic. fact11: That Peyton is a nonsteroidal or that one squincheds Branchiostegidae or both is not correct. fact12: Peyton is not heterologic if that the fact that Peyton is a Venezuela and/or she poisons Poulenc does not hold is correct. fact13: Peyton does not poison Poulenc if that Peyton is not a Pyrularia and it is not a nonsteroidal is not incorrect. fact14: This leotard does not poison Poulenc. fact15: This leotard does not speck sackful. fact16: Peyton is not a nonsteroidal. fact17: If Peyton does not poison Poulenc then this leotard does not poison Poulenc. fact18: If someone that does not poison Poulenc is not a nonsteroidal then it is not heterologic. fact19: This leotard does not overgorge Wegener. fact20: Peyton does not poison Poulenc if the fact that Peyton is a kind of a nonsteroidal and/or the thing is heterologic is false. fact21: That Peyton is a nonsteroidal or that is heterologic or both is not true. fact22: If something that poisons Poulenc is not a Pyrularia then it is a Venezuela. ; $hypothesis$ = This leotard is not a Venezuela. ; $proof$ =

fact20 & fact21 -> int1: Peyton does not poison Poulenc.; int1 & fact4 -> int2: This leotard is not a Pyrularia and does not poison Poulenc.; fact8 -> int3: If this leotard is not a Pyrularia and it does not poison Poulenc then it is not a kind of a Venezuela.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

This iodopsin is a kind of a Strigiformes but it does not promulgate Crawford.

({C}{c} & ¬{D}{c})

fact1: The fact that the fact that this genip does not ammoniate urbanity and is a chattel is false is right. fact2: If this genip is a kind of a thump this warhead cuddles Confucianism. fact3: If the fact that this genip does not ammoniate urbanity and is a chattel is incorrect then this genip is a kind of a thump. fact4: The fact that this iodopsin is a Strigiformes and does not promulgate Crawford is false if this warhead does cuddle Confucianism.

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$facts$ = fact1: The fact that the fact that this genip does not ammoniate urbanity and is a chattel is false is right. fact2: If this genip is a kind of a thump this warhead cuddles Confucianism. fact3: If the fact that this genip does not ammoniate urbanity and is a chattel is incorrect then this genip is a kind of a thump. fact4: The fact that this iodopsin is a Strigiformes and does not promulgate Crawford is false if this warhead does cuddle Confucianism. ; $hypothesis$ = This iodopsin is a kind of a Strigiformes but it does not promulgate Crawford. ; $proof$ =

fact3 & fact1 -> int1: This genip is a kind of a thump.; int1 & fact2 -> int2: This warhead cuddles Confucianism.; int2 & fact4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

This sapper does not trivialise quatercentennial.

¬{C}{b}

fact1: Jorge drops Torino. fact2: This sapper is not sulfuric if Jorge does not trivialise quatercentennial and is not sulfuric. fact3: this Torino drops Jorge.

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

This sapper is not sulfuric.

¬{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: Jorge drops Torino. fact2: This sapper is not sulfuric if Jorge does not trivialise quatercentennial and is not sulfuric. fact3: this Torino drops Jorge. ; $hypothesis$ = This sapper does not trivialise quatercentennial. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

Some person presages.

(Ex): {A}x

fact1: If someone is not a Antioch it does not defy haemoglobinopathy. fact2: There exists something such that that this thing is a Frunze is not wrong. fact3: Some person presages. fact4: Everybody is not a Antioch. fact5: There exists someone such that that one is a Reduviidae. fact6: There exists something such that it recruits inattention.

fact1: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬{B}x fact2: (Ex): {JD}x fact3: (Ex): {A}x fact4: (x): ¬{C}x fact5: (Ex): {BE}x fact6: (Ex): {HH}x

There is some man such that it does philander stationariness.

(Ex): {CI}x

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If someone is not a Antioch it does not defy haemoglobinopathy. fact2: There exists something such that that this thing is a Frunze is not wrong. fact3: Some person presages. fact4: Everybody is not a Antioch. fact5: There exists someone such that that one is a Reduviidae. fact6: There exists something such that it recruits inattention. ; $hypothesis$ = Some person presages. ; $proof$ =

fact3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

That trail happens and that anticholinergicness occurs.

({C} & {A})

fact1: If this chivying WTC does not occurs then both that distilling Chelydridae and that chair happens. fact2: This noncaloricness occurs and that fulling happens. fact3: That that fewness does not happens and/or that nasal prevents that this chivying WTC happens. fact4: If that nonprofessionalness occurs then this shirringing Comatulidae happens or this feeling Hipsurus does not occurs or both. fact5: The non-noncaloricness is brought about by that this shirringing Comatulidae occurs and/or that this feeling Hipsurus does not happens. fact6: That DC occurs. fact7: That widowing Britain happens. fact8: The fact that the coarsenessing triangularity and that dowering Guayaquil happens hold. fact9: That Preakness occurs. fact10: This Lilliputianness but notthis abaticness occurs if this siege does not happens. fact11: If that bioattack does not occurs then the fact that that concretisticness occurs and this siege does not happens is right. fact12: The fact that both that trail and that anticholinergicness occurs is wrong if that that Preakness does not happens is right. fact13: If that distilling Chelydridae happens then that this starting does not happens and that beagling does not happens does not hold. fact14: That that fewness does not occurs and/or that nasal is caused by that the hauling does not happens. fact15: That anticholinergicness occurs and that Preakness occurs. fact16: The fact that that toleration and/or that spacing preachification occurs is correct if this abaticness does not happens. fact17: That bioattack does not occurs if the fact that this starting does not happens and that beagling does not occurs is not true. fact18: That that Preakness but notthat trail happens is incorrect if this noncaloricness does not happens. fact19: That perjury occurs if that anticholinergicness does not happens.

fact1: ¬{S} -> ({Q} & {R}) fact2: ({D} & {HN}) fact3: (¬{U} v {T}) -> ¬{S} fact4: {G} -> ({E} v ¬{F}) fact5: ({E} v ¬{F}) -> ¬{D} fact6: {EO} fact7: {GI} fact8: ({AB} & {BK}) fact9: {B} fact10: ¬{L} -> ({K} & ¬{J}) fact11: ¬{N} -> ({M} & ¬{L}) fact12: ¬{B} -> ¬({C} & {A}) fact13: {Q} -> ¬(¬{O} & ¬{P}) fact14: ¬{AA} -> (¬{U} v {T}) fact15: ({A} & {B}) fact16: ¬{J} -> ({I} v {H}) fact17: ¬(¬{O} & ¬{P}) -> ¬{N} fact18: ¬{D} -> ¬({B} & ¬{C}) fact19: ¬{A} -> {IG}

That perjury happens.

{IG}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If this chivying WTC does not occurs then both that distilling Chelydridae and that chair happens. fact2: This noncaloricness occurs and that fulling happens. fact3: That that fewness does not happens and/or that nasal prevents that this chivying WTC happens. fact4: If that nonprofessionalness occurs then this shirringing Comatulidae happens or this feeling Hipsurus does not occurs or both. fact5: The non-noncaloricness is brought about by that this shirringing Comatulidae occurs and/or that this feeling Hipsurus does not happens. fact6: That DC occurs. fact7: That widowing Britain happens. fact8: The fact that the coarsenessing triangularity and that dowering Guayaquil happens hold. fact9: That Preakness occurs. fact10: This Lilliputianness but notthis abaticness occurs if this siege does not happens. fact11: If that bioattack does not occurs then the fact that that concretisticness occurs and this siege does not happens is right. fact12: The fact that both that trail and that anticholinergicness occurs is wrong if that that Preakness does not happens is right. fact13: If that distilling Chelydridae happens then that this starting does not happens and that beagling does not happens does not hold. fact14: That that fewness does not occurs and/or that nasal is caused by that the hauling does not happens. fact15: That anticholinergicness occurs and that Preakness occurs. fact16: The fact that that toleration and/or that spacing preachification occurs is correct if this abaticness does not happens. fact17: That bioattack does not occurs if the fact that this starting does not happens and that beagling does not occurs is not true. fact18: That that Preakness but notthat trail happens is incorrect if this noncaloricness does not happens. fact19: That perjury occurs if that anticholinergicness does not happens. ; $hypothesis$ = That trail happens and that anticholinergicness occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That glimmering occurs.

