Datasets:

hitachi-nlp

/

FLD.v2.reimpl

like 0

0.3

This specialiser notices.

{A}{b}

fact1: This specialiser notices if that ellipsis is noncivilised. fact2: That this specialiser is a Faunus and notices does not hold. fact3: That ellipsis is noncivilised if that ellipsis is an obsessed. fact4: That ellipsis is noncivilised if that that ellipsis is not an obsessed and is a Faunus is wrong. fact5: If that that ellipsis is civilized a Faunus is incorrect then the person notices. fact6: The fact that that ellipsis is both not an obsessed and a Faunus is incorrect.

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

PROVED

PROVED

$facts$ = fact1: This specialiser notices if that ellipsis is noncivilised. fact2: That this specialiser is a Faunus and notices does not hold. fact3: That ellipsis is noncivilised if that ellipsis is an obsessed. fact4: That ellipsis is noncivilised if that that ellipsis is not an obsessed and is a Faunus is wrong. fact5: If that that ellipsis is civilized a Faunus is incorrect then the person notices. fact6: The fact that that ellipsis is both not an obsessed and a Faunus is incorrect. ; $hypothesis$ = This specialiser notices. ; $proof$ =

fact4 & fact6 -> int1: That ellipsis is noncivilised.; int1 & fact1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

The fact that this loggia is spiderlike and/or it is a kind of a sentiment does not hold.

¬({C}{a} v {B}{a})

fact1: The fact that this loggia is not a kind of an acclaim is right if this solan does not massacre Marche and is an acclaim. fact2: The fact that the package does not frighten puzzled and he/she is not a Dresden does not hold if that ironman abides durance. fact3: If this solan is not a cut that thing is not haemal. fact4: This capillary is not a xxix and not non-ugly. fact5: If there exists something such that the fact that it is not an acclaim is correct this staph is an acclaim and it is unflattering. fact6: If somebody does not frighten puzzled then it is carbonylic and is a kind of a sentiment. fact7: That ironman is not a xxix if the fact that something is not a kind of a xxix but it is ugly is right. fact8: This loggia is not a kind of an acclaim if it does frighten puzzled and does not massacre Marche. fact9: Someone that is not a kind of a xxix does abide durance. fact10: Somebody that is unflattering is spiderlike. fact11: Something juggles Afroasiatic if it is spiderlike. fact12: This loggia frightens puzzled but this one does not massacre Marche if this solan is not a Dresden. fact13: This loggia is carbonylic and this one is a kind of a sentiment. fact14: The fact that this solan is not a kind of a cut is right. fact15: If some person is not carbonylic then the fact that she is spiderlike and/or a sentiment is false. fact16: The fact that some man is a kind of carbonylic man that is not flattering is wrong if it is not a kind of an acclaim. fact17: This loggia is not non-carbonylic. fact18: The hotchpotch is unpowered and that emphasizes. fact19: If the fact that the package does not frighten puzzled and it is not a Dresden is wrong then this staph does not frighten puzzled. fact20: Something does not massacre Marche and is an acclaim if it is not haemal.

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

This staph juggles Afroasiatic and is not non-carbonylic.

({IP}{ea} & {A}{ea})

DISPROVED

PROVED

DISPROVED

PROVED

$facts$ = fact1: The fact that this loggia is not a kind of an acclaim is right if this solan does not massacre Marche and is an acclaim. fact2: The fact that the package does not frighten puzzled and he/she is not a Dresden does not hold if that ironman abides durance. fact3: If this solan is not a cut that thing is not haemal. fact4: This capillary is not a xxix and not non-ugly. fact5: If there exists something such that the fact that it is not an acclaim is correct this staph is an acclaim and it is unflattering. fact6: If somebody does not frighten puzzled then it is carbonylic and is a kind of a sentiment. fact7: That ironman is not a xxix if the fact that something is not a kind of a xxix but it is ugly is right. fact8: This loggia is not a kind of an acclaim if it does frighten puzzled and does not massacre Marche. fact9: Someone that is not a kind of a xxix does abide durance. fact10: Somebody that is unflattering is spiderlike. fact11: Something juggles Afroasiatic if it is spiderlike. fact12: This loggia frightens puzzled but this one does not massacre Marche if this solan is not a Dresden. fact13: This loggia is carbonylic and this one is a kind of a sentiment. fact14: The fact that this solan is not a kind of a cut is right. fact15: If some person is not carbonylic then the fact that she is spiderlike and/or a sentiment is false. fact16: The fact that some man is a kind of carbonylic man that is not flattering is wrong if it is not a kind of an acclaim. fact17: This loggia is not non-carbonylic. fact18: The hotchpotch is unpowered and that emphasizes. fact19: If the fact that the package does not frighten puzzled and it is not a Dresden is wrong then this staph does not frighten puzzled. fact20: Something does not massacre Marche and is an acclaim if it is not haemal. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that this loggia is spiderlike and/or it is a kind of a sentiment does not hold. ; $proof$ =

fact13 -> int1: This loggia is a sentiment.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That intro and the stubbornness occurs.

({A} & {C})

fact1: This strafing does not happens. fact2: This lightering extraordinariness occurs and the stubbornness happens if that acculturation does not happens. fact3: The fact that this chelatedness occurs is correct. fact4: That intro occurs if this Corinthian occurs. fact5: This lightering extraordinariness occurs. fact6: The monitoring Dacrycarpus occurs and the waring occurs. fact7: That acculturation does not happens. fact8: If that either this exoneration does not occurs or this strafing occurs or both does not hold then this Corinthian happens. fact9: This pyroelectricity does not occurs. fact10: That this exoneration does not occurs and/or this strafing occurs is incorrect. fact11: If that acculturation does not happens this lightering extraordinariness occurs.

fact1: ¬{AB} fact2: ¬{E} -> ({D} & {C}) fact3: {FC} fact4: {B} -> {A} fact5: {D} fact6: ({GM} & {DQ}) fact7: ¬{E} fact8: ¬(¬{AA} v {AB}) -> {B} fact9: ¬{JD} fact10: ¬(¬{AA} v {AB}) fact11: ¬{E} -> {D}

PROVED

PROVED

$facts$ = fact1: This strafing does not happens. fact2: This lightering extraordinariness occurs and the stubbornness happens if that acculturation does not happens. fact3: The fact that this chelatedness occurs is correct. fact4: That intro occurs if this Corinthian occurs. fact5: This lightering extraordinariness occurs. fact6: The monitoring Dacrycarpus occurs and the waring occurs. fact7: That acculturation does not happens. fact8: If that either this exoneration does not occurs or this strafing occurs or both does not hold then this Corinthian happens. fact9: This pyroelectricity does not occurs. fact10: That this exoneration does not occurs and/or this strafing occurs is incorrect. fact11: If that acculturation does not happens this lightering extraordinariness occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = That intro and the stubbornness occurs. ; $proof$ =

fact8 & fact10 -> int1: This Corinthian happens.; int1 & fact4 -> int2: That intro happens.; fact2 & fact7 -> int3: Both this lightering extraordinariness and the stubbornness occurs.; int3 -> int4: The fact that the stubbornness happens hold.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

That Hidatsa does not skirt Blattidae and/or it is a driven.

(¬{D}{b} v {B}{b})

fact1: The fact that somebody does not skirt Blattidae or that person is a driven or both is not correct if that person is not a driven. fact2: That butchery does not preachify coin. fact3: That butchery is not a driven if that Hidatsa is not a Manx. fact4: This Altaic is not a Manx. fact5: If the fact that that Midway ends Polygonia and is not a kind of a Manx is incorrect then that that doodlebug is a Manx is correct. fact6: That Hidatsa does not skirt Blattidae or this one is a driven or both if that butchery is a Manx. fact7: That butchery does not skirt Blattidae. fact8: Some person is a Manx that increases Myrrhis if the fact that it does not end Polygonia is not false. fact9: The fact that the derivation is not a theist and/or this person is a kind of a dolour is false if this person is not a dolour. fact10: If that butchery is not a kind of a Manx then that Hidatsa is not a driven. fact11: If that doodlebug is a Manx that butchery is a kind of a Manx. fact12: That butchery is not a kind of a Manx.

fact1: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬(¬{D}x v {B}x) fact2: ¬{FR}{a} fact3: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬{B}{a} fact4: ¬{A}{dr} fact5: ¬({E}{d} & ¬{A}{d}) -> {A}{c} fact6: {A}{a} -> (¬{D}{b} v {B}{b}) fact7: ¬{D}{a} fact8: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({A}x & {C}x) fact9: ¬{BM}{cb} -> ¬(¬{AB}{cb} v {BM}{cb}) fact10: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} fact11: {A}{c} -> {A}{a} fact12: ¬{A}{a}

That Hidatsa does not skirt Blattidae and/or it is a driven.

(¬{D}{b} v {B}{b})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: The fact that somebody does not skirt Blattidae or that person is a driven or both is not correct if that person is not a driven. fact2: That butchery does not preachify coin. fact3: That butchery is not a driven if that Hidatsa is not a Manx. fact4: This Altaic is not a Manx. fact5: If the fact that that Midway ends Polygonia and is not a kind of a Manx is incorrect then that that doodlebug is a Manx is correct. fact6: That Hidatsa does not skirt Blattidae or this one is a driven or both if that butchery is a Manx. fact7: That butchery does not skirt Blattidae. fact8: Some person is a Manx that increases Myrrhis if the fact that it does not end Polygonia is not false. fact9: The fact that the derivation is not a theist and/or this person is a kind of a dolour is false if this person is not a dolour. fact10: If that butchery is not a kind of a Manx then that Hidatsa is not a driven. fact11: If that doodlebug is a Manx that butchery is a kind of a Manx. fact12: That butchery is not a kind of a Manx. ; $hypothesis$ = That Hidatsa does not skirt Blattidae and/or it is a driven. ; $proof$ =

fact10 & fact12 -> int1: That Hidatsa is not a driven.; fact1 -> int2: If that Hidatsa is not a driven that it does not skirt Blattidae and/or it is a driven does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

There exists nothing that either is not a mujahadin or is a kind of a dosed or both.

(x): ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x)

fact1: If the fact that something is a kind of a Nicklaus and is a phimosis is not right then it does not deplumate loanword. fact2: There exists nothing that is not a fair or unlaces lanthanoid or both. fact3: There is nothing that does not piggyback blah and/or does wrestle naivete. fact4: Everyone is not a rondo. fact5: There exists nothing that is not a octosyllable or not non-postmillennial or both. fact6: Everyone is not a manageability. fact7: That some man is a Nicklaus and this one is a kind of a phimosis is false if this one does not know Psalm. fact8: Every man does not know Psalm. fact9: Everybody is not a Muncie. fact10: Everything does not crinkle Dix. fact11: There is nothing that does not piggyback blah or is an overcharge or both. fact12: Something is inconsistent and is a Texan if this does not deplumate loanword. fact13: Every person does not frighten Shakti. fact14: There is none that is not eschatological and/or is a kind of a Arianism.

fact1: (x): ¬({E}x & {D}x) -> ¬{C}x fact2: (x): ¬(¬{IB}x v {HN}x) fact3: (x): ¬(¬{BQ}x v {EJ}x) fact4: (x): ¬{ID}x fact5: (x): ¬(¬{IL}x v {EG}x) fact6: (x): ¬{AR}x fact7: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬({E}x & {D}x) fact8: (x): ¬{F}x fact9: (x): ¬{DI}x fact10: (x): ¬{CR}x fact11: (x): ¬(¬{BQ}x v {HO}x) fact12: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & {A}x) fact13: (x): ¬{DM}x fact14: (x): ¬(¬{IO}x v {DC}x)

There is none such that it is not unconditioned and/or is a Nyctanassa.

(x): ¬(¬{H}x v {GN}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If the fact that something is a kind of a Nicklaus and is a phimosis is not right then it does not deplumate loanword. fact2: There exists nothing that is not a fair or unlaces lanthanoid or both. fact3: There is nothing that does not piggyback blah and/or does wrestle naivete. fact4: Everyone is not a rondo. fact5: There exists nothing that is not a octosyllable or not non-postmillennial or both. fact6: Everyone is not a manageability. fact7: That some man is a Nicklaus and this one is a kind of a phimosis is false if this one does not know Psalm. fact8: Every man does not know Psalm. fact9: Everybody is not a Muncie. fact10: Everything does not crinkle Dix. fact11: There is nothing that does not piggyback blah or is an overcharge or both. fact12: Something is inconsistent and is a Texan if this does not deplumate loanword. fact13: Every person does not frighten Shakti. fact14: There is none that is not eschatological and/or is a kind of a Arianism. ; $hypothesis$ = There exists nothing that either is not a mujahadin or is a kind of a dosed or both. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

This ranitidine is boric.

{C}{b}

fact1: This growler is not a dipped. fact2: This burgoo depicts influenza if this sorption is ownerless. fact3: This brew is not a baseness. fact4: Something is a baseness but it does not trouble embolus if it do notuble sensitivity. fact5: If that some man is not a looted and not a Cnicus is correct it balls Galbulidae. fact6: If this sorption does depict influenza that this burgoo depict influenza is true. fact7: That Hopi does not trouble embolus. fact8: Something that depicts influenza and is a Manidae is not a looted. fact9: Everybody is a kind of a Manidae and it is a kind of a Deutschmark. fact10: If this growler troubles embolus and is a baseness this ranitidine is not boric. fact11: This growler is not boric if this ranitidine troubles embolus and is a baseness. fact12: This ranitidine locates Veratrum. fact13: This ranitidine does not trouble embolus. fact14: The fact that this growler troubles embolus is true. fact15: The weld troubles embolus and that thing chagrins. fact16: This growler is dacitic. fact17: This growler shortens and is boric. fact18: This sorption is ownerless and/or depicts influenza. fact19: This growler is a kind of non-limacine thing that do notuble sensitivity if this burgoo balls Galbulidae. fact20: If this growler is a kind of a baseness that is boric this ranitidine does not trouble embolus. fact21: This ranitidine is boric if this growler is a kind of a baseness and does not trouble embolus. fact22: the fact that that embolus troubles growler is true.

fact1: ¬{IK}{a} fact2: {L}{d} -> {I}{c} fact3: ¬{B}{ae} fact4: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({B}x & ¬{A}x) fact5: (x): (¬{G}x & ¬{H}x) -> {F}x fact6: {I}{d} -> {I}{c} fact7: ¬{A}{ij} fact8: (x): ({I}x & {J}x) -> ¬{G}x fact9: (x): ({J}x & {K}x) fact10: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} fact11: ({A}{b} & {B}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} fact12: {CS}{b} fact13: ¬{A}{b} fact14: {A}{a} fact15: ({A}{bu} & {DJ}{bu}) fact16: {DC}{a} fact17: ({JI}{a} & {C}{a}) fact18: ({L}{d} v {I}{d}) fact19: {F}{c} -> (¬{E}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) fact20: ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{A}{b} fact21: ({B}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> {C}{b} fact22: {AA}{aa}

This ranitidine is boric.

{C}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This growler is not a dipped. fact2: This burgoo depicts influenza if this sorption is ownerless. fact3: This brew is not a baseness. fact4: Something is a baseness but it does not trouble embolus if it do notuble sensitivity. fact5: If that some man is not a looted and not a Cnicus is correct it balls Galbulidae. fact6: If this sorption does depict influenza that this burgoo depict influenza is true. fact7: That Hopi does not trouble embolus. fact8: Something that depicts influenza and is a Manidae is not a looted. fact9: Everybody is a kind of a Manidae and it is a kind of a Deutschmark. fact10: If this growler troubles embolus and is a baseness this ranitidine is not boric. fact11: This growler is not boric if this ranitidine troubles embolus and is a baseness. fact12: This ranitidine locates Veratrum. fact13: This ranitidine does not trouble embolus. fact14: The fact that this growler troubles embolus is true. fact15: The weld troubles embolus and that thing chagrins. fact16: This growler is dacitic. fact17: This growler shortens and is boric. fact18: This sorption is ownerless and/or depicts influenza. fact19: This growler is a kind of non-limacine thing that do notuble sensitivity if this burgoo balls Galbulidae. fact20: If this growler is a kind of a baseness that is boric this ranitidine does not trouble embolus. fact21: This ranitidine is boric if this growler is a kind of a baseness and does not trouble embolus. fact22: the fact that that embolus troubles growler is true. ; $hypothesis$ = This ranitidine is boric. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

This flurrying does not happens.

¬{D}

fact1: If the fact that notthe variolarness but that dip occurs does not hold the fact that that dip does not happens is correct. fact2: That this hungering flavorsomeness does not happens is brought about by that both that chasing and that non-siliciousness happens. fact3: If that notthat misapprehending Mors but this pratfall occurs is not correct this flurrying does not happens. fact4: That both that non-variolarness and that dip occurs is wrong if this pratfall does not occurs. fact5: If that that uncluttereding Montia but notthis savaging eggshake happens is false then the labialness does not occurs. fact6: If the fact that this unyoking altitude occurs is right the fact that that burping comforted but notthe fibreopticness happens does not hold. fact7: If that this aikido and that estranging squadron occurs is not true then that estranging squadron does not occurs. fact8: That burping comforted does not occurs if that that burping comforted and that non-fibreopticness occurs does not hold. fact9: If this shaking does not occurs that chasing and that non-siliciousness occurs. fact10: That either this unyoking altitude happens or this hungering flavorsomeness does not happens or both prevents that this unyoking altitude does not happens. fact11: This apposing disciplined and/or that producing Iyyar occurs. fact12: That this apposing disciplined or that producing Iyyar or both occurs triggers that non-variolarness. fact13: That that uncluttereding Montia but notthis savaging eggshake happens does not hold if that burping comforted does not occurs. fact14: If that estranging squadron does not occurs this flurrying does not occurs and that misapprehending Mors does not occurs. fact15: The fact that that that misapprehending Mors does not happens and this pratfall happens is wrong if the variolarness does not happens is correct. fact16: If the divisibleness occurs and/or that ragging does not occurs this shaking does not happens. fact17: The fact that both this aikido and that estranging squadron happens does not hold if the labialness does not occurs.

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

That dip does not occurs.

¬{I}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If the fact that notthe variolarness but that dip occurs does not hold the fact that that dip does not happens is correct. fact2: That this hungering flavorsomeness does not happens is brought about by that both that chasing and that non-siliciousness happens. fact3: If that notthat misapprehending Mors but this pratfall occurs is not correct this flurrying does not happens. fact4: That both that non-variolarness and that dip occurs is wrong if this pratfall does not occurs. fact5: If that that uncluttereding Montia but notthis savaging eggshake happens is false then the labialness does not occurs. fact6: If the fact that this unyoking altitude occurs is right the fact that that burping comforted but notthe fibreopticness happens does not hold. fact7: If that this aikido and that estranging squadron occurs is not true then that estranging squadron does not occurs. fact8: That burping comforted does not occurs if that that burping comforted and that non-fibreopticness occurs does not hold. fact9: If this shaking does not occurs that chasing and that non-siliciousness occurs. fact10: That either this unyoking altitude happens or this hungering flavorsomeness does not happens or both prevents that this unyoking altitude does not happens. fact11: This apposing disciplined and/or that producing Iyyar occurs. fact12: That this apposing disciplined or that producing Iyyar or both occurs triggers that non-variolarness. fact13: That that uncluttereding Montia but notthis savaging eggshake happens does not hold if that burping comforted does not occurs. fact14: If that estranging squadron does not occurs this flurrying does not occurs and that misapprehending Mors does not occurs. fact15: The fact that that that misapprehending Mors does not happens and this pratfall happens is wrong if the variolarness does not happens is correct. fact16: If the divisibleness occurs and/or that ragging does not occurs this shaking does not happens. fact17: The fact that both this aikido and that estranging squadron happens does not hold if the labialness does not occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = This flurrying does not happens. ; $proof$ =

fact12 & fact11 -> int1: The variolarness does not happens.; int1 & fact15 -> int2: The fact that that misapprehending Mors does not happens and this pratfall occurs is wrong.; int2 & fact3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

The fact that this conveyancer is not woolen but he/she is a kind of a hairiness is incorrect.

¬(¬{A}{aa} & {C}{aa})

fact1: Something is scarce if the fact that it is not a Hanover and it is not anagogic does not hold. fact2: That this conveyancer is not woolen and is a hairiness does not hold if the fact that this pharmacologist is not scarce is right. fact3: The fact that this conveyancer is not a Hanover and it is not anagogic is wrong if this conveyancer is not amphibious. fact4: This transcriptase is a cackle but it does not trifle if that this shorts is binucleated is true. fact5: If this transcriptase is a kind of a slumber then this pharmacologist is amphibious. fact6: That supermolecule is not a kind of a Ozawa. fact7: If that supermolecule is not a Ozawa that supermolecule is a Shiloh and it is mercantile. fact8: The fact that something does not reshoot ducat and is voiceless is incorrect if this thing is a Shiloh. fact9: Something is a kind of a slumber and/or the thing is unstoppable if the thing does not trifle. fact10: If somebody informs and is amphibious he/she is not scarce. fact11: That Sealyham is not undeterminable and the thing is not a overreckoning. fact12: If that that Sealyham is not undeterminable is right then this shorts is unloved and this is a numen. fact13: This conveyancer is not amphibious. fact14: That this conveyancer is both not a Hanover and anagogic is incorrect. fact15: If that that supermolecule does not reshoot ducat and is voiceless is incorrect this pharmacologist informs. fact16: This guardsman is not woolen. fact17: If this conveyancer is scarce this person is not woolen. fact18: Something is binucleated if the thing is not loved.

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

The fact that this conveyancer is not woolen but he/she is a kind of a hairiness is incorrect.

¬(¬{A}{aa} & {C}{aa})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: Something is scarce if the fact that it is not a Hanover and it is not anagogic does not hold. fact2: That this conveyancer is not woolen and is a hairiness does not hold if the fact that this pharmacologist is not scarce is right. fact3: The fact that this conveyancer is not a Hanover and it is not anagogic is wrong if this conveyancer is not amphibious. fact4: This transcriptase is a cackle but it does not trifle if that this shorts is binucleated is true. fact5: If this transcriptase is a kind of a slumber then this pharmacologist is amphibious. fact6: That supermolecule is not a kind of a Ozawa. fact7: If that supermolecule is not a Ozawa that supermolecule is a Shiloh and it is mercantile. fact8: The fact that something does not reshoot ducat and is voiceless is incorrect if this thing is a Shiloh. fact9: Something is a kind of a slumber and/or the thing is unstoppable if the thing does not trifle. fact10: If somebody informs and is amphibious he/she is not scarce. fact11: That Sealyham is not undeterminable and the thing is not a overreckoning. fact12: If that that Sealyham is not undeterminable is right then this shorts is unloved and this is a numen. fact13: This conveyancer is not amphibious. fact14: That this conveyancer is both not a Hanover and anagogic is incorrect. fact15: If that that supermolecule does not reshoot ducat and is voiceless is incorrect this pharmacologist informs. fact16: This guardsman is not woolen. fact17: If this conveyancer is scarce this person is not woolen. fact18: Something is binucleated if the thing is not loved. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that this conveyancer is not woolen but he/she is a kind of a hairiness is incorrect. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That nominator is not a affability.

¬{C}{a}

fact1: That nominator does not birl Nostradamus if that bailee is not ratlike but it is a M.M. fact2: That pussycat is not a prickle if that that cropper is not a prickle and that person does not snag MDI is false. fact3: There exists nobody that is starry one that is not a Calamintha. fact4: If that nominator does birl Nostradamus the fact that that nominator is a kind of a M.M. hold. fact5: that Nostradamus does birl nominator. fact6: If something is not a pressed that the thing does not blind Winckelmann or the thing is not indeterminate or both does not hold. fact7: If something is a M.M. then it is a affability. fact8: If somebody is a kind of a M.M. then the person is vicennial. fact9: That nominator does birl Nostradamus. fact10: If something is not a kind of a prickle that the fact that it masters harnessed and it does not compartmentalise organon hold does not hold. fact11: The veronica birls Nostradamus. fact12: That that nominator is a acridity hold. fact13: If the fact that someone is starry and is not a Calamintha is wrong then it is not a kind of a pressed. fact14: The fact that something is not a prickle and does not snag MDI does not hold if it does not bush oiled. fact15: Some person is not a affability if it does not birl Nostradamus. fact16: If that that pussycat masters harnessed and does not compartmentalise organon does not hold then Lamar does not compartmentalise organon. fact17: If that something either does not blind Winckelmann or is not indeterminate or both does not hold then that thing does not bush oiled.

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

That clearing is vicennial if that clearing is a kind of a M.M.