{C}

fact1: That this branchialness does not occurs causes that this deregulating Eadwig happens and that Linneanness happens. fact2: This tyrannising does not occurs if that that meddling does not occurs and this allies occurs is not right. fact3: This billowing Setophaga happens. fact4: That okaying happens and this allies happens. fact5: That this tyrannising happens is triggered by that the contestation does not occurs. fact6: If this understating bloodstain does not occurs then that non-branchialness and this colourfulness occurs. fact7: If this bollocksing linage occurs and that presidentship happens then this understating bloodstain does not happens. fact8: If this tyrannising does not occurs that glimmering occurs and that okaying happens. fact9: If that impropriety does not occurs the fact that notthat meddling but this allies happens is incorrect. fact10: If this deregulating Eadwig occurs then that impropriety does not happens and this limitlessness does not occurs. fact11: This allies happens. fact12: That that the contestation occurs and the computing handled does not occurs is correct does not hold. fact13: That this tyrannising does not happens and that okaying does not occurs causes that this centerfield does not occurs. fact14: If that okaying and this tyrannising occurs that glimmering does not occurs. fact15: The protozoanness does not happens. fact16: If that the contestation but notthe computing handled happens is wrong this tyrannising happens.

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

That glimmering occurs.

{C}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That this branchialness does not occurs causes that this deregulating Eadwig happens and that Linneanness happens. fact2: This tyrannising does not occurs if that that meddling does not occurs and this allies occurs is not right. fact3: This billowing Setophaga happens. fact4: That okaying happens and this allies happens. fact5: That this tyrannising happens is triggered by that the contestation does not occurs. fact6: If this understating bloodstain does not occurs then that non-branchialness and this colourfulness occurs. fact7: If this bollocksing linage occurs and that presidentship happens then this understating bloodstain does not happens. fact8: If this tyrannising does not occurs that glimmering occurs and that okaying happens. fact9: If that impropriety does not occurs the fact that notthat meddling but this allies happens is incorrect. fact10: If this deregulating Eadwig occurs then that impropriety does not happens and this limitlessness does not occurs. fact11: This allies happens. fact12: That that the contestation occurs and the computing handled does not occurs is correct does not hold. fact13: That this tyrannising does not happens and that okaying does not occurs causes that this centerfield does not occurs. fact14: If that okaying and this tyrannising occurs that glimmering does not occurs. fact15: The protozoanness does not happens. fact16: If that the contestation but notthe computing handled happens is wrong this tyrannising happens. ; $hypothesis$ = That glimmering occurs. ; $proof$ =

fact16 & fact12 -> int1: This tyrannising occurs.; fact4 -> int2: That okaying happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: That okaying happens and this tyrannising happens.; int3 & fact14 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That seminarian is a Taipeh.

{C}{aa}

fact1: If something is not a doubt that thing is a Taipeh or is a kind of a dolichocephalic or both. fact2: Everything does not houseclean. fact3: If the fact that that seminarian is a doubt and it is a dolichocephalic is wrong it is not a dolichocephalic. fact4: That stonewaller is not intramolecular if the fact that that stonewaller is a XXVIII and it is intramolecular is false. fact5: Some person is not a Taipeh if the one is not a kind of a dolichocephalic. fact6: A non-intramolecular one is praetorial and colorises comradery. fact7: This oddment does not vindicate Dacrymycetaceae if that obsolescence vindicate Dacrymycetaceae and that person is a countersignature. fact8: If some man teems credulousness and does not houseclean then it is a Kronecker. fact9: If someone does not gestate Malachi then it is not haematopoietic. fact10: Something is light and is not a kind of a Crax if this is a Kronecker. fact11: That seminarian is a Taipeh if that stonewaller is a Taipeh. fact12: If this oddment does not vindicate Dacrymycetaceae then the fact that that stonewaller is a XXVIII and it is intramolecular does not hold. fact13: That obsolescence vindicates Dacrymycetaceae and is a kind of a countersignature. fact14: A praetorial person teems credulousness and does not houseclean. fact15: If a light thing is not a Crax then it is not a kind of a doubt. fact16: That stonewaller is not a kind of a Crax if this oddment is non-light thing that is not a Crax. fact17: This oddment is not a Crax.

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

That seminarian is a Taipeh.

{C}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If something is not a doubt that thing is a Taipeh or is a kind of a dolichocephalic or both. fact2: Everything does not houseclean. fact3: If the fact that that seminarian is a doubt and it is a dolichocephalic is wrong it is not a dolichocephalic. fact4: That stonewaller is not intramolecular if the fact that that stonewaller is a XXVIII and it is intramolecular is false. fact5: Some person is not a Taipeh if the one is not a kind of a dolichocephalic. fact6: A non-intramolecular one is praetorial and colorises comradery. fact7: This oddment does not vindicate Dacrymycetaceae if that obsolescence vindicate Dacrymycetaceae and that person is a countersignature. fact8: If some man teems credulousness and does not houseclean then it is a Kronecker. fact9: If someone does not gestate Malachi then it is not haematopoietic. fact10: Something is light and is not a kind of a Crax if this is a Kronecker. fact11: That seminarian is a Taipeh if that stonewaller is a Taipeh. fact12: If this oddment does not vindicate Dacrymycetaceae then the fact that that stonewaller is a XXVIII and it is intramolecular does not hold. fact13: That obsolescence vindicates Dacrymycetaceae and is a kind of a countersignature. fact14: A praetorial person teems credulousness and does not houseclean. fact15: If a light thing is not a Crax then it is not a kind of a doubt. fact16: That stonewaller is not a kind of a Crax if this oddment is non-light thing that is not a Crax. fact17: This oddment is not a Crax. ; $hypothesis$ = That seminarian is a Taipeh. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That this matchlock fits Switzerland and is a kind of a propagandist is true.

({B}{b} & {A}{b})

fact1: That Melissa does not vesicate tablespoonful or this thing does not array or both is wrong. fact2: If something does not fit Switzerland that thing argues mesolithic and that thing is a propagandist. fact3: This laurelwood rollickings. fact4: That Melissa does not argue mesolithic and/or does not vesicate tablespoonful does not hold. fact5: The oaf does not fit Switzerland if Melissa fit Switzerland. fact6: This matchlock is a propagandist that does not array. fact7: Some man does fit Switzerland and this one does array if this one is not a kind of a momentum. fact8: The fact that the antiaircraft argues mesolithic and is not a kind of a overplus hold. fact9: If that either Melissa does not argue mesolithic or it does not vesicate tablespoonful or both does not hold then this matchlock fits Switzerland. fact10: That either the botanist is not a Beveridge or it does not fit Switzerland or both is not true. fact11: If Melissa does not array that this matchlock fits Switzerland and this thing is a propagandist is wrong. fact12: If this laurelwood rollickings then that this laurelwood swans or is not a kind of a gaiety or both is wrong. fact13: This matchlock does not muzzle Deimos if that this laurelwood swans or it is not a gaiety or both is wrong. fact14: Melissa fits Switzerland. fact15: Melissa bonds titled and is a forestry. fact16: Melissa does vesicate tablespoonful. fact17: This matchlock argues mesolithic. fact18: This matchlock does vesicate tablespoonful. fact19: If the fact that this matchlock does not vesicate tablespoonful and/or this thing does not array is false Melissa is a propagandist. fact20: This matchlock veneers Brancusi and is antennary. fact21: This matchlock is a conjunctive that is a Protestantism. fact22: If the fact that either Melissa does not argue mesolithic or this thing vesicates tablespoonful or both is incorrect this matchlock fits Switzerland.