{B}{cj} -> {DJ}{cj}

DISPROVED

PROVED

DISPROVED

PROVED

$facts$ = fact1: That nominator does not birl Nostradamus if that bailee is not ratlike but it is a M.M. fact2: That pussycat is not a prickle if that that cropper is not a prickle and that person does not snag MDI is false. fact3: There exists nobody that is starry one that is not a Calamintha. fact4: If that nominator does birl Nostradamus the fact that that nominator is a kind of a M.M. hold. fact5: that Nostradamus does birl nominator. fact6: If something is not a pressed that the thing does not blind Winckelmann or the thing is not indeterminate or both does not hold. fact7: If something is a M.M. then it is a affability. fact8: If somebody is a kind of a M.M. then the person is vicennial. fact9: That nominator does birl Nostradamus. fact10: If something is not a kind of a prickle that the fact that it masters harnessed and it does not compartmentalise organon hold does not hold. fact11: The veronica birls Nostradamus. fact12: That that nominator is a acridity hold. fact13: If the fact that someone is starry and is not a Calamintha is wrong then it is not a kind of a pressed. fact14: The fact that something is not a prickle and does not snag MDI does not hold if it does not bush oiled. fact15: Some person is not a affability if it does not birl Nostradamus. fact16: If that that pussycat masters harnessed and does not compartmentalise organon does not hold then Lamar does not compartmentalise organon. fact17: If that something either does not blind Winckelmann or is not indeterminate or both does not hold then that thing does not bush oiled. ; $hypothesis$ = That nominator is not a affability. ; $proof$ =

fact4 & fact9 -> int1: That nominator is a M.M.; fact7 -> int2: If that nominator is a M.M. that nominator is a affability.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That this amebanness does not occurs hold.

¬{B}

fact1: If the roentgenography does not occurs the famishing Pomacentrus does not happens. fact2: The booking does not happens if this exploratoriness does not occurs. fact3: If this frictionalness does not occurs then the paneleding Hemingway does not occurs. fact4: The moonlight does not happens. fact5: This pantheisticness does not happens if the sterileness does not occurs. fact6: That this amebanness happens is prevented by that the moonlight does not happens. fact7: The unconstrictedness does not happens. fact8: This puppetry does not occurs if this malignantness does not happens.

fact1: ¬{GN} -> ¬{CP} fact2: ¬{EE} -> ¬{JF} fact3: ¬{DT} -> ¬{JJ} fact4: ¬{A} fact5: ¬{GH} -> ¬{HC} fact6: ¬{A} -> ¬{B} fact7: ¬{GT} fact8: ¬{HN} -> ¬{GI}

PROVED

PROVED

$facts$ = fact1: If the roentgenography does not occurs the famishing Pomacentrus does not happens. fact2: The booking does not happens if this exploratoriness does not occurs. fact3: If this frictionalness does not occurs then the paneleding Hemingway does not occurs. fact4: The moonlight does not happens. fact5: This pantheisticness does not happens if the sterileness does not occurs. fact6: That this amebanness happens is prevented by that the moonlight does not happens. fact7: The unconstrictedness does not happens. fact8: This puppetry does not occurs if this malignantness does not happens. ; $hypothesis$ = That this amebanness does not occurs hold. ; $proof$ =

fact6 & fact4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

That lowboy is non-mercurous.

¬{A}{b}

fact1: That pinfish is provocative if there is something such that that is not provocative and that is not a kind of a Nanjing. fact2: If that lowboy is not a lining but it is duodenal that pinfish undulates epanaphora. fact3: That lowboy undulates epanaphora if that pinfish is not a lining but it is duodenal. fact4: If this velveteen is microcosmic then this pontiff is Wilder and not a Irenaeus. fact5: That pinfish is a lining if it does undulate epanaphora. fact6: That pinfish does not undulate epanaphora but it is duodenal. fact7: If something is a Parthia and a lining then it is not mercurous. fact8: If something is a lining then this is mercurous. fact9: The fact that Jana is intangible hold if Jana is a reputability. fact10: This velveteen is microcosmic. fact11: That lowboy is a lining if that pinfish does not undulate epanaphora but it is duodenal. fact12: If something does undulate epanaphora then that thing is mercurous. fact13: If the fact that Jana is not a LaSalle and is not a probable is incorrect that pinfish is a probable. fact14: If that pinfish is not a lining that lowboy is not mercurous. fact15: If that pinfish is a Parthia this Debs is a Parthia. fact16: That pinfish is a blondness that does not adjust Chloris if this thing is not unprovoking. fact17: That pinfish is not non-duodenal. fact18: If some man is not a Irenaeus it is a kind of non-unprovoking man that is not a Nanjing. fact19: That pinfish is mercurous. fact20: That lowboy is not a blondness if that pinfish is a blondness and is a probable. fact21: If somebody is intangible that it is not a LaSalle and not a probable is not right. fact22: Some man is a Parthia and is a lining if it is not a blondness.

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

That lowboy is non-mercurous.

¬{A}{b}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That pinfish is provocative if there is something such that that is not provocative and that is not a kind of a Nanjing. fact2: If that lowboy is not a lining but it is duodenal that pinfish undulates epanaphora. fact3: That lowboy undulates epanaphora if that pinfish is not a lining but it is duodenal. fact4: If this velveteen is microcosmic then this pontiff is Wilder and not a Irenaeus. fact5: That pinfish is a lining if it does undulate epanaphora. fact6: That pinfish does not undulate epanaphora but it is duodenal. fact7: If something is a Parthia and a lining then it is not mercurous. fact8: If something is a lining then this is mercurous. fact9: The fact that Jana is intangible hold if Jana is a reputability. fact10: This velveteen is microcosmic. fact11: That lowboy is a lining if that pinfish does not undulate epanaphora but it is duodenal. fact12: If something does undulate epanaphora then that thing is mercurous. fact13: If the fact that Jana is not a LaSalle and is not a probable is incorrect that pinfish is a probable. fact14: If that pinfish is not a lining that lowboy is not mercurous. fact15: If that pinfish is a Parthia this Debs is a Parthia. fact16: That pinfish is a blondness that does not adjust Chloris if this thing is not unprovoking. fact17: That pinfish is not non-duodenal. fact18: If some man is not a Irenaeus it is a kind of non-unprovoking man that is not a Nanjing. fact19: That pinfish is mercurous. fact20: That lowboy is not a blondness if that pinfish is a blondness and is a probable. fact21: If somebody is intangible that it is not a LaSalle and not a probable is not right. fact22: Some man is a Parthia and is a lining if it is not a blondness. ; $hypothesis$ = That lowboy is non-mercurous. ; $proof$ =

fact11 & fact6 -> int1: That lowboy is a lining.; fact8 -> int2: If that lowboy is a lining then the thing is mercurous.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

This sweat does not bronze Oswald.

¬{D}{c}

fact1: This sweat does not bronze Oswald if it is not a Nusku. fact2: Something does not bronze Oswald if it is not a Nusku. fact3: This sweat does not bronze Oswald if the fact that it is a Nusku and cheapens Loriinae does not hold. fact4: This copper cheapens Loriinae. fact5: The fact that if this copper is not quantized but that one cheapens Loriinae this glycerogelatin is not a Schlesinger hold. fact6: This sweat is not a kind of a Schlesinger. fact7: This copper is not quantized but this cheapens Loriinae. fact8: If that someone is Baptistic and it is a Nusku is wrong it does not bronze Oswald. fact9: That this sweat is quantized and is a kind of a Schlesinger is wrong if this copper is non-Baptistic. fact10: If this copper bronzes Oswald then this sweat bronzes Oswald.

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

This sweat does bronze Oswald.

{D}{c}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This sweat does not bronze Oswald if it is not a Nusku. fact2: Something does not bronze Oswald if it is not a Nusku. fact3: This sweat does not bronze Oswald if the fact that it is a Nusku and cheapens Loriinae does not hold. fact4: This copper cheapens Loriinae. fact5: The fact that if this copper is not quantized but that one cheapens Loriinae this glycerogelatin is not a Schlesinger hold. fact6: This sweat is not a kind of a Schlesinger. fact7: This copper is not quantized but this cheapens Loriinae. fact8: If that someone is Baptistic and it is a Nusku is wrong it does not bronze Oswald. fact9: That this sweat is quantized and is a kind of a Schlesinger is wrong if this copper is non-Baptistic. fact10: If this copper bronzes Oswald then this sweat bronzes Oswald. ; $hypothesis$ = This sweat does not bronze Oswald. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

Either that Pasteurianness does not occurs or that Italicness occurs or both.

(¬{D} v {C})

fact1: That that Pasteurianness does not happens and/or that Italicness happens does not hold if the fact that that Italicness does not occurs is true. fact2: That Italicness does not occurs if that dive happens. fact3: If this Saharanness does not happens either this non-Pasteurianness or that Italicness or both occurs. fact4: That that Italicness does not happens is caused by that this Saharanness and/or that dive happens. fact5: This Saharanness occurs.

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

Either that Pasteurianness does not occurs or that Italicness occurs or both.

(¬{D} v {C})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That that Pasteurianness does not happens and/or that Italicness happens does not hold if the fact that that Italicness does not occurs is true. fact2: That Italicness does not occurs if that dive happens. fact3: If this Saharanness does not happens either this non-Pasteurianness or that Italicness or both occurs. fact4: That that Italicness does not happens is caused by that this Saharanness and/or that dive happens. fact5: This Saharanness occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = Either that Pasteurianness does not occurs or that Italicness occurs or both. ; $proof$ =

fact5 -> int1: This Saharanness or that dive or both occurs.; int1 & fact4 -> int2: That that Italicness does not happens is true.; int2 & fact1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That that oroide is both not Grenadian and a Guggenheim does not hold.

¬(¬{A}{a} & {B}{a})

fact1: That oroide is not a Guggenheim and bumbles Marti if that one bumbles Marti. fact2: That that oroide is a kind of non-Grenadian person that is a kind of a Guggenheim if that oroide is a Guggenheim hold. fact3: Either that oroide is not a kind of a effeminateness or it is lighted or both. fact4: If the fact that the tenorist is not a effeminateness is true then the fact that this startles bouffe is right. fact5: If either something does not bumble Marti or it is not a Hyphantria or both then that it is a effeminateness is correct.

fact1: {IP}{a} -> (¬{B}{a} & {IP}{a}) fact2: {B}{a} -> (¬{A}{a} & {B}{a}) fact3: (¬{AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) fact4: ¬{AA}{gp} -> {FM}{gp} fact5: (x): (¬{IP}x v ¬{AK}x) -> {AA}x

If that the gallous does not bumble Marti or is not a Hyphantria or both is right it is a kind of a effeminateness.

(¬{IP}{eb} v ¬{AK}{eb}) -> {AA}{eb}

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

$facts$ = fact1: That oroide is not a Guggenheim and bumbles Marti if that one bumbles Marti. fact2: That that oroide is a kind of non-Grenadian person that is a kind of a Guggenheim if that oroide is a Guggenheim hold. fact3: Either that oroide is not a kind of a effeminateness or it is lighted or both. fact4: If the fact that the tenorist is not a effeminateness is true then the fact that this startles bouffe is right. fact5: If either something does not bumble Marti or it is not a Hyphantria or both then that it is a effeminateness is correct. ; $hypothesis$ = That that oroide is both not Grenadian and a Guggenheim does not hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

Let's assume that that this non-incorrectness and that subvocalising happens does not hold.

¬(¬{AA} & {AB})

fact1: That staining does not happens if that both the rightness and that subvocalising happens is incorrect. fact2: That the mechanism does not happens is caused by this humanness. fact3: The fact that both this non-incorrectness and that subvocalising occurs is incorrect if that that physiotherapy occurs is not correct. fact4: If this garbling Petrarca does not occurs that this smothering does not occurs and this invention happens does not hold. fact5: This smothering occurs if that notthis smothering but this invention happens is wrong. fact6: That that hushed does not occurs or this folly does not happens or both prevents that this folly occurs. fact7: The mechanism does not occurs if this spinning Lamaism does not happens. fact8: That this immunocompromisedness happens causes the fact that that this drafting does not happens and/or this voltage does not occurs is true. fact9: The councillorship happens and that Bhutaneseness happens if this folly does not occurs. fact10: That this dermatologicness does not happens brings about that both this immunocompromisedness and this ruffling adenomyosarcoma occurs. fact11: That that doubting Themistocles does not happens and this garbling Petrarca does not occurs is triggered by that that ecclesiasticism does not occurs. fact12: That barratry does not happens. fact13: If that this dermatologicness happens and that cadavericness does not occurs is incorrect then this dermatologicness does not occurs. fact14: That physiotherapy does not happens and that staining happens if that Bhutaneseness occurs. fact15: That that barratry does not occurs causes the fact that that that ecclesiasticism does not occurs but this tinkling tactlessness happens is correct. fact16: That staining does not occurs if the incorrectness occurs. fact17: That that this dermatologicness occurs but that cadavericness does not happens is false hold if the fact that the mechanism does not occurs is true. fact18: That both the incorrectness and that subvocalising happens is not correct. fact19: That either this humanness happens or this spinning Lamaism does not happens or both is triggered by that this smothering occurs.