fact1: ¬(¬{AB}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) fact2: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({AA}x & {A}x) fact3: {H}{c} fact4: ¬(¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) fact5: {B}{a} -> ¬{B}{dt} fact6: ({A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) fact7: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({B}x & {C}x) fact8: ({AA}{bq} & ¬{HI}{bq}) fact9: ¬(¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} fact10: ¬(¬{FO}{bt} v ¬{B}{bt}) fact11: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬({B}{b} & {A}{b}) fact12: {H}{c} -> ¬({F}{c} v ¬{G}{c}) fact13: ¬({F}{c} v ¬{G}{c}) -> ¬{E}{b} fact14: {B}{a} fact15: ({HF}{a} & {BL}{a}) fact16: {AB}{a} fact17: {AA}{b} fact18: {AB}{b} fact19: ¬(¬{AB}{b} v ¬{C}{b}) -> {A}{a} fact20: ({IM}{b} & {HN}{b}) fact21: ({L}{b} & {CT}{b}) fact22: ¬(¬{AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) -> {B}{b}

The fact that this matchlock fits Switzerland and it is a propagandist is not correct.

¬({B}{b} & {A}{b})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That Melissa does not vesicate tablespoonful or this thing does not array or both is wrong. fact2: If something does not fit Switzerland that thing argues mesolithic and that thing is a propagandist. fact3: This laurelwood rollickings. fact4: That Melissa does not argue mesolithic and/or does not vesicate tablespoonful does not hold. fact5: The oaf does not fit Switzerland if Melissa fit Switzerland. fact6: This matchlock is a propagandist that does not array. fact7: Some man does fit Switzerland and this one does array if this one is not a kind of a momentum. fact8: The fact that the antiaircraft argues mesolithic and is not a kind of a overplus hold. fact9: If that either Melissa does not argue mesolithic or it does not vesicate tablespoonful or both does not hold then this matchlock fits Switzerland. fact10: That either the botanist is not a Beveridge or it does not fit Switzerland or both is not true. fact11: If Melissa does not array that this matchlock fits Switzerland and this thing is a propagandist is wrong. fact12: If this laurelwood rollickings then that this laurelwood swans or is not a kind of a gaiety or both is wrong. fact13: This matchlock does not muzzle Deimos if that this laurelwood swans or it is not a gaiety or both is wrong. fact14: Melissa fits Switzerland. fact15: Melissa bonds titled and is a forestry. fact16: Melissa does vesicate tablespoonful. fact17: This matchlock argues mesolithic. fact18: This matchlock does vesicate tablespoonful. fact19: If the fact that this matchlock does not vesicate tablespoonful and/or this thing does not array is false Melissa is a propagandist. fact20: This matchlock veneers Brancusi and is antennary. fact21: This matchlock is a conjunctive that is a Protestantism. fact22: If the fact that either Melissa does not argue mesolithic or this thing vesicates tablespoonful or both is incorrect this matchlock fits Switzerland. ; $hypothesis$ = That this matchlock fits Switzerland and is a kind of a propagandist is true. ; $proof$ =

fact9 & fact4 -> int1: This matchlock fits Switzerland.; fact6 -> int2: This matchlock is a propagandist.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

That this bacitracin does not wallop bowed hold.

¬{A}{a}

fact1: This bacitracin is unweaned. fact2: This bacitracin is both not chaetognathous and not a archosaurian. fact3: This bacitracin is not a Marx and it does not admire logomania. fact4: That this bacitracin is not a Marx and does not cleave does not hold if this bacitracin is peaceable. fact5: Something is a melodiousness and it wallops bowed if it is not genealogic. fact6: The fact that this bacitracin entrains rowdyism but it is not a melodiousness is not correct. fact7: This bacitracin is a melodiousness. fact8: That Gb is a Marx. fact9: This throttler is non-genealogic if that this bacitracin engrosses focussing but it is not non-genealogic is wrong. fact10: If the fact that somebody is an ethos and this one is stomatous does not hold that this one is not a kind of a Hipparchus is true. fact11: This bacitracin does not etherialise Cyperus and is not a Marx if this bacitracin does wallop bowed. fact12: That something engrosses focussing but it is not genealogic is incorrect if that it is not a Hipparchus is true. fact13: If this bacitracin is a melodiousness the fact that it does not etherialise Cyperus and is not a Marx does not hold. fact14: This bacitracin wallops bowed if this virtuoso is a kind of a melodiousness. fact15: That hazel is not a Marx. fact16: The fascista is a Marx. fact17: This botfly etherialises Cyperus.

fact1: {DD}{a} fact2: (¬{CO}{a} & ¬{IF}{a}) fact3: (¬{AB}{a} & ¬{J}{a}) fact4: {CB}{a} -> ¬(¬{AB}{a} & ¬{JJ}{a}) fact5: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & {A}x) fact6: ¬({U}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) fact7: {B}{a} fact8: {AB}{bn} fact9: ¬({E}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{C}{dj} fact10: (x): ¬({G}x & {F}x) -> ¬{D}x fact11: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) fact12: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬({E}x & ¬{C}x) fact13: {B}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) fact14: {B}{b} -> {A}{a} fact15: ¬{AB}{gg} fact16: {AB}{ic} fact17: {AA}{dc}

This throttler is a melodiousness.

{B}{dj}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This bacitracin is unweaned. fact2: This bacitracin is both not chaetognathous and not a archosaurian. fact3: This bacitracin is not a Marx and it does not admire logomania. fact4: That this bacitracin is not a Marx and does not cleave does not hold if this bacitracin is peaceable. fact5: Something is a melodiousness and it wallops bowed if it is not genealogic. fact6: The fact that this bacitracin entrains rowdyism but it is not a melodiousness is not correct. fact7: This bacitracin is a melodiousness. fact8: That Gb is a Marx. fact9: This throttler is non-genealogic if that this bacitracin engrosses focussing but it is not non-genealogic is wrong. fact10: If the fact that somebody is an ethos and this one is stomatous does not hold that this one is not a kind of a Hipparchus is true. fact11: This bacitracin does not etherialise Cyperus and is not a Marx if this bacitracin does wallop bowed. fact12: That something engrosses focussing but it is not genealogic is incorrect if that it is not a Hipparchus is true. fact13: If this bacitracin is a melodiousness the fact that it does not etherialise Cyperus and is not a Marx does not hold. fact14: This bacitracin wallops bowed if this virtuoso is a kind of a melodiousness. fact15: That hazel is not a Marx. fact16: The fascista is a Marx. fact17: This botfly etherialises Cyperus. ; $hypothesis$ = That this bacitracin does not wallop bowed hold. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that this bacitracin wallops bowed.; fact11 & assump1 -> int1: This bacitracin does not etherialise Cyperus and is not a Marx.; fact7 & fact13 -> int2: That this bacitracin does not etherialise Cyperus and it is not a Marx is wrong.; int1 & int2 -> int3: This is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

That dicarboxylicness does not happens and that baringness does not happens.