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

Let's assume that that this non-incorrectness and that subvocalising happens does not hold.

¬(¬{AA} & {AB})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That staining does not happens if that both the rightness and that subvocalising happens is incorrect. fact2: That the mechanism does not happens is caused by this humanness. fact3: The fact that both this non-incorrectness and that subvocalising occurs is incorrect if that that physiotherapy occurs is not correct. fact4: If this garbling Petrarca does not occurs that this smothering does not occurs and this invention happens does not hold. fact5: This smothering occurs if that notthis smothering but this invention happens is wrong. fact6: That that hushed does not occurs or this folly does not happens or both prevents that this folly occurs. fact7: The mechanism does not occurs if this spinning Lamaism does not happens. fact8: That this immunocompromisedness happens causes the fact that that this drafting does not happens and/or this voltage does not occurs is true. fact9: The councillorship happens and that Bhutaneseness happens if this folly does not occurs. fact10: That this dermatologicness does not happens brings about that both this immunocompromisedness and this ruffling adenomyosarcoma occurs. fact11: That that doubting Themistocles does not happens and this garbling Petrarca does not occurs is triggered by that that ecclesiasticism does not occurs. fact12: That barratry does not happens. fact13: If that this dermatologicness happens and that cadavericness does not occurs is incorrect then this dermatologicness does not occurs. fact14: That physiotherapy does not happens and that staining happens if that Bhutaneseness occurs. fact15: That that barratry does not occurs causes the fact that that that ecclesiasticism does not occurs but this tinkling tactlessness happens is correct. fact16: That staining does not occurs if the incorrectness occurs. fact17: That that this dermatologicness occurs but that cadavericness does not happens is false hold if the fact that the mechanism does not occurs is true. fact18: That both the incorrectness and that subvocalising happens is not correct. fact19: That either this humanness happens or this spinning Lamaism does not happens or both is triggered by that this smothering occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = Let's assume that that this non-incorrectness and that subvocalising happens does not hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

This enfolding quirk prevents that this adding Bemisia happens.

{A} -> ¬{C}

fact1: If that wading occurs the sweltering Snead does not happens and that flagellating bilgewater does not happens. fact2: This adding Bemisia does not happens if that this enfolding quirk happens or that despoiling happens or both is true. fact3: That wading happens if the fact that the hornswoggling gruffness happens and that wading does not happens is not true. fact4: The blinkering adieu occurs or the questing occurs or both. fact5: That that squandering serration does not occurs triggers that this mince and this running occurs. fact6: This adding Bemisia happens if this enfolding quirk occurs. fact7: The fact that this adding Bemisia does not happens hold if that despoiling occurs. fact8: This crabbing respected occurs and this enfolding quirk occurs if that despoiling does not happens. fact9: If this stylization happens and this adding Bemisia does not occurs that despoiling does not occurs. fact10: That the hornswoggling gruffness occurs and that wading does not occurs does not hold if this frictionalness does not happens. fact11: If this mince happens the vestal does not happens and this frictionalness does not happens. fact12: If that flagellating bilgewater does not occurs this stylization happens and this adding Bemisia does not occurs.

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

The fact that this crabbing respected occurs is right.

{CI}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If that wading occurs the sweltering Snead does not happens and that flagellating bilgewater does not happens. fact2: This adding Bemisia does not happens if that this enfolding quirk happens or that despoiling happens or both is true. fact3: That wading happens if the fact that the hornswoggling gruffness happens and that wading does not happens is not true. fact4: The blinkering adieu occurs or the questing occurs or both. fact5: That that squandering serration does not occurs triggers that this mince and this running occurs. fact6: This adding Bemisia happens if this enfolding quirk occurs. fact7: The fact that this adding Bemisia does not happens hold if that despoiling occurs. fact8: This crabbing respected occurs and this enfolding quirk occurs if that despoiling does not happens. fact9: If this stylization happens and this adding Bemisia does not occurs that despoiling does not occurs. fact10: That the hornswoggling gruffness occurs and that wading does not occurs does not hold if this frictionalness does not happens. fact11: If this mince happens the vestal does not happens and this frictionalness does not happens. fact12: If that flagellating bilgewater does not occurs this stylization happens and this adding Bemisia does not occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = This enfolding quirk prevents that this adding Bemisia happens. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that this enfolding quirk occurs.; assump1 -> int1: This enfolding quirk happens and/or that despoiling occurs.; int1 & fact2 -> int2: This adding Bemisia does not occurs.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

That this peristome does not bedim antithesis and is unsarcastic is not true.

¬(¬{AB}{b} & {B}{b})

fact1: This peristome is not a riches and it does not bedim antithesis if this amphimixis ascribes Tet. fact2: This peristome is not sarcastic if this photoemission activates Dawes and it is geopolitical. fact3: This photoemission is not geopolitical. fact4: The fact that that kissing activates Dawes is true. fact5: If something that is not a kind of an impotence is geopolitical it does not ascribe Tet. fact6: Some man is taciturn if it is unrhetorical. fact7: If this photoemission is taciturn then this amphimixis is not an impotence but non-geopolitical. fact8: The fact that this amphimixis ascribes Tet hold. fact9: This photoemission activates Dawes and is not geopolitical. fact10: If the fact that this amphimixis ascribes Tet is true then this peristome is not a riches. fact11: This amphimixis is not an impotence but the one is geopolitical if this peristome is non-taciturn. fact12: That something is a kind of sarcastic thing that does not activate Dawes is false if that does not ascribe Tet. fact13: This photoemission is unrhetorical if Linda is not a Lafitte and forbids. fact14: This amphimixis does not improve Tradescantia and does not activate Dawes. fact15: The fact that this peristome does not bedim antithesis and is unsarcastic is not correct if the fact that this amphimixis does not ascribe Tet is right. fact16: This peristome is unsarcastic if this photoemission activates Dawes but it is not geopolitical. fact17: If that this amphimixis is a kind of non-unsarcastic one that does not activate Dawes is incorrect this photoemission is unsarcastic. fact18: This peristome is not a riches. fact19: the fact that that Tet ascribes amphimixis hold. fact20: If that this amphimixis is a kind of a riches is right then this peristome does not ascribe Tet and the one is sarcastic.

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

This photoemission is unsarcastic.

{B}{c}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This peristome is not a riches and it does not bedim antithesis if this amphimixis ascribes Tet. fact2: This peristome is not sarcastic if this photoemission activates Dawes and it is geopolitical. fact3: This photoemission is not geopolitical. fact4: The fact that that kissing activates Dawes is true. fact5: If something that is not a kind of an impotence is geopolitical it does not ascribe Tet. fact6: Some man is taciturn if it is unrhetorical. fact7: If this photoemission is taciturn then this amphimixis is not an impotence but non-geopolitical. fact8: The fact that this amphimixis ascribes Tet hold. fact9: This photoemission activates Dawes and is not geopolitical. fact10: If the fact that this amphimixis ascribes Tet is true then this peristome is not a riches. fact11: This amphimixis is not an impotence but the one is geopolitical if this peristome is non-taciturn. fact12: That something is a kind of sarcastic thing that does not activate Dawes is false if that does not ascribe Tet. fact13: This photoemission is unrhetorical if Linda is not a Lafitte and forbids. fact14: This amphimixis does not improve Tradescantia and does not activate Dawes. fact15: The fact that this peristome does not bedim antithesis and is unsarcastic is not correct if the fact that this amphimixis does not ascribe Tet is right. fact16: This peristome is unsarcastic if this photoemission activates Dawes but it is not geopolitical. fact17: If that this amphimixis is a kind of non-unsarcastic one that does not activate Dawes is incorrect this photoemission is unsarcastic. fact18: This peristome is not a riches. fact19: the fact that that Tet ascribes amphimixis hold. fact20: If that this amphimixis is a kind of a riches is right then this peristome does not ascribe Tet and the one is sarcastic. ; $hypothesis$ = That this peristome does not bedim antithesis and is unsarcastic is not true. ; $proof$ =

fact1 & fact8 -> int1: This peristome is not a riches and this person does not bedim antithesis.; int1 -> int2: This peristome does not bedim antithesis.; fact9 & fact16 -> int3: This peristome is unsarcastic.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

This Valenciennes does not Land eightvo.

¬{B}{a}

fact1: If something is hydraulic that it Lands eightvo and does not forestall Goncourt hold. fact2: This borax is hydraulic and it services Trachipterus if this Valenciennes is non-continental. fact3: If somebody is a takings and is not a kind of a anopheline then it Lands eightvo. fact4: This Valenciennes is not continental if this crudites is not continental and does not speck Homarus. fact5: This Valenciennes is a takings and not a anopheline if the fact that he forestalls Goncourt hold. fact6: that Goncourt forestalls Valenciennes. fact7: This crudites is continental and/or he does service Trachipterus. fact8: Something does not Land eightvo if this thing is hydraulic.

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

This Valenciennes does not Land eightvo.

¬{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If something is hydraulic that it Lands eightvo and does not forestall Goncourt hold. fact2: This borax is hydraulic and it services Trachipterus if this Valenciennes is non-continental. fact3: If somebody is a takings and is not a kind of a anopheline then it Lands eightvo. fact4: This Valenciennes is not continental if this crudites is not continental and does not speck Homarus. fact5: This Valenciennes is a takings and not a anopheline if the fact that he forestalls Goncourt hold. fact6: that Goncourt forestalls Valenciennes. fact7: This crudites is continental and/or he does service Trachipterus. fact8: Something does not Land eightvo if this thing is hydraulic. ; $hypothesis$ = This Valenciennes does not Land eightvo. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That pyxis hooks eschaton.

{AA}{b}

fact1: That that that wheeze is a costs but the thing is not pilosebaceous does not hold is true. fact2: If there is something such that that it is a costs and is non-pilosebaceous does not hold the periscope is not a kind of a protozoology. fact3: The fact that somebody is a kind of a bunch but it is not a Karenic does not hold if it does not oversleep. fact4: Either something is uncrystallized or this thing does hook eschaton or both if this thing is not a bunch. fact5: That that pyxis is a buy hold. fact6: That profiteer is crystallized. fact7: The stoic is neocortical thing that hooks eschaton. fact8: If somebody is not a protozoology that profiteer does not oversleep and is a kind of a protozoology. fact9: If that profiteer is uncrystallized that pyxis does not hook eschaton. fact10: If that somebody is a bunch and is not a Karenic is incorrect then it is not a bunch. fact11: That pyxis is a buy if that profiteer is not uncrystallized.

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

That pyxis does not hook eschaton.

¬{AA}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That that that wheeze is a costs but the thing is not pilosebaceous does not hold is true. fact2: If there is something such that that it is a costs and is non-pilosebaceous does not hold the periscope is not a kind of a protozoology. fact3: The fact that somebody is a kind of a bunch but it is not a Karenic does not hold if it does not oversleep. fact4: Either something is uncrystallized or this thing does hook eschaton or both if this thing is not a bunch. fact5: That that pyxis is a buy hold. fact6: That profiteer is crystallized. fact7: The stoic is neocortical thing that hooks eschaton. fact8: If somebody is not a protozoology that profiteer does not oversleep and is a kind of a protozoology. fact9: If that profiteer is uncrystallized that pyxis does not hook eschaton. fact10: If that somebody is a bunch and is not a Karenic is incorrect then it is not a bunch. fact11: That pyxis is a buy if that profiteer is not uncrystallized. ; $hypothesis$ = That pyxis hooks eschaton. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That glasswork is not a haiku.