(¬{C} & ¬{B})

fact1: If the fact that this reach occurs and this stimulation happens does not hold that this zapping does not happens is correct. fact2: If this zapping does not happens that that dicarboxylicness does not occurs and that baringness does not occurs is not true. fact3: If that crabbing nice does not happens that this reach and this stimulation occurs is incorrect. fact4: This tracking happens. fact5: That that monsoon does not occurs is caused by that both this scotomatousness and the plumbery happens. fact6: Both this tracking and the summoning occurs. fact7: If the fact that that baringness does not occurs is correct this non-dicarboxylicness and that baringnessness occurs. fact8: That the whacking Brahms happens and this rinsing imperfect happens prevents that this remonstration occurs. fact9: If both this tracking and the summoning occurs that baringness does not happens.

fact1: ¬({E} & {D}) -> ¬{A} fact2: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{C} & ¬{B}) fact3: ¬{F} -> ¬({E} & {D}) fact4: {AA} fact5: ({HJ} & {JA}) -> ¬{HF} fact6: ({AA} & {AB}) fact7: ¬{B} -> (¬{C} & ¬{B}) fact8: ({T} & {HC}) -> ¬{GD} fact9: ({AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B}

The fact that both this non-dicarboxylicness and this non-baringness happens is not correct.

¬(¬{C} & ¬{B})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If the fact that this reach occurs and this stimulation happens does not hold that this zapping does not happens is correct. fact2: If this zapping does not happens that that dicarboxylicness does not occurs and that baringness does not occurs is not true. fact3: If that crabbing nice does not happens that this reach and this stimulation occurs is incorrect. fact4: This tracking happens. fact5: That that monsoon does not occurs is caused by that both this scotomatousness and the plumbery happens. fact6: Both this tracking and the summoning occurs. fact7: If the fact that that baringness does not occurs is correct this non-dicarboxylicness and that baringnessness occurs. fact8: That the whacking Brahms happens and this rinsing imperfect happens prevents that this remonstration occurs. fact9: If both this tracking and the summoning occurs that baringness does not happens. ; $hypothesis$ = That dicarboxylicness does not happens and that baringness does not happens. ; $proof$ =

fact9 & fact6 -> int1: That baringness does not occurs.; int1 & fact7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

The fact that that telephonist does not wrench and is adnexal is false.

¬(¬{A}{aa} & {B}{aa})

fact1: That telephonist is not a Orthotomus but that thing is astronautic. fact2: That the mortice is adnexal is true. fact3: If something wrenches then the thing is not empiric and the thing primps Haydn. fact4: Every man does vaccinate Araneus. fact5: The land is adnexal. fact6: That telephonist does not abuse ornateness and is a kind of a startling. fact7: The fact that that telephonist is a myoglobinuria is correct. fact8: Everything does not wrench and it is adnexal. fact9: Everything is a tailoring. fact10: Everything does not truck Wulfila and is a bellyful. fact11: If that some person does not wrench but she/he is a rotl is wrong she/he wrench. fact12: Everything does not wrench. fact13: That telephonist does inure grazed. fact14: Everybody is non-antediluvial but not non-expensive. fact15: The pug does not struggle bulk but that person is a kind of a splinter. fact16: Everything is not a Tradescantia and horripilates brandish. fact17: Desiree is adnexal. fact18: Everything is not a Lechanorales and is omnivorous.

fact1: (¬{HD}{aa} & {BH}{aa}) fact2: {B}{bj} fact3: (x): {A}x -> (¬{F}x & {AO}x) fact4: (x): {K}x fact5: {B}{bb} fact6: (¬{BL}{aa} & {FO}{aa}) fact7: {ET}{aa} fact8: (x): (¬{A}x & {B}x) fact9: (x): {HO}x fact10: (x): (¬{GU}x & {AH}x) fact11: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & {C}x) -> {A}x fact12: (x): ¬{A}x fact13: {ED}{aa} fact14: (x): (¬{DA}x & {FM}x) fact15: (¬{EU}{gh} & {ES}{gh}) fact16: (x): (¬{H}x & {DL}x) fact17: {B}{bm} fact18: (x): (¬{GS}x & {FI}x)

Everything is not empiric and does primp Haydn.

(x): (¬{F}x & {AO}x)

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That telephonist is not a Orthotomus but that thing is astronautic. fact2: That the mortice is adnexal is true. fact3: If something wrenches then the thing is not empiric and the thing primps Haydn. fact4: Every man does vaccinate Araneus. fact5: The land is adnexal. fact6: That telephonist does not abuse ornateness and is a kind of a startling. fact7: The fact that that telephonist is a myoglobinuria is correct. fact8: Everything does not wrench and it is adnexal. fact9: Everything is a tailoring. fact10: Everything does not truck Wulfila and is a bellyful. fact11: If that some person does not wrench but she/he is a rotl is wrong she/he wrench. fact12: Everything does not wrench. fact13: That telephonist does inure grazed. fact14: Everybody is non-antediluvial but not non-expensive. fact15: The pug does not struggle bulk but that person is a kind of a splinter. fact16: Everything is not a Tradescantia and horripilates brandish. fact17: Desiree is adnexal. fact18: Everything is not a Lechanorales and is omnivorous. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that that telephonist does not wrench and is adnexal is false. ; $proof$ =

fact8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That suffering afflatus occurs.

{C}

fact1: The unrimedness does not happens if that extrasystolicness occurs. fact2: If that mingling occurs then that dysphoricness occurs. fact3: If that canonisation does not happens then that suffering afflatus and this cetaceousness happens. fact4: That calcicolousness does not happens if that that stumbling happens and that calcicolousness happens is wrong. fact5: The fact that both this non-nuptialness and this non-salientness occurs hold if that Platonisticness occurs. fact6: If this nuptialness does not happens then that both that stumbling and that calcicolousness occurs is false. fact7: This sibilation occurs. fact8: If that calcicolousness does not happens then that extrasystolicness happens and the viscosimetricness occurs. fact9: That that canonisation does not occurs hold if the unrimedness does not happens. fact10: That that mingling happens and/or this sibilation occurs brings about that that suffering afflatus does not occurs.

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

That dysphoricness occurs.

{BM}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: The unrimedness does not happens if that extrasystolicness occurs. fact2: If that mingling occurs then that dysphoricness occurs. fact3: If that canonisation does not happens then that suffering afflatus and this cetaceousness happens. fact4: That calcicolousness does not happens if that that stumbling happens and that calcicolousness happens is wrong. fact5: The fact that both this non-nuptialness and this non-salientness occurs hold if that Platonisticness occurs. fact6: If this nuptialness does not happens then that both that stumbling and that calcicolousness occurs is false. fact7: This sibilation occurs. fact8: If that calcicolousness does not happens then that extrasystolicness happens and the viscosimetricness occurs. fact9: That that canonisation does not occurs hold if the unrimedness does not happens. fact10: That that mingling happens and/or this sibilation occurs brings about that that suffering afflatus does not occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = That suffering afflatus occurs. ; $proof$ =

fact7 -> int1: Either that mingling or this sibilation or both happens.; int1 & fact10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

This lapidarist is smaller.

{B}{b}

fact1: This lapidarist is basiscopic and is a kerfuffle. fact2: That moccasin is a kind of a overmuchness if this sandpiper deludes melagra. fact3: The fact that this sandpiper does not coach Bouyei and is not smaller is incorrect. fact4: This lapidarist is not a Chara. fact5: The fact that if somebody does not bivouac contracted then the fact that he/she does not dance YHVH and does not delude melagra does not hold hold. fact6: This sandpiper deludes melagra if that it does not dance YHVH and does not deludes melagra is wrong. fact7: If that this sandpiper does not coach Bouyei and this thing is not a Chara is wrong this lapidarist is not smaller. fact8: That Edo is not a Chara. fact9: The fact that this sandpiper does not coach Bouyei and the thing is not a Chara is wrong. fact10: The fact that someone is not smaller and that person is not a kind of a Phalaenoptilus does not hold if that person is a overmuchness. fact11: The fact that this sandpiper coaches Bouyei and is not a Chara is false. fact12: If the fact that this sandpiper does not coach Bouyei and it is not smaller is incorrect this lapidarist is not a Chara.

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

The fact that that moccasin is non-smaller person that is not a Phalaenoptilus is incorrect.

¬(¬{B}{gg} & ¬{AG}{gg})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This lapidarist is basiscopic and is a kerfuffle. fact2: That moccasin is a kind of a overmuchness if this sandpiper deludes melagra. fact3: The fact that this sandpiper does not coach Bouyei and is not smaller is incorrect. fact4: This lapidarist is not a Chara. fact5: The fact that if somebody does not bivouac contracted then the fact that he/she does not dance YHVH and does not delude melagra does not hold hold. fact6: This sandpiper deludes melagra if that it does not dance YHVH and does not deludes melagra is wrong. fact7: If that this sandpiper does not coach Bouyei and this thing is not a Chara is wrong this lapidarist is not smaller. fact8: That Edo is not a Chara. fact9: The fact that this sandpiper does not coach Bouyei and the thing is not a Chara is wrong. fact10: The fact that someone is not smaller and that person is not a kind of a Phalaenoptilus does not hold if that person is a overmuchness. fact11: The fact that this sandpiper coaches Bouyei and is not a Chara is false. fact12: If the fact that this sandpiper does not coach Bouyei and it is not smaller is incorrect this lapidarist is not a Chara. ; $hypothesis$ = This lapidarist is smaller. ; $proof$ =

fact7 & fact9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That that norepinephrine does not hamstring ken and is gonadotropic is false.

¬(¬{D}{a} & {C}{a})

fact1: That norepinephrine is a kind of a paradox. fact2: That norepinephrine transmits. fact3: Something does not jangle but that thing directs if that thing is not non-alveolar. fact4: Something does not hamstring ken if it is mithraistic. fact5: That norepinephrine does not hamstring ken and yields Sphingidae. fact6: The Vepse is non-mithraistic but it is a Montgomery. fact7: That norepinephrine does not hamstring ken. fact8: The titi is a paradox. fact9: The fact that that gourmet is a kind of a paradox hold. fact10: That norepinephrine is both not secretory and Shinto. fact11: If someone is Procrustean then she is both not a heartlessness and unhealthful. fact12: If that norepinephrine is mithraistic then she/he does not hamstring ken. fact13: If that norepinephrine is mithraistic then that norepinephrine is a paleolithic. fact14: If something is mithraistic it does not hamstring ken and is gonadotropic. fact15: The fact that that norepinephrine does not hamstring ken and is gonadotropic does not hold if the subjugator is not a paradox. fact16: The fact that that norepinephrine is a scrunch hold. fact17: If that indexer is a kind of a paradox then that indexer is not a enteritis and remunerates nightmare. fact18: The claret is not typical and hamstrings ken if it does accept. fact19: That norepinephrine is a heartlessness. fact20: That norepinephrine is not a truck and hamstrings ken if the thing is a GI. fact21: That that norepinephrine is a kind of non-unhealthful one that does trash bedtime is true. fact22: That norepinephrine does hamstring ken if that norepinephrine brews Meyerhof.

fact1: {A}{a} fact2: {FB}{a} fact3: (x): {GH}x -> (¬{GK}x & {IL}x) fact4: (x): {B}x -> ¬{D}x fact5: (¬{D}{a} & {HP}{a}) fact6: (¬{B}{df} & {HF}{df}) fact7: ¬{D}{a} fact8: {A}{k} fact9: {A}{gf} fact10: (¬{IJ}{a} & {GA}{a}) fact11: (x): {FD}x -> (¬{FF}x & {T}x) fact12: {B}{a} -> ¬{D}{a} fact13: {B}{a} -> {BU}{a} fact14: (x): {B}x -> (¬{D}x & {C}x) fact15: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬(¬{D}{a} & {C}{a}) fact16: {GD}{a} fact17: {A}{hu} -> (¬{DK}{hu} & {CB}{hu}) fact18: {CQ}{ct} -> (¬{JB}{ct} & {D}{ct}) fact19: {FF}{a} fact20: {O}{a} -> (¬{EB}{a} & {D}{a}) fact21: (¬{T}{a} & {HB}{a}) fact22: {EF}{a} -> {D}{a}

That that norepinephrine does not hamstring ken and is gonadotropic is false.

¬(¬{D}{a} & {C}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That norepinephrine is a kind of a paradox. fact2: That norepinephrine transmits. fact3: Something does not jangle but that thing directs if that thing is not non-alveolar. fact4: Something does not hamstring ken if it is mithraistic. fact5: That norepinephrine does not hamstring ken and yields Sphingidae. fact6: The Vepse is non-mithraistic but it is a Montgomery. fact7: That norepinephrine does not hamstring ken. fact8: The titi is a paradox. fact9: The fact that that gourmet is a kind of a paradox hold. fact10: That norepinephrine is both not secretory and Shinto. fact11: If someone is Procrustean then she is both not a heartlessness and unhealthful. fact12: If that norepinephrine is mithraistic then she/he does not hamstring ken. fact13: If that norepinephrine is mithraistic then that norepinephrine is a paleolithic. fact14: If something is mithraistic it does not hamstring ken and is gonadotropic. fact15: The fact that that norepinephrine does not hamstring ken and is gonadotropic does not hold if the subjugator is not a paradox. fact16: The fact that that norepinephrine is a scrunch hold. fact17: If that indexer is a kind of a paradox then that indexer is not a enteritis and remunerates nightmare. fact18: The claret is not typical and hamstrings ken if it does accept. fact19: That norepinephrine is a heartlessness. fact20: That norepinephrine is not a truck and hamstrings ken if the thing is a GI. fact21: That that norepinephrine is a kind of non-unhealthful one that does trash bedtime is true. fact22: That norepinephrine does hamstring ken if that norepinephrine brews Meyerhof. ; $hypothesis$ = That that norepinephrine does not hamstring ken and is gonadotropic is false. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That Gallicness does not occurs.

¬{D}

fact1: That that aiming does not occurs is caused by this democratisation. fact2: That disobeying respectability happens. fact3: If that stuffing 1000 happens then that this belling indetermination does not happens and this heterogenesis does not happens does not hold. fact4: That stuffing 1000 occurs if either that stuffing 1000 occurs or that sizzing Villard does not occurs or both. fact5: That this heterogenesis occurs is right if that this belling indetermination does not occurs and this heterogenesis does not occurs does not hold. fact6: That this Fatherhood does not happens and the disarming Navy happens is false if that this heterogenesis happens is not incorrect. fact7: This worrying happens. fact8: The fact that this airpost happens or this intrenching does not happens or both does not hold if this Fatherhood does not occurs. fact9: If this reversing happens that seating happens. fact10: That that seating does not happens is prevented by that this recall happens. fact11: If this intrenching does not occurs this democratisation and this airpost occurs. fact12: If the fact that this airpost occurs or this intrenching does not occurs or both does not hold this democratisation occurs. fact13: If that aiming does not occurs then notthat Gallicness but that seating happens. fact14: Either this recall or this reversing or both occurs. fact15: If this democratisation happens then the fact that that seating does not occurs and that aiming does not occurs does not hold. fact16: That that vomiting does not occurs brings about that that stuffing 1000 occurs and/or that that sizzing Villard does not occurs. fact17: If that seating occurs then that Gallicness occurs.

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

This appreciation happens.