¬{C}{aa}

fact1: This hexapod is not a Bolshevism. fact2: Something is not a Faulkner if the fact that it does not weep Auden hold. fact3: That this hexapod synchronizes or is not a kind of a Manichaean or both does not hold. fact4: That this fluoxetine synchronizes and/or it does not focalise does not hold. fact5: This hexapod does not synchronize. fact6: The fact that either that glasswork is compressible or it does not inflaming mediacy or both is wrong. fact7: If that this hexapod synchronizes and/or does not ghost neoliberalism is wrong that glasswork does not synchronizes. fact8: This hexapod is not a haiku. fact9: The fact that either some man is a haiku or this one does not ghost neoliberalism or both is false if this one does not irritate. fact10: That either this hexapod synchronizes or it does not ghost neoliberalism or both does not hold. fact11: If something does not synchronize it is not a haiku. fact12: The fact that the hem is rhizoidal and/or does not ghost neoliberalism is wrong. fact13: This hexapod does not synchronize if the fact that either that glasswork does synchronize or that one does not ghost neoliberalism or both does not hold. fact14: If that either that glasswork ghosts neoliberalism or she does not synchronize or both does not hold then this hexapod does not ghosts neoliberalism. fact15: If the fact that either someone is a haiku or this person does not ghost neoliberalism or both is not true then this person does not synchronize.

fact1: ¬{GK}{a} fact2: (x): ¬{CN}x -> ¬{AR}x fact3: ¬({B}{a} v ¬{FB}{a}) fact4: ¬({B}{bk} v ¬{DK}{bk}) fact5: ¬{B}{a} fact6: ¬({CG}{aa} v ¬{BD}{aa}) fact7: ¬({B}{a} v ¬{A}{a}) -> ¬{B}{aa} fact8: ¬{C}{a} fact9: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬({C}x v ¬{A}x) fact10: ¬({B}{a} v ¬{A}{a}) fact11: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{C}x fact12: ¬({ET}{c} v ¬{A}{c}) fact13: ¬({B}{aa} v ¬{A}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{a} fact14: ¬({A}{aa} v ¬{B}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{a} fact15: (x): ¬({C}x v ¬{A}x) -> ¬{B}x

That Surrey does not synchronize.

¬{B}{hf}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This hexapod is not a Bolshevism. fact2: Something is not a Faulkner if the fact that it does not weep Auden hold. fact3: That this hexapod synchronizes or is not a kind of a Manichaean or both does not hold. fact4: That this fluoxetine synchronizes and/or it does not focalise does not hold. fact5: This hexapod does not synchronize. fact6: The fact that either that glasswork is compressible or it does not inflaming mediacy or both is wrong. fact7: If that this hexapod synchronizes and/or does not ghost neoliberalism is wrong that glasswork does not synchronizes. fact8: This hexapod is not a haiku. fact9: The fact that either some man is a haiku or this one does not ghost neoliberalism or both is false if this one does not irritate. fact10: That either this hexapod synchronizes or it does not ghost neoliberalism or both does not hold. fact11: If something does not synchronize it is not a haiku. fact12: The fact that the hem is rhizoidal and/or does not ghost neoliberalism is wrong. fact13: This hexapod does not synchronize if the fact that either that glasswork does synchronize or that one does not ghost neoliberalism or both does not hold. fact14: If that either that glasswork ghosts neoliberalism or she does not synchronize or both does not hold then this hexapod does not ghosts neoliberalism. fact15: If the fact that either someone is a haiku or this person does not ghost neoliberalism or both is not true then this person does not synchronize. ; $hypothesis$ = That glasswork is not a haiku. ; $proof$ =

fact11 -> int1: That glasswork is not a haiku if that glasswork does not synchronize.; fact7 & fact10 -> int2: That glasswork does not synchronize.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

The fact that either that resuming ICC or the non-viscosimetricness or both occurs is not true.

¬({AA} v ¬{AB})

fact1: This slash does not happens.

fact1: ¬{A}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This slash does not happens. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that either that resuming ICC or the non-viscosimetricness or both occurs is not true. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

The fact that that backdoor does not occurs and that comfort does not occurs hold.

(¬{D} & ¬{E})

fact1: That the proteolyticness does not happens and the irradiating does not occurs is incorrect. fact2: That the final does not happens is caused by the fact that that that craniometricness does not occurs and/or that the dropping does not occurs hold. fact3: That the calendricalness does not happens and this mystification does not occurs is not true if the anathema does not happens. fact4: That that backdoor does not occurs and that comfort does not happens does not hold if that subsiding sevensome does not happens. fact5: The fact that the surfeiting does not occurs and this mystification does not occurs does not hold. fact6: That that backdoor does not happens and that comfort does not happens is brought about by that this bearding Cnossus occurs. fact7: That subsiding sevensome is prevented by that this bearding Cnossus does not happens and/or that that Mulling Mammut does not happens. fact8: That this bearding Cnossus occurs is triggered by that Mulling Mammut. fact9: The fact that that this swishing does not happens and this penetrating does not happens is not false is wrong. fact10: If this bearding Cnossus does not occurs that subsiding sevensome does not happens. fact11: If either that sparring Dicynodontia does not occurs or the trolling does not happens or both then this picture does not occurs. fact12: That the fumigation does not occurs and that theophany does not happens is incorrect. fact13: That Mulling Mammut does not happens. fact14: The fact that that backdoor does not occurs and that comfort occurs does not hold if that subsiding sevensome does not occurs. fact15: The studying Myrtaceae does not occurs or the twinkling does not happens or both. fact16: That that backdoor occurs but that comfort does not happens does not hold if that subsiding sevensome does not happens. fact17: The salableness happens and/or this booked does not occurs. fact18: This booked does not happens. fact19: That that backdoor does not happens and that comfort occurs does not hold. fact20: This carpeting Seville occurs or the elongating albuminuria does not occurs or both. fact21: The paganizing Philemon does not occurs.

fact1: ¬(¬{FR} & ¬{GL}) fact2: (¬{AH} v ¬{JF}) -> ¬{GN} fact3: ¬{FE} -> ¬(¬{FF} & ¬{DN}) fact4: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{D} & ¬{E}) fact5: ¬(¬{FH} & ¬{DN}) fact6: {A} -> (¬{D} & ¬{E}) fact7: (¬{A} v ¬{B}) -> ¬{C} fact8: {B} -> {A} fact9: ¬(¬{HN} & ¬{CU}) fact10: ¬{A} -> ¬{C} fact11: (¬{HK} v ¬{EI}) -> ¬{BL} fact12: ¬(¬{P} & ¬{BK}) fact13: ¬{B} fact14: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{D} & {E}) fact15: (¬{BF} v ¬{BJ}) fact16: ¬{C} -> ¬({D} & ¬{E}) fact17: ({JI} v ¬{BS}) fact18: ¬{BS} fact19: ¬(¬{D} & {E}) fact20: ({EU} v ¬{BM}) fact21: ¬{FN}

The fact that that backdoor does not occurs and that comfort does not occurs hold.

(¬{D} & ¬{E})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That the proteolyticness does not happens and the irradiating does not occurs is incorrect. fact2: That the final does not happens is caused by the fact that that that craniometricness does not occurs and/or that the dropping does not occurs hold. fact3: That the calendricalness does not happens and this mystification does not occurs is not true if the anathema does not happens. fact4: That that backdoor does not occurs and that comfort does not happens does not hold if that subsiding sevensome does not happens. fact5: The fact that the surfeiting does not occurs and this mystification does not occurs does not hold. fact6: That that backdoor does not happens and that comfort does not happens is brought about by that this bearding Cnossus occurs. fact7: That subsiding sevensome is prevented by that this bearding Cnossus does not happens and/or that that Mulling Mammut does not happens. fact8: That this bearding Cnossus occurs is triggered by that Mulling Mammut. fact9: The fact that that this swishing does not happens and this penetrating does not happens is not false is wrong. fact10: If this bearding Cnossus does not occurs that subsiding sevensome does not happens. fact11: If either that sparring Dicynodontia does not occurs or the trolling does not happens or both then this picture does not occurs. fact12: That the fumigation does not occurs and that theophany does not happens is incorrect. fact13: That Mulling Mammut does not happens. fact14: The fact that that backdoor does not occurs and that comfort occurs does not hold if that subsiding sevensome does not occurs. fact15: The studying Myrtaceae does not occurs or the twinkling does not happens or both. fact16: That that backdoor occurs but that comfort does not happens does not hold if that subsiding sevensome does not happens. fact17: The salableness happens and/or this booked does not occurs. fact18: This booked does not happens. fact19: That that backdoor does not happens and that comfort occurs does not hold. fact20: This carpeting Seville occurs or the elongating albuminuria does not occurs or both. fact21: The paganizing Philemon does not occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that that backdoor does not occurs and that comfort does not occurs hold. ; $proof$ =

fact13 -> int1: This bearding Cnossus does not occurs or that Mulling Mammut does not happens or both.; int1 & fact7 -> int2: That subsiding sevensome does not happens.; int2 & fact4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

This Nigerien does not happens.

¬{A}

fact1: If the fact that that sidestepping does not occurs is not wrong then that patronaging happens and this Nigerien happens. fact2: That blackleg does not happens and that calamity does not happens if that snobbery happens. fact3: This yeastlikeness occurs. fact4: If that diminution occurs then this philandering Dubai does not happens. fact5: That sidestepping does not happens if that this autolyticness does not happens hold. fact6: Both that talk and that narcotisinging neuropsychiatry happens if that this philandering Dubai does not happens hold. fact7: This benevolence does not happens. fact8: If that talk occurs this rising does not occurs and this Hero does not occurs. fact9: This manduction happens. fact10: If this benevolence does not happens that destruction happens and that snobbery happens. fact11: That this Hero does not happens triggers that both this autolyticness and the squatting pencilled occurs. fact12: This Nigerien does not happens and that sidestepping occurs if this autolyticness happens. fact13: That diminution happens and/or that compliantness does not happens if that that blackleg does not occurs is correct. fact14: That imprisoning megrims happens. fact15: This Nigerien occurs. fact16: The Greying Sarda happens.

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

This Nigerien does not happens.

¬{A}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If the fact that that sidestepping does not occurs is not wrong then that patronaging happens and this Nigerien happens. fact2: That blackleg does not happens and that calamity does not happens if that snobbery happens. fact3: This yeastlikeness occurs. fact4: If that diminution occurs then this philandering Dubai does not happens. fact5: That sidestepping does not happens if that this autolyticness does not happens hold. fact6: Both that talk and that narcotisinging neuropsychiatry happens if that this philandering Dubai does not happens hold. fact7: This benevolence does not happens. fact8: If that talk occurs this rising does not occurs and this Hero does not occurs. fact9: This manduction happens. fact10: If this benevolence does not happens that destruction happens and that snobbery happens. fact11: That this Hero does not happens triggers that both this autolyticness and the squatting pencilled occurs. fact12: This Nigerien does not happens and that sidestepping occurs if this autolyticness happens. fact13: That diminution happens and/or that compliantness does not happens if that that blackleg does not occurs is correct. fact14: That imprisoning megrims happens. fact15: This Nigerien occurs. fact16: The Greying Sarda happens. ; $hypothesis$ = This Nigerien does not happens. ; $proof$ =

fact15 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

This coco is a nanometer.

{C}{c}

fact1: That this sanderling is a nanometer is correct if this puncture is distrustful. fact2: This coco is a nanometer if this puncture does cascade signal/noise. fact3: The fact that some man is not non-nuclear or it does not body Hippopotamidae or both does not hold if the fact that it is a Arceuthobium is not wrong. fact4: If this coco is not a triteness then this coco is a Arceuthobium and this person is a tonnage. fact5: If that this coco either is nuclear or does not body Hippopotamidae or both is not true that meany does not body Hippopotamidae. fact6: This puncture is distrustful and/or it cascades signal/noise. fact7: Some man is colorectal and/or he does cascade signal/noise if he does not body Hippopotamidae. fact8: If this puncture is distrustful this coco is a nanometer. fact9: Something cascades signal/noise or it is distrustful or both if the fact that it is not colorectal is true. fact10: This coco is distrustful. fact11: If this puncture is a nanometer then this coco is not a nanometer. fact12: This coco cascades signal/noise if this puncture is distrustful.

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

This coco is not a kind of a nanometer.

¬{C}{c}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That this sanderling is a nanometer is correct if this puncture is distrustful. fact2: This coco is a nanometer if this puncture does cascade signal/noise. fact3: The fact that some man is not non-nuclear or it does not body Hippopotamidae or both does not hold if the fact that it is a Arceuthobium is not wrong. fact4: If this coco is not a triteness then this coco is a Arceuthobium and this person is a tonnage. fact5: If that this coco either is nuclear or does not body Hippopotamidae or both is not true that meany does not body Hippopotamidae. fact6: This puncture is distrustful and/or it cascades signal/noise. fact7: Some man is colorectal and/or he does cascade signal/noise if he does not body Hippopotamidae. fact8: If this puncture is distrustful this coco is a nanometer. fact9: Something cascades signal/noise or it is distrustful or both if the fact that it is not colorectal is true. fact10: This coco is distrustful. fact11: If this puncture is a nanometer then this coco is not a nanometer. fact12: This coco cascades signal/noise if this puncture is distrustful. ; $hypothesis$ = This coco is a nanometer. ; $proof$ =

fact6 & fact8 & fact2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

Every man is a kind of a chafed.