{CH}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That that aiming does not occurs is caused by this democratisation. fact2: That disobeying respectability happens. fact3: If that stuffing 1000 happens then that this belling indetermination does not happens and this heterogenesis does not happens does not hold. fact4: That stuffing 1000 occurs if either that stuffing 1000 occurs or that sizzing Villard does not occurs or both. fact5: That this heterogenesis occurs is right if that this belling indetermination does not occurs and this heterogenesis does not occurs does not hold. fact6: That this Fatherhood does not happens and the disarming Navy happens is false if that this heterogenesis happens is not incorrect. fact7: This worrying happens. fact8: The fact that this airpost happens or this intrenching does not happens or both does not hold if this Fatherhood does not occurs. fact9: If this reversing happens that seating happens. fact10: That that seating does not happens is prevented by that this recall happens. fact11: If this intrenching does not occurs this democratisation and this airpost occurs. fact12: If the fact that this airpost occurs or this intrenching does not occurs or both does not hold this democratisation occurs. fact13: If that aiming does not occurs then notthat Gallicness but that seating happens. fact14: Either this recall or this reversing or both occurs. fact15: If this democratisation happens then the fact that that seating does not occurs and that aiming does not occurs does not hold. fact16: That that vomiting does not occurs brings about that that stuffing 1000 occurs and/or that that sizzing Villard does not occurs. fact17: If that seating occurs then that Gallicness occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = That Gallicness does not occurs. ; $proof$ =

fact14 & fact10 & fact9 -> int1: That seating happens.; int1 & fact17 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

The fact that this Unitarian is not a kind of a diagonalisation and it does not lease Maseru is incorrect.

¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

fact1: This Unitarian is not a clamour and not an equal if this is a kind of a Galeorhinus. fact2: That there exists nobody such that it is an equal and it is a Galeorhinus is not incorrect. fact3: Some person that is not an equal amplifies and/or fringes gaudiness. fact4: That this Unitarian is a kind of a Galeorhinus hold. fact5: There exists nothing such that this thing is unassertive and this thing does not fringe gaudiness. fact6: That some person is not a diagonalisation and it does not lease Maseru does not hold if it is unassertive.

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

This taxi is not a Galeorhinus and that one is not a diagonalisation.

(¬{F}{dh} & ¬{AA}{dh})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This Unitarian is not a clamour and not an equal if this is a kind of a Galeorhinus. fact2: That there exists nobody such that it is an equal and it is a Galeorhinus is not incorrect. fact3: Some person that is not an equal amplifies and/or fringes gaudiness. fact4: That this Unitarian is a kind of a Galeorhinus hold. fact5: There exists nothing such that this thing is unassertive and this thing does not fringe gaudiness. fact6: That some person is not a diagonalisation and it does not lease Maseru does not hold if it is unassertive. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that this Unitarian is not a kind of a diagonalisation and it does not lease Maseru is incorrect. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That that oozing does not occurs is correct.

¬{B}

fact1: This cornealness happens. fact2: This reduplication and the unreproducibleness happens. fact3: This tiff occurs and this constellating thyrotoxicosis occurs. fact4: The fact that if the fact that this disjunction and this inebriating Balaenidae occurs is incorrect this disjunction does not occurs is right. fact5: The names happens. fact6: That this disjunction does not occurs and that patching does not happens causes this cornealness. fact7: The screwball and the vigilantism occurs. fact8: That non-noncaloricness brings about that this septation does not happens but that longitudinalness happens. fact9: If this septation does not happens then the fact that this disjunction happens and this inebriating Balaenidae happens is wrong. fact10: The fact that that reanimating Verdi happens is not false. fact11: That that deserts does not occurs and that patching does not occurs is brought about by that the interpolation does not occurs. fact12: That the officiation does not occurs prevents that that noncaloricness happens. fact13: That both this tiff and this constellating thyrotoxicosis occurs results in that the officiation does not occurs. fact14: If that that non-callithumpianness and/or that nonionicness occurs does not hold the interpolation does not happens. fact15: Both that keying and that heckling Kanawha happens.

fact1: {A} fact2: ({IK} & {CS}) fact3: ({O} & {N}) fact4: ¬({D} & {F}) -> ¬{D} fact5: {FS} fact6: (¬{D} & ¬{C}) -> {A} fact7: ({FL} & {JD}) fact8: ¬{J} -> (¬{H} & {I}) fact9: ¬{H} -> ¬({D} & {F}) fact10: {EH} fact11: ¬{G} -> (¬{E} & ¬{C}) fact12: ¬{M} -> ¬{J} fact13: ({O} & {N}) -> ¬{M} fact14: ¬(¬{K} v {L}) -> ¬{G} fact15: ({IH} & {FN})

That that oozing does not occurs is correct.

¬{B}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This cornealness happens. fact2: This reduplication and the unreproducibleness happens. fact3: This tiff occurs and this constellating thyrotoxicosis occurs. fact4: The fact that if the fact that this disjunction and this inebriating Balaenidae occurs is incorrect this disjunction does not occurs is right. fact5: The names happens. fact6: That this disjunction does not occurs and that patching does not happens causes this cornealness. fact7: The screwball and the vigilantism occurs. fact8: That non-noncaloricness brings about that this septation does not happens but that longitudinalness happens. fact9: If this septation does not happens then the fact that this disjunction happens and this inebriating Balaenidae happens is wrong. fact10: The fact that that reanimating Verdi happens is not false. fact11: That that deserts does not occurs and that patching does not occurs is brought about by that the interpolation does not occurs. fact12: That the officiation does not occurs prevents that that noncaloricness happens. fact13: That both this tiff and this constellating thyrotoxicosis occurs results in that the officiation does not occurs. fact14: If that that non-callithumpianness and/or that nonionicness occurs does not hold the interpolation does not happens. fact15: Both that keying and that heckling Kanawha happens. ; $hypothesis$ = That that oozing does not occurs is correct. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

Every person forbids Lithuania.

(x): {A}x

fact1: Everyone is fertile. fact2: Every person forbids Lithuania. fact3: That something does not spray Varuna and is round does not hold if it is not incorrect. fact4: Everyone is not incorrect. fact5: Everyone is a kind of a Polyodontidae. fact6: Everything is a kind of a diagonalization. fact7: Everyone is a broadsheet. fact8: Something is infrequent if the fact that it does not spray Varuna and is round is incorrect. fact9: If somebody does not placard then it is a Goldberg and it does not forbid Lithuania. fact10: If some person does forbid Lithuania then she is a kind of an interdependence. fact11: Everything is not round.

fact1: (x): {AR}x fact2: (x): {A}x fact3: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & {D}x) fact4: (x): ¬{F}x fact5: (x): {HK}x fact6: (x): {JA}x fact7: (x): {HU}x fact8: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & {D}x) -> {C}x fact9: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({EB}x & ¬{A}x) fact10: (x): {A}x -> {HP}x fact11: (x): ¬{D}x

Everybody is a Goldberg.

(x): {EB}x

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: Everyone is fertile. fact2: Every person forbids Lithuania. fact3: That something does not spray Varuna and is round does not hold if it is not incorrect. fact4: Everyone is not incorrect. fact5: Everyone is a kind of a Polyodontidae. fact6: Everything is a kind of a diagonalization. fact7: Everyone is a broadsheet. fact8: Something is infrequent if the fact that it does not spray Varuna and is round is incorrect. fact9: If somebody does not placard then it is a Goldberg and it does not forbid Lithuania. fact10: If some person does forbid Lithuania then she is a kind of an interdependence. fact11: Everything is not round. ; $hypothesis$ = Every person forbids Lithuania. ; $proof$ =

fact2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

That that workbasket does not Split hold.

¬{C}{c}

fact1: If that that relay predicts Salyut is not incorrect then that workbasket Splits. fact2: If that workbasket either is not a kind of a Midas or beholds or both that that relay beholds is correct. fact3: Something does not Split if the fact that the thing Split and is a meander is false. fact4: Somebody is slivery if it is not a sleeplessness but unbalconied. fact5: If something exenterates meditation then the fact that that is both not a sleeplessness and not balconied is right. fact6: That relay predicts Salyut if that relay is not a kind of a Fulmarus. fact7: The fact that that relay is a Fulmarus but it is not a hydraulics does not hold if that pothouse is a kind of a meander. fact8: Something does not Split if that it beholds hold. fact9: Something does predict Salyut if that is not a Fulmarus. fact10: If that relay beholds that pothouse does beholds. fact11: That pothouse is a meander. fact12: If that pothouse does not Split this witnesser is a meander and it predicts Salyut. fact13: This cleome does exenterate meditation and that is a kind of a Lichtenstein. fact14: If this cleome is slivery that workbasket unbuttons. fact15: Some man that unbuttons either is not a Midas or beholds or both. fact16: If the fact that some person is a Fulmarus but it is not a kind of a hydraulics is incorrect then it predicts Salyut. fact17: If some man is not a Fulmarus then she/he is a meander.

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

This witnesser is a meander.

{A}{dg}

DISPROVED

PROVED

DISPROVED

PROVED

$facts$ = fact1: If that that relay predicts Salyut is not incorrect then that workbasket Splits. fact2: If that workbasket either is not a kind of a Midas or beholds or both that that relay beholds is correct. fact3: Something does not Split if the fact that the thing Split and is a meander is false. fact4: Somebody is slivery if it is not a sleeplessness but unbalconied. fact5: If something exenterates meditation then the fact that that is both not a sleeplessness and not balconied is right. fact6: That relay predicts Salyut if that relay is not a kind of a Fulmarus. fact7: The fact that that relay is a Fulmarus but it is not a hydraulics does not hold if that pothouse is a kind of a meander. fact8: Something does not Split if that it beholds hold. fact9: Something does predict Salyut if that is not a Fulmarus. fact10: If that relay beholds that pothouse does beholds. fact11: That pothouse is a meander. fact12: If that pothouse does not Split this witnesser is a meander and it predicts Salyut. fact13: This cleome does exenterate meditation and that is a kind of a Lichtenstein. fact14: If this cleome is slivery that workbasket unbuttons. fact15: Some man that unbuttons either is not a Midas or beholds or both. fact16: If the fact that some person is a Fulmarus but it is not a kind of a hydraulics is incorrect then it predicts Salyut. fact17: If some man is not a Fulmarus then she/he is a meander. ; $hypothesis$ = That that workbasket does not Split hold. ; $proof$ =

fact7 & fact11 -> int1: The fact that that that relay is a Fulmarus but it is not a hydraulics is false hold.; fact16 -> int2: If that that relay is a Fulmarus but that thing is not a hydraulics does not hold the fact that that thing predicts Salyut is right.; int1 & int2 -> int3: That relay predicts Salyut.; int3 & fact1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That Scotchman is Singhalese.

{D}{b}

fact1: That Kolam is not non-developmental if it is a XXVI. fact2: That somebody is developmental but not a Gehenna if it is developmental is true. fact3: That Kolam is a XXVI. fact4: That Scotchman is not Singhalese if that Kolam is developmental but it is not a Gehenna. fact5: If something is Singhalese it is Singhalese and it is not developmental. fact6: That Kolam is not non-developmental if it is Singhalese.

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$facts$ = fact1: That Kolam is not non-developmental if it is a XXVI. fact2: That somebody is developmental but not a Gehenna if it is developmental is true. fact3: That Kolam is a XXVI. fact4: That Scotchman is not Singhalese if that Kolam is developmental but it is not a Gehenna. fact5: If something is Singhalese it is Singhalese and it is not developmental. fact6: That Kolam is not non-developmental if it is Singhalese. ; $hypothesis$ = That Scotchman is Singhalese. ; $proof$ =

fact1 & fact3 -> int1: That Kolam is developmental.; fact2 -> int2: If that Kolam is developmental then this person is developmental and this person is not a Gehenna.; int1 & int2 -> int3: That Kolam is developmental and is not a Gehenna.; int3 & fact4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That minister checkers mono.

{D}{b}

fact1: That fake is Montserratian a DE. fact2: The fact that everyone does not expound likelihood hold. fact3: This NNRTI is an over and checkers mono. fact4: If this NNRTI checkers mono and blusters depigmentation then that minister is not a DE. fact5: That distance is a kind of Montserratian thing that does convert. fact6: That minister smolders and it blusters depigmentation. fact7: The fact that some man does not convert and the one does not bluster depigmentation is wrong if the one does not expound likelihood. fact8: That minister is repetitive and it is a kind of an over. fact9: That minister is ethnographical thing that is a Pilea. fact10: That minister is a kind of an over. fact11: This NNRTI is both an over and a DE. fact12: That this NNRTI does bluster depigmentation is right. fact13: This NNRTI is an over. fact14: The humanitarian blusters depigmentation. fact15: This NNRTI aims penchant. fact16: That minister blusters depigmentation. fact17: This NNRTI converts and it does bluster depigmentation. fact18: That minister is a kind of a papule and she/he is fragrant. fact19: That Algerian is not non-recreational and it checkers mono.

fact1: ({IO}{bk} & {B}{bk}) fact2: (x): ¬{F}x fact3: ({A}{a} & {D}{a}) fact4: ({D}{a} & {E}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} fact5: ({IO}{ji} & {C}{ji}) fact6: ({EK}{b} & {E}{b}) fact7: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{E}x) fact8: ({FO}{b} & {A}{b}) fact9: ({S}{b} & {EM}{b}) fact10: {A}{b} fact11: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) fact12: {E}{a} fact13: {A}{a} fact14: {E}{fk} fact15: {AG}{a} fact16: {E}{b} fact17: ({C}{a} & {E}{a}) fact18: ({CU}{b} & {T}{b}) fact19: ({DT}{hb} & {D}{hb})

That minister checkers mono.

{D}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That fake is Montserratian a DE. fact2: The fact that everyone does not expound likelihood hold. fact3: This NNRTI is an over and checkers mono. fact4: If this NNRTI checkers mono and blusters depigmentation then that minister is not a DE. fact5: That distance is a kind of Montserratian thing that does convert. fact6: That minister smolders and it blusters depigmentation. fact7: The fact that some man does not convert and the one does not bluster depigmentation is wrong if the one does not expound likelihood. fact8: That minister is repetitive and it is a kind of an over. fact9: That minister is ethnographical thing that is a Pilea. fact10: That minister is a kind of an over. fact11: This NNRTI is both an over and a DE. fact12: That this NNRTI does bluster depigmentation is right. fact13: This NNRTI is an over. fact14: The humanitarian blusters depigmentation. fact15: This NNRTI aims penchant. fact16: That minister blusters depigmentation. fact17: This NNRTI converts and it does bluster depigmentation. fact18: That minister is a kind of a papule and she/he is fragrant. fact19: That Algerian is not non-recreational and it checkers mono. ; $hypothesis$ = That minister checkers mono. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

Either that marketplace occurs or that tricentenariness happens or both.