(x): {A}x

fact1: Everyone is generational. fact2: Everything is dependable. fact3: Everything loads Njord. fact4: Every person is executive. fact5: Everything is a subphylum. fact6: Every person is not unshrinkable. fact7: Everything is percussive. fact8: Everybody does not sneak typing. fact9: Everyone is a Moneses. fact10: Everything is noseless. fact11: That everything is a Cicero is true. fact12: Every man is a kind of a chafed. fact13: That everything is lobular is true.

fact1: (x): {JC}x fact2: (x): {IA}x fact3: (x): {FB}x fact4: (x): {CN}x fact5: (x): {EM}x fact6: (x): {AR}x fact7: (x): {IQ}x fact8: (x): ¬{D}x fact9: (x): {AN}x fact10: (x): {GA}x fact11: (x): {ID}x fact12: (x): {A}x fact13: (x): {HT}x

Everything sponsors Saqqarah.

(x): {BC}x

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: Everyone is generational. fact2: Everything is dependable. fact3: Everything loads Njord. fact4: Every person is executive. fact5: Everything is a subphylum. fact6: Every person is not unshrinkable. fact7: Everything is percussive. fact8: Everybody does not sneak typing. fact9: Everyone is a Moneses. fact10: Everything is noseless. fact11: That everything is a Cicero is true. fact12: Every man is a kind of a chafed. fact13: That everything is lobular is true. ; $hypothesis$ = Every man is a kind of a chafed. ; $proof$ =

fact12 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

That that microsome is not an affixed but a Palladio is incorrect.

¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})

fact1: That microsome is not an affixed if it is a colors. fact2: If the cobalt is preventable then that postillion is not loyal. fact3: If Bridget is a malaria then it does not round acquaintanceship and it is a Palladio. fact4: That microsome is not an affixed. fact5: Some man is an affixed if it is not a colors and is amphoteric. fact6: This donkey dulcifies parosamia and is a Liverpudlian if that person does not embed precipitancy. fact7: If this donkey is not a kind of a Liverpudlian this station inhabits and this thing is a kind of a Pluvianus. fact8: If there is someone such that it does inhabit and is not a Pluvianus then this station does not inhabit. fact9: If that microsome is amphoteric the fact that Anne is a Palladio is true. fact10: This donkey does not embed precipitancy if that postillion embed precipitancy. fact11: This donkey is not a Liverpudlian or it embeds precipitancy or both if it dulcifies parosamia. fact12: If something is a Liverpudlian this thing inhabits and this thing is not a kind of a Pluvianus. fact13: If something inhabits then it is not a kind of a colors and is amphoteric. fact14: This donkey is not a kind of a Liverpudlian if this donkey is not a Liverpudlian or the one embeds precipitancy or both. fact15: If that microsome is a colors that microsome is not a kind of an affixed but she/he is a Palladio. fact16: If something is not loyal then that thing is a kind of a Zoarcidae and that thing embeds precipitancy. fact17: That microsome is amphoteric and/or it is not a colors if this station does not inhabit.

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

That that microsome is not an affixed but a Palladio is incorrect.

¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That microsome is not an affixed if it is a colors. fact2: If the cobalt is preventable then that postillion is not loyal. fact3: If Bridget is a malaria then it does not round acquaintanceship and it is a Palladio. fact4: That microsome is not an affixed. fact5: Some man is an affixed if it is not a colors and is amphoteric. fact6: This donkey dulcifies parosamia and is a Liverpudlian if that person does not embed precipitancy. fact7: If this donkey is not a kind of a Liverpudlian this station inhabits and this thing is a kind of a Pluvianus. fact8: If there is someone such that it does inhabit and is not a Pluvianus then this station does not inhabit. fact9: If that microsome is amphoteric the fact that Anne is a Palladio is true. fact10: This donkey does not embed precipitancy if that postillion embed precipitancy. fact11: This donkey is not a Liverpudlian or it embeds precipitancy or both if it dulcifies parosamia. fact12: If something is a Liverpudlian this thing inhabits and this thing is not a kind of a Pluvianus. fact13: If something inhabits then it is not a kind of a colors and is amphoteric. fact14: This donkey is not a kind of a Liverpudlian if this donkey is not a Liverpudlian or the one embeds precipitancy or both. fact15: If that microsome is a colors that microsome is not a kind of an affixed but she/he is a Palladio. fact16: If something is not loyal then that thing is a kind of a Zoarcidae and that thing embeds precipitancy. fact17: That microsome is amphoteric and/or it is not a colors if this station does not inhabit. ; $hypothesis$ = That that microsome is not an affixed but a Palladio is incorrect. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That motor is minty and blankets Dicksonia.

({A}{a} & {B}{a})

fact1: That that tarsus is dirty but this thing is a kind of a unmalleability does not hold. fact2: There exists some person such that the fact that she is not a unmalleability but minty does not hold. fact3: that Dicksonia blankets motor. fact4: That motor is a unmalleability. fact5: The brougham is a unmalleability. fact6: If the fact that there exists someone such that that that that person is not unobjectionable and that person is a unmalleability is true is incorrect hold that motor is minty. fact7: That motor is a Ono. fact8: That motor blankets Dicksonia.

fact1: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) fact2: (Ex): ¬(¬{AB}x & {A}x) fact3: {AC}{ab} fact4: {AB}{a} fact5: {AB}{hs} fact6: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a} fact7: {BP}{a} fact8: {B}{a}

PROVED

PROVED

$facts$ = fact1: That that tarsus is dirty but this thing is a kind of a unmalleability does not hold. fact2: There exists some person such that the fact that she is not a unmalleability but minty does not hold. fact3: that Dicksonia blankets motor. fact4: That motor is a unmalleability. fact5: The brougham is a unmalleability. fact6: If the fact that there exists someone such that that that that person is not unobjectionable and that person is a unmalleability is true is incorrect hold that motor is minty. fact7: That motor is a Ono. fact8: That motor blankets Dicksonia. ; $hypothesis$ = That motor is minty and blankets Dicksonia. ; $proof$ =

fact1 -> int1: There is somebody such that that that one is not unobjectionable and that one is a unmalleability does not hold.; int1 & fact6 -> int2: That motor is minty.; int2 & fact8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

That sweatband is a venerableness and uptown.

({AA}{b} & {AB}{b})

fact1: Someone that is a flower is a prognathism. fact2: If that cabin is a naif the fact that this skilletfish is a Walbiri and does not overlie refulgence is false. fact3: Everybody is uptown and that person returns nonintervention. fact4: If that sweatband is not a flower this skilletfish is a venerableness and is uptown. fact5: If that cabin is a kind of a paletiology this is a kind of a smoothed. fact6: If some person is not a kind of a flower then the fact that that one is a venerableness and that one is uptown is wrong. fact7: That sweatband is uptown if this skilletfish is not a flower. fact8: If the fact that something is a kind of a Walbiri that does not overlie refulgence does not hold then this does not return nonintervention. fact9: This skilletfish is not a kind of a flower. fact10: That sweatband is a flower and overlies refulgence if the fact that that cabin is not a kind of a Walbiri hold. fact11: Something is not a flower if that this thing is a flower and this thing returns nonintervention is not right. fact12: That sweatband does not offer Ebenales. fact13: That cabin is a naif if that cabin is a smoothed. fact14: The fact that that sweatband is uptown hold. fact15: If that sweatband is a prognathism this skilletfish is a prognathism.

fact1: (x): {A}x -> {BG}x fact2: {E}{c} -> ¬({D}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) fact3: (x): ({AB}x & {C}x) fact4: ¬{A}{b} -> ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) fact5: {G}{c} -> {F}{c} fact6: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) fact7: ¬{A}{a} -> {AB}{b} fact8: (x): ¬({D}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{C}x fact9: ¬{A}{a} fact10: ¬{D}{c} -> ({A}{b} & {B}{b}) fact11: (x): ¬({A}x & {C}x) -> ¬{A}x fact12: ¬{EH}{b} fact13: {F}{c} -> {E}{c} fact14: {AB}{b} fact15: {BG}{b} -> {BG}{a}

The fact that this skilletfish is uptown and a prognathism hold.

({AB}{a} & {BG}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: Someone that is a flower is a prognathism. fact2: If that cabin is a naif the fact that this skilletfish is a Walbiri and does not overlie refulgence is false. fact3: Everybody is uptown and that person returns nonintervention. fact4: If that sweatband is not a flower this skilletfish is a venerableness and is uptown. fact5: If that cabin is a kind of a paletiology this is a kind of a smoothed. fact6: If some person is not a kind of a flower then the fact that that one is a venerableness and that one is uptown is wrong. fact7: That sweatband is uptown if this skilletfish is not a flower. fact8: If the fact that something is a kind of a Walbiri that does not overlie refulgence does not hold then this does not return nonintervention. fact9: This skilletfish is not a kind of a flower. fact10: That sweatband is a flower and overlies refulgence if the fact that that cabin is not a kind of a Walbiri hold. fact11: Something is not a flower if that this thing is a flower and this thing returns nonintervention is not right. fact12: That sweatband does not offer Ebenales. fact13: That cabin is a naif if that cabin is a smoothed. fact14: The fact that that sweatband is uptown hold. fact15: If that sweatband is a prognathism this skilletfish is a prognathism. ; $hypothesis$ = That sweatband is a venerableness and uptown. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

Both that sedition and this cephalometry occurs.

({C} & {D})

fact1: If that pulling does not happens the fact that that tradeoff and this tacking happens does not hold. fact2: That lawsuit happens and this disavowing Ontario happens if that that excess does not occurs is true. fact3: The fact that that sedition happens is right. fact4: That pulling does not occurs. fact5: That ginning Antennaria does not happens if the fact that that freeing Kosciuszko and the fishtailing meantime happens is incorrect. fact6: If that timing does not occurs that sedition happens. fact7: This optimisticness does not happens. fact8: Either that that balancing Khoisan occurs or that this hurrahing does not happens or both is brought about by that lawsuit. fact9: If the fact that that tradeoff occurs and this tacking occurs is incorrect that timing does not occurs. fact10: If that balancing Khoisan occurs or this hurrahing does not occurs or both then that balancing Khoisan occurs. fact11: If the fact that that timing does not occurs but that pulling occurs does not hold that acaulescentness does not occurs. fact12: That this cephalometry happens but that sedition does not occurs is brought about by that that spanking occurs. fact13: If that balancing Khoisan happens then that spanking occurs. fact14: That timing does not happens if this tacking does not occurs. fact15: That notthat timing but that pulling happens does not hold if that sedition does not occurs. fact16: That that titillating undervaluation occurs causes that that excess does not happens and that unkindness does not occurs. fact17: That unalienableness and that walkover occurs.

fact1: ¬{A} -> ¬({AA} & {AB}) fact2: ¬{J} -> ({G} & {I}) fact3: {C} fact4: ¬{A} fact5: ¬({JJ} & {BT}) -> ¬{AL} fact6: ¬{B} -> {C} fact7: ¬{EI} fact8: {G} -> ({F} v ¬{H}) fact9: ¬({AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} fact10: ({F} v ¬{H}) -> {F} fact11: ¬(¬{B} & {A}) -> ¬{IE} fact12: {E} -> ({D} & ¬{C}) fact13: {F} -> {E} fact14: ¬{AB} -> ¬{B} fact15: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{B} & {A}) fact16: {L} -> (¬{J} & ¬{K}) fact17: ({AP} & {AE})

That that sedition and this cephalometry occurs is incorrect.

¬({C} & {D})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If that pulling does not happens the fact that that tradeoff and this tacking happens does not hold. fact2: That lawsuit happens and this disavowing Ontario happens if that that excess does not occurs is true. fact3: The fact that that sedition happens is right. fact4: That pulling does not occurs. fact5: That ginning Antennaria does not happens if the fact that that freeing Kosciuszko and the fishtailing meantime happens is incorrect. fact6: If that timing does not occurs that sedition happens. fact7: This optimisticness does not happens. fact8: Either that that balancing Khoisan occurs or that this hurrahing does not happens or both is brought about by that lawsuit. fact9: If the fact that that tradeoff occurs and this tacking occurs is incorrect that timing does not occurs. fact10: If that balancing Khoisan occurs or this hurrahing does not occurs or both then that balancing Khoisan occurs. fact11: If the fact that that timing does not occurs but that pulling occurs does not hold that acaulescentness does not occurs. fact12: That this cephalometry happens but that sedition does not occurs is brought about by that that spanking occurs. fact13: If that balancing Khoisan happens then that spanking occurs. fact14: That timing does not happens if this tacking does not occurs. fact15: That notthat timing but that pulling happens does not hold if that sedition does not occurs. fact16: That that titillating undervaluation occurs causes that that excess does not happens and that unkindness does not occurs. fact17: That unalienableness and that walkover occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = Both that sedition and this cephalometry occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

This vitriol is a central.

{C}{c}

fact1: If that something is not a kind of a neolithic and is not a kind of a better is incorrect then that thing is a diaphoretic. fact2: This vitriol riles. fact3: If this vitriol certifies answering then the fact that this nomogram is a kind of a central is right. fact4: If this vitriol is unconformist that valuator is a central. fact5: If this nomogram is an inevitable that does not certify answering this nomogram is unconformist. fact6: That that valuator is not an inevitable hold. fact7: This vitriol is a central if the fact that this nomogram does not certify answering does not hold. fact8: The fact that this nomogram certifies answering is not incorrect if the fact that that valuator is unconformist is true. fact9: If this nomogram is a diaphoretic then that valuator is not a kind of a diaphoretic. fact10: If that carillon is a unmanliness this nomogram is not a unmanliness. fact11: That babushka is not mercuric if that this Muhammadan is a kind of a hardy and dismays Atrichornithidae does not hold. fact12: If that valuator is a central then this vitriol is an inevitable. fact13: That somebody is not a neolithic and not a better is incorrect if the one is not a unmanliness. fact14: That valuator is unconformist if this riles and this is not a kind of an inevitable. fact15: That this Muhammadan is a hardy and dismays Atrichornithidae is incorrect if the thing does not understand virology. fact16: That valuator is unconformist if it riles and it is an inevitable. fact17: If something is not a kind of a diaphoretic the fact that this thing does not certify answering and is not unconformist is incorrect. fact18: That valuator does rile but it is not an inevitable. fact19: If that that babushka is not mercuric is right then that carillon is a unmanliness and this thing is taxonomic.

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

This vitriol is not a central.

¬{C}{c}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If that something is not a kind of a neolithic and is not a kind of a better is incorrect then that thing is a diaphoretic. fact2: This vitriol riles. fact3: If this vitriol certifies answering then the fact that this nomogram is a kind of a central is right. fact4: If this vitriol is unconformist that valuator is a central. fact5: If this nomogram is an inevitable that does not certify answering this nomogram is unconformist. fact6: That that valuator is not an inevitable hold. fact7: This vitriol is a central if the fact that this nomogram does not certify answering does not hold. fact8: The fact that this nomogram certifies answering is not incorrect if the fact that that valuator is unconformist is true. fact9: If this nomogram is a diaphoretic then that valuator is not a kind of a diaphoretic. fact10: If that carillon is a unmanliness this nomogram is not a unmanliness. fact11: That babushka is not mercuric if that this Muhammadan is a kind of a hardy and dismays Atrichornithidae does not hold. fact12: If that valuator is a central then this vitriol is an inevitable. fact13: That somebody is not a neolithic and not a better is incorrect if the one is not a unmanliness. fact14: That valuator is unconformist if this riles and this is not a kind of an inevitable. fact15: That this Muhammadan is a hardy and dismays Atrichornithidae is incorrect if the thing does not understand virology. fact16: That valuator is unconformist if it riles and it is an inevitable. fact17: If something is not a kind of a diaphoretic the fact that this thing does not certify answering and is not unconformist is incorrect. fact18: That valuator does rile but it is not an inevitable. fact19: If that that babushka is not mercuric is right then that carillon is a unmanliness and this thing is taxonomic. ; $hypothesis$ = This vitriol is a central. ; $proof$ =

fact14 & fact18 -> int1: That that valuator is unconformist is not incorrect.; int1 & fact8 -> int2: This nomogram certifies answering.; int2 & fact7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

Either that dogtrot does not happens or that news happens or both.

(¬{AA} v {AB})

fact1: If the fact that both this sending disillusioning and this chasing Setubal occurs is incorrect this sending disillusioning does not happens. fact2: That weightliftinging occurs if this hypothecating happens. fact3: That this epidermicness but notthat centennial occurs is caused by this bespeaking Rajiformes. fact4: If this unrepentantness does not happens that asciticness happens and that cryosurgery occurs. fact5: The fact that that dogtrot does not happens and/or that news occurs is wrong. fact6: This dumbfounding margin does not occurs if the fact that this chasing Setubal and this dumbfounding margin occurs does not hold. fact7: If that centennial does not happens then the fact that both that raid and that midwifery occurs is false. fact8: That dogtrot occurs. fact9: That this dumbfounding margin does not occurs causes that both this sending disillusioning and this lowness occurs. fact10: That that unaffixedness occurs and this lowness happens is caused by that this sending disillusioning does not occurs. fact11: That that wricking does not happens brings about that this actinomycoticness and this bespeaking Rajiformes occurs. fact12: That unaffixedness happens if this lowness happens. fact13: If this dumbfounding margin does not occurs then the fact that this sending disillusioning happens and this chasing Setubal occurs is false. fact14: If that feasting antiphonary happens this addressing mugginess does not occurs but this linemen occurs. fact15: That this addressing mugginess does not happens but this linemen occurs yields that that wricking does not happens. fact16: The fact that that intermezzo does not occurs and/or that grunt occurs is not true if the fact that that unaffixedness occurs is correct. fact17: If that unaffixedness happens then that dogtrot does not occurs or that news occurs or both. fact18: That that asciticness happens leads to that that feasting antiphonary happens. fact19: If the fact that that both that raid and that midwifery happens is incorrect hold this dumbfounding margin does not happens. fact20: That this unrepentantness does not happens and this smacker does not happens is caused by that that weightliftinging happens.

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

Either that dogtrot does not happens or that news happens or both.

(¬{AA} v {AB})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If the fact that both this sending disillusioning and this chasing Setubal occurs is incorrect this sending disillusioning does not happens. fact2: That weightliftinging occurs if this hypothecating happens. fact3: That this epidermicness but notthat centennial occurs is caused by this bespeaking Rajiformes. fact4: If this unrepentantness does not happens that asciticness happens and that cryosurgery occurs. fact5: The fact that that dogtrot does not happens and/or that news occurs is wrong. fact6: This dumbfounding margin does not occurs if the fact that this chasing Setubal and this dumbfounding margin occurs does not hold. fact7: If that centennial does not happens then the fact that both that raid and that midwifery occurs is false. fact8: That dogtrot occurs. fact9: That this dumbfounding margin does not occurs causes that both this sending disillusioning and this lowness occurs. fact10: That that unaffixedness occurs and this lowness happens is caused by that this sending disillusioning does not occurs. fact11: That that wricking does not happens brings about that this actinomycoticness and this bespeaking Rajiformes occurs. fact12: That unaffixedness happens if this lowness happens. fact13: If this dumbfounding margin does not occurs then the fact that this sending disillusioning happens and this chasing Setubal occurs is false. fact14: If that feasting antiphonary happens this addressing mugginess does not occurs but this linemen occurs. fact15: That this addressing mugginess does not happens but this linemen occurs yields that that wricking does not happens. fact16: The fact that that intermezzo does not occurs and/or that grunt occurs is not true if the fact that that unaffixedness occurs is correct. fact17: If that unaffixedness happens then that dogtrot does not occurs or that news occurs or both. fact18: That that asciticness happens leads to that that feasting antiphonary happens. fact19: If the fact that that both that raid and that midwifery happens is incorrect hold this dumbfounding margin does not happens. fact20: That this unrepentantness does not happens and this smacker does not happens is caused by that that weightliftinging happens. ; $hypothesis$ = Either that dogtrot does not happens or that news happens or both. ; $proof$ =

fact5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That this cryocautery is not nonaddictive hold.

¬{B}{c}

fact1: If this jellyfish is not a kind of a securer that that naiad is not a kind of a stiff and it is non-Sabbatarian is not true. fact2: That the fact that this cryocautery is nonaddictive and not a securer is correct is incorrect if this jellyfish is not a stiff. fact3: The fact that this cryocautery is not nonaddictive but it is a securer is false. fact4: This jellyfish is not a securer. fact5: This cryocautery is not nonaddictive if that that naiad is not a stiff and it is not Sabbatarian is wrong. fact6: The fact that that naiad is not a securer and she/he is not a kind of a stiff is false. fact7: That that polytetrafluoroethylene is not a stiff hold. fact8: That that naiad is not a kind of a securer and the thing is not nonaddictive does not hold if this jellyfish is not Sabbatarian.

fact1: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) fact2: ¬{AA}{a} -> ¬({B}{c} & ¬{A}{c}) fact3: ¬(¬{B}{c} & {A}{c}) fact4: ¬{A}{a} fact5: ¬(¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{c} fact6: ¬(¬{A}{b} & ¬{AA}{b}) fact7: ¬{AA}{ji} fact8: ¬{AB}{a} -> ¬(¬{A}{b} & ¬{B}{b})

PROVED

PROVED

$facts$ = fact1: If this jellyfish is not a kind of a securer that that naiad is not a kind of a stiff and it is non-Sabbatarian is not true. fact2: That the fact that this cryocautery is nonaddictive and not a securer is correct is incorrect if this jellyfish is not a stiff. fact3: The fact that this cryocautery is not nonaddictive but it is a securer is false. fact4: This jellyfish is not a securer. fact5: This cryocautery is not nonaddictive if that that naiad is not a stiff and it is not Sabbatarian is wrong. fact6: The fact that that naiad is not a securer and she/he is not a kind of a stiff is false. fact7: That that polytetrafluoroethylene is not a stiff hold. fact8: That that naiad is not a kind of a securer and the thing is not nonaddictive does not hold if this jellyfish is not Sabbatarian. ; $hypothesis$ = That this cryocautery is not nonaddictive hold. ; $proof$ =

fact1 & fact4 -> int1: The fact that that naiad is not a stiff and is not Sabbatarian does not hold.; int1 & fact5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

The fact that this flinch and that reforestation happens is incorrect.

¬({B} & {C})

fact1: That flamenco happens and that reforestation happens. fact2: The fact that the fact that this flinch occurs and that reforestation occurs is false is correct if the fact that that flamenco does not happens is right. fact3: This categorematicness occurs. fact4: This flinch occurs if this categorematicness happens.

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

This actinometricness occurs.

{HR}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That flamenco happens and that reforestation happens. fact2: The fact that the fact that this flinch occurs and that reforestation occurs is false is correct if the fact that that flamenco does not happens is right. fact3: This categorematicness occurs. fact4: This flinch occurs if this categorematicness happens. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that this flinch and that reforestation happens is incorrect. ; $proof$ =

fact4 & fact3 -> int1: This flinch happens.; fact1 -> int2: That reforestation occurs.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

The fact that that epicardia is a kind of a coaxing is right.

{D}{b}

fact1: If some person steals deciliter this Chipewyan is non-veinal and is phonetic. fact2: This Chipewyan is not veinal. fact3: The fact that that zipper is not a coaxing but untraditional is true. fact4: If that somebody does not rent and he does not prize Kinosternon does not hold that he does not reduce Palmaceae is correct. fact5: If this Chipewyan is a coaxing then the fact that that mythologist does not steal deciliter but this is not non-veinal is false. fact6: Something is a steatopygia and is a coaxing if this thing does not reduce Palmaceae. fact7: There is some person such that he steals deciliter. fact8: If this Chipewyan is phonetic thing that is a steatopygia it is not veinal.

fact1: (x): {A}x -> (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) fact2: ¬{B}{a} fact3: (¬{D}{am} & {GL}{am}) fact4: (x): ¬(¬{G}x & ¬{H}x) -> ¬{F}x fact5: {D}{a} -> ¬(¬{A}{ec} & {B}{ec}) fact6: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({E}x & {D}x) fact7: (Ex): {A}x fact8: ({C}{a} & {E}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a}

That mythologist is not phonetic.

¬{C}{ec}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If some person steals deciliter this Chipewyan is non-veinal and is phonetic. fact2: This Chipewyan is not veinal. fact3: The fact that that zipper is not a coaxing but untraditional is true. fact4: If that somebody does not rent and he does not prize Kinosternon does not hold that he does not reduce Palmaceae is correct. fact5: If this Chipewyan is a coaxing then the fact that that mythologist does not steal deciliter but this is not non-veinal is false. fact6: Something is a steatopygia and is a coaxing if this thing does not reduce Palmaceae. fact7: There is some person such that he steals deciliter. fact8: If this Chipewyan is phonetic thing that is a steatopygia it is not veinal. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that that epicardia is a kind of a coaxing is right. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That noncrucialness does not happens.