({A} v {B})

fact1: This rifling does not occurs and that ticktocking happens if this endeavoring Nepenthes occurs. fact2: If the fact that that grub occurs and that Palladianness occurs is not true then that grub does not occurs. fact3: If that this supporting urtication does not occurs but that tricentenariness happens is not right then that tricentenariness does not happens. fact4: If that travail does not happens then this rheologicalness does not happens and/or this wasting does not happens. fact5: If this antipollutionness does not occurs then that that grub and that Palladianness occurs does not hold. fact6: If that ticktocking happens this litigation does not happens and/or this rifling does not happens. fact7: This crosswind happens or this shifting occurs or both. fact8: That that parsing Noruz occurs is right. fact9: This supporting urtication does not happens and that grub does not happens if that Palladianness does not occurs. fact10: This antipollutionness does not occurs and/or this litigation does not happens if this rifling does not occurs. fact11: If that grub does not happens the fact that notthis supporting urtication but that tricentenariness occurs does not hold.

fact1: {J} -> (¬{H} & {I}) fact2: ¬({D} & {E}) -> ¬{D} fact3: ¬(¬{C} & {B}) -> ¬{B} fact4: ¬{M} -> (¬{L} v ¬{K}) fact5: ¬{F} -> ¬({D} & {E}) fact6: {I} -> (¬{G} v ¬{H}) fact7: ({BH} v {AC}) fact8: {FU} fact9: ¬{E} -> (¬{C} & ¬{D}) fact10: ¬{H} -> (¬{F} v ¬{G}) fact11: ¬{D} -> ¬(¬{C} & {B})

The fact that that marketplace and/or that tricentenariness happens does not hold.

¬({A} v {B})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This rifling does not occurs and that ticktocking happens if this endeavoring Nepenthes occurs. fact2: If the fact that that grub occurs and that Palladianness occurs is not true then that grub does not occurs. fact3: If that this supporting urtication does not occurs but that tricentenariness happens is not right then that tricentenariness does not happens. fact4: If that travail does not happens then this rheologicalness does not happens and/or this wasting does not happens. fact5: If this antipollutionness does not occurs then that that grub and that Palladianness occurs does not hold. fact6: If that ticktocking happens this litigation does not happens and/or this rifling does not happens. fact7: This crosswind happens or this shifting occurs or both. fact8: That that parsing Noruz occurs is right. fact9: This supporting urtication does not happens and that grub does not happens if that Palladianness does not occurs. fact10: This antipollutionness does not occurs and/or this litigation does not happens if this rifling does not occurs. fact11: If that grub does not happens the fact that notthis supporting urtication but that tricentenariness occurs does not hold. ; $hypothesis$ = Either that marketplace occurs or that tricentenariness happens or both. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

This postillion is not a kind of a loafing.

¬{D}{c}

fact1: If something scorches Ormosia it is a Bulawayo. fact2: This postillion is ebracteate. fact3: If this grandniece is not a clatter that spadefoot is not a Wiesenthal. fact4: If this stretch is not non-ebracteate then this lace is a Bulawayo. fact5: The fact that this lace is a Scottish but that person is not a Fasciolopsis does not hold if that spadefoot is not a Wiesenthal. fact6: Some person buds if it retires. fact7: If this stretch is a Bulawayo this postillion is a Bulawayo. fact8: The expectoration is a Bulawayo. fact9: If something is sandy then this does scorch Ormosia. fact10: If somebody is a kind of a Bulawayo it is ebracteate and it is not a kind of a loafing. fact11: Some man scorches Ormosia if it is a Bulawayo. fact12: Something is sandy if it is not a Scottish. fact13: The fact that this grandniece is not a Samoan hold if this grandniece is a cytology and is not reentrant. fact14: That this stretch is not a Scottish is right if that this lace is a Scottish and is not a Fasciolopsis does not hold. fact15: The Cork scorches Ormosia. fact16: This stretch is ebracteate. fact17: This postillion is a jounce. fact18: If this lace scorches Ormosia this postillion is a kind of a loafing. fact19: This grandniece is a panchayat. fact20: This grandniece is not reported and not holy if she/he is not a kind of a Samoan. fact21: If something that is a panchayat is unreported then it is not a clatter.

fact1: (x): {C}x -> {B}x fact2: {A}{c} fact3: ¬{I}{e} -> ¬{G}{d} fact4: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} fact5: ¬{G}{d} -> ¬({F}{b} & ¬{H}{b}) fact6: (x): {BL}x -> {CQ}x fact7: {B}{a} -> {B}{c} fact8: {B}{it} fact9: (x): {E}x -> {C}x fact10: (x): {B}x -> ({A}x & ¬{D}x) fact11: (x): {B}x -> {C}x fact12: (x): ¬{F}x -> {E}x fact13: ({N}{e} & ¬{O}{e}) -> ¬{M}{e} fact14: ¬({F}{b} & ¬{H}{b}) -> ¬{F}{a} fact15: {C}{ej} fact16: {A}{a} fact17: {AO}{c} fact18: {C}{b} -> {D}{c} fact19: {K}{e} fact20: ¬{M}{e} -> ({J}{e} & {L}{e}) fact21: (x): ({K}x & {J}x) -> ¬{I}x

This postillion is not a kind of a loafing.

¬{D}{c}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If something scorches Ormosia it is a Bulawayo. fact2: This postillion is ebracteate. fact3: If this grandniece is not a clatter that spadefoot is not a Wiesenthal. fact4: If this stretch is not non-ebracteate then this lace is a Bulawayo. fact5: The fact that this lace is a Scottish but that person is not a Fasciolopsis does not hold if that spadefoot is not a Wiesenthal. fact6: Some person buds if it retires. fact7: If this stretch is a Bulawayo this postillion is a Bulawayo. fact8: The expectoration is a Bulawayo. fact9: If something is sandy then this does scorch Ormosia. fact10: If somebody is a kind of a Bulawayo it is ebracteate and it is not a kind of a loafing. fact11: Some man scorches Ormosia if it is a Bulawayo. fact12: Something is sandy if it is not a Scottish. fact13: The fact that this grandniece is not a Samoan hold if this grandniece is a cytology and is not reentrant. fact14: That this stretch is not a Scottish is right if that this lace is a Scottish and is not a Fasciolopsis does not hold. fact15: The Cork scorches Ormosia. fact16: This stretch is ebracteate. fact17: This postillion is a jounce. fact18: If this lace scorches Ormosia this postillion is a kind of a loafing. fact19: This grandniece is a panchayat. fact20: This grandniece is not reported and not holy if she/he is not a kind of a Samoan. fact21: If something that is a panchayat is unreported then it is not a clatter. ; $hypothesis$ = This postillion is not a kind of a loafing. ; $proof$ =

fact4 & fact16 -> int1: This lace is a Bulawayo.; fact11 -> int2: This lace scorches Ormosia if it is a Bulawayo.; int1 & int2 -> int3: This lace does scorch Ormosia.; int3 & fact18 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

Let's assume that this preteen is not a parting but it is a Hermaphroditus.

(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})

fact1: This preteen is a unreliableness if this pentose is a kind of a unreliableness. fact2: This preteen is a unreliableness and verifies Capricornus. fact3: If some man does not laze timbered then this person verifies Capricornus and this person is a unreliableness. fact4: That this pentose does not laze timbered if the fact that this pentose does not acetify and does not decompress is false hold. fact5: Something is not a Hermaphroditus if this thing is not a unreliableness. fact6: This preteen is a unreliableness. fact7: This preteen is a Hermaphroditus.

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

This refrigerator is not a Hermaphroditus.

¬{AB}{el}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This preteen is a unreliableness if this pentose is a kind of a unreliableness. fact2: This preteen is a unreliableness and verifies Capricornus. fact3: If some man does not laze timbered then this person verifies Capricornus and this person is a unreliableness. fact4: That this pentose does not laze timbered if the fact that this pentose does not acetify and does not decompress is false hold. fact5: Something is not a Hermaphroditus if this thing is not a unreliableness. fact6: This preteen is a unreliableness. fact7: This preteen is a Hermaphroditus. ; $hypothesis$ = Let's assume that this preteen is not a parting but it is a Hermaphroditus. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__