¬{B}

fact1: The vision happens. fact2: This avoidableness occurs. fact3: If the wolfishness does not happens that Nigerianness does not occurs and this infliction does not occurs. fact4: The fact that that non-colouringness and that non-noncivilisedness occurs does not hold if this stakeout does not happens. fact5: If this dieteticness does not happens this biogeographicness does not occurs and/or that flatterness does not happens. fact6: If this biogeographicness does not happens then this stakeout does not occurs. fact7: That this stakeout does not occurs and that find does not happens is triggered by that flatterness. fact8: That find occurs. fact9: That this greening occurs prevents this linedness. fact10: That this transeuntness does not happens and that plashing does not occurs is brought about by that this infliction does not occurs. fact11: If that find does not occurs and that heading sloppiness does not happens then that noncrucialness does not happens. fact12: That that taxing interchangeability occurs hold if that that non-colouringness and this civilizedness happens is not right. fact13: That that noncrucialness does not occurs and that heading sloppiness does not occurs is brought about by that taxing interchangeability. fact14: This dieteticness is prevented by that this transeuntness does not happens and/or that talentedness does not happens. fact15: The raffling chukker occurs if this mollification occurs. fact16: The remotion yields that this crested occurs. fact17: The wolfishness does not happens.

fact1: {FR} fact2: {JA} fact3: ¬{P} -> (¬{O} & ¬{N}) fact4: ¬{G} -> ¬(¬{F} & ¬{E}) fact5: ¬{J} -> (¬{I} v ¬{H}) fact6: ¬{I} -> ¬{G} fact7: {H} -> (¬{G} & ¬{A}) fact8: {A} fact9: {AK} -> {DM} fact10: ¬{N} -> (¬{L} & ¬{M}) fact11: (¬{A} & ¬{C}) -> ¬{B} fact12: ¬(¬{F} & ¬{E}) -> {D} fact13: {D} -> (¬{B} & ¬{C}) fact14: (¬{L} v ¬{K}) -> ¬{J} fact15: {BK} -> {HS} fact16: {AO} -> {GK} fact17: ¬{P}

The photoemissiveness occurs.

{DO}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: The vision happens. fact2: This avoidableness occurs. fact3: If the wolfishness does not happens that Nigerianness does not occurs and this infliction does not occurs. fact4: The fact that that non-colouringness and that non-noncivilisedness occurs does not hold if this stakeout does not happens. fact5: If this dieteticness does not happens this biogeographicness does not occurs and/or that flatterness does not happens. fact6: If this biogeographicness does not happens then this stakeout does not occurs. fact7: That this stakeout does not occurs and that find does not happens is triggered by that flatterness. fact8: That find occurs. fact9: That this greening occurs prevents this linedness. fact10: That this transeuntness does not happens and that plashing does not occurs is brought about by that this infliction does not occurs. fact11: If that find does not occurs and that heading sloppiness does not happens then that noncrucialness does not happens. fact12: That that taxing interchangeability occurs hold if that that non-colouringness and this civilizedness happens is not right. fact13: That that noncrucialness does not occurs and that heading sloppiness does not occurs is brought about by that taxing interchangeability. fact14: This dieteticness is prevented by that this transeuntness does not happens and/or that talentedness does not happens. fact15: The raffling chukker occurs if this mollification occurs. fact16: The remotion yields that this crested occurs. fact17: The wolfishness does not happens. ; $hypothesis$ = That noncrucialness does not happens. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

This waterspout does not happens.

¬{B}

fact1: That sifting does not occurs if the fact that that sifting occurs and that nonconformism does not occurs is not true. fact2: If that sifting does not occurs that the nasalness does not occurs and this waterspout does not occurs is wrong. fact3: The fact that the nonlivingness does not happens is not correct. fact4: That alchemicalness happens if that the nasalness does not happens and this waterspout does not happens is incorrect. fact5: The groundball happens.

fact1: ¬({C} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{C} fact2: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{A} & ¬{B}) fact3: {GK} fact4: ¬(¬{A} & ¬{B}) -> {IB} fact5: {BN}

That alchemicalness happens.

{IB}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That sifting does not occurs if the fact that that sifting occurs and that nonconformism does not occurs is not true. fact2: If that sifting does not occurs that the nasalness does not occurs and this waterspout does not occurs is wrong. fact3: The fact that the nonlivingness does not happens is not correct. fact4: That alchemicalness happens if that the nasalness does not happens and this waterspout does not happens is incorrect. fact5: The groundball happens. ; $hypothesis$ = This waterspout does not happens. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That that centaury is a epithalamium but that does not unfold counteroffer does not hold.

¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b})

fact1: If something is a kind of a hypernymy this thing is indicative. fact2: If this isoantibody is not indicative then that centaury is a kind of a epithalamium and does not unfold counteroffer. fact3: If something is indicative the fact that it is a epithalamium and does not unfold counteroffer is false. fact4: If that something is bisontine and it is a hypernymy does not hold then it is not indicative. fact5: That centaury is a kind of a epithalamium. fact6: This isoantibody is not indicative. fact7: Something is not paranasal but bisontine if it is a Peripatopsis. fact8: If that centaury is not paranasal and not non-bisontine then that it is a hypernymy is correct.

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

That that centaury is a epithalamium but that does not unfold counteroffer does not hold.

¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If something is a kind of a hypernymy this thing is indicative. fact2: If this isoantibody is not indicative then that centaury is a kind of a epithalamium and does not unfold counteroffer. fact3: If something is indicative the fact that it is a epithalamium and does not unfold counteroffer is false. fact4: If that something is bisontine and it is a hypernymy does not hold then it is not indicative. fact5: That centaury is a kind of a epithalamium. fact6: This isoantibody is not indicative. fact7: Something is not paranasal but bisontine if it is a Peripatopsis. fact8: If that centaury is not paranasal and not non-bisontine then that it is a hypernymy is correct. ; $hypothesis$ = That that centaury is a epithalamium but that does not unfold counteroffer does not hold. ; $proof$ =

fact2 & fact6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That monophonicness does not happens.

¬{C}

fact1: If this cocainising Avalokiteshvara does not happens both that conducting and this program happens. fact2: This cocainising Avalokiteshvara occurs. fact3: The fact that that conducting happens hold. fact4: That both that conducting and this cocainising Avalokiteshvara happens results in that that monophonicness does not happens.

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

This program occurs.

{DG}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If this cocainising Avalokiteshvara does not happens both that conducting and this program happens. fact2: This cocainising Avalokiteshvara occurs. fact3: The fact that that conducting happens hold. fact4: That both that conducting and this cocainising Avalokiteshvara happens results in that that monophonicness does not happens. ; $hypothesis$ = That monophonicness does not happens. ; $proof$ =

fact3 & fact2 -> int1: That conducting and this cocainising Avalokiteshvara occurs.; int1 & fact4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

This lockstep occurs.

{A}

fact1: Both the ordinance and this lockstep occurs if this interdicting pelf does not happens. fact2: If this anadromousness does not happens this interdicting pelf does not occurs but that viva happens. fact3: This interdicting pelf happens. fact4: If this anadromousness occurs that this interdicting pelf does not happens and that viva occurs is wrong.

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

This lockstep does not occurs.

¬{A}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: Both the ordinance and this lockstep occurs if this interdicting pelf does not happens. fact2: If this anadromousness does not happens this interdicting pelf does not occurs but that viva happens. fact3: This interdicting pelf happens. fact4: If this anadromousness occurs that this interdicting pelf does not happens and that viva occurs is wrong. ; $hypothesis$ = This lockstep occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

This aponeuroticness happens.

{D}

fact1: That instigating instancy triggers that the rustling fogsignal does not occurs and this immutableness does not occurs. fact2: This callisthenics leads to that notthat narcotizinging serif but the parts occurs. fact3: If the decomposing Gesner does not occurs then that nonalcoholicness and/or this waking Trollope happens. fact4: That both that instigating instancy and that non-chancroidalness happens is triggered by that this phlebotomizing 4 does not occurs. fact5: Notthat instigating instancy but this aponeuroticness occurs if this immutableness occurs. fact6: That that narcotizinging serif does not happens causes that this Pythagoreanness does not happens and this phlebotomizing 4 does not happens. fact7: If the imperceptibleness occurs then that validation does not occurs. fact8: This wheellessness does not occurs. fact9: That instigating instancy does not occurs. fact10: This aponeuroticness is prevented by that the rustling fogsignal does not occurs and this immutableness does not occurs. fact11: That engaging does not happens.

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

This aponeuroticness does not happens.

¬{D}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That instigating instancy triggers that the rustling fogsignal does not occurs and this immutableness does not occurs. fact2: This callisthenics leads to that notthat narcotizinging serif but the parts occurs. fact3: If the decomposing Gesner does not occurs then that nonalcoholicness and/or this waking Trollope happens. fact4: That both that instigating instancy and that non-chancroidalness happens is triggered by that this phlebotomizing 4 does not occurs. fact5: Notthat instigating instancy but this aponeuroticness occurs if this immutableness occurs. fact6: That that narcotizinging serif does not happens causes that this Pythagoreanness does not happens and this phlebotomizing 4 does not happens. fact7: If the imperceptibleness occurs then that validation does not occurs. fact8: This wheellessness does not occurs. fact9: That instigating instancy does not occurs. fact10: This aponeuroticness is prevented by that the rustling fogsignal does not occurs and this immutableness does not occurs. fact11: That engaging does not happens. ; $hypothesis$ = This aponeuroticness happens. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That eyeshadow is not osteal.

¬{A}{c}

fact1: That eyeshadow is not non-osteal if this wienerwurst is not a companionableness. fact2: If that this deportee is unprincipled and it is unwilling does not hold then this wienerwurst is not a kind of a companionableness. fact3: If the fact that something is either a Eumeces or not a companionableness or both is false this thing is not osteal. fact4: The fact that this deportee is not principled and not non-osteal is not correct. fact5: The fact that this wienerwurst is a Lipscomb and handlesses pyromancy is wrong. fact6: This deportee is a kind of a companionableness if this wienerwurst is principled. fact7: This wienerwurst is osteal. fact8: This deportee is osteal if that eyeshadow is not unprincipled. fact9: This wienerwurst is not a companionableness if this deportee is willing. fact10: The Communist is osteal. fact11: That some person is a Eumeces and/or it is not a kind of a companionableness is false if it is not a Machiavellian. fact12: This wienerwurst is unprincipled if the fact that this deportee is not unwilling is correct. fact13: That this deportee is unprincipled and he is unwilling is wrong.

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

That eyeshadow is not osteal.

¬{A}{c}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That eyeshadow is not non-osteal if this wienerwurst is not a companionableness. fact2: If that this deportee is unprincipled and it is unwilling does not hold then this wienerwurst is not a kind of a companionableness. fact3: If the fact that something is either a Eumeces or not a companionableness or both is false this thing is not osteal. fact4: The fact that this deportee is not principled and not non-osteal is not correct. fact5: The fact that this wienerwurst is a Lipscomb and handlesses pyromancy is wrong. fact6: This deportee is a kind of a companionableness if this wienerwurst is principled. fact7: This wienerwurst is osteal. fact8: This deportee is osteal if that eyeshadow is not unprincipled. fact9: This wienerwurst is not a companionableness if this deportee is willing. fact10: The Communist is osteal. fact11: That some person is a Eumeces and/or it is not a kind of a companionableness is false if it is not a Machiavellian. fact12: This wienerwurst is unprincipled if the fact that this deportee is not unwilling is correct. fact13: That this deportee is unprincipled and he is unwilling is wrong. ; $hypothesis$ = That eyeshadow is not osteal. ; $proof$ =

fact2 & fact13 -> int1: This wienerwurst is not a companionableness.; int1 & fact1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

Let's assume that this shying does not occurs.

¬{A}

fact1: If this shying does not occurs then the fact that both that non-cladness and this incorrigibleness occurs is wrong. fact2: If that backflow occurs that corrigibleness does not occurs. fact3: The fact that that non-cladness and that corrigibleness occurs is false. fact4: That backflow leads to that this cladness does not occurs and that corrigibleness does not happens. fact5: That backflow occurs.

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$facts$ = fact1: If this shying does not occurs then the fact that both that non-cladness and this incorrigibleness occurs is wrong. fact2: If that backflow occurs that corrigibleness does not occurs. fact3: The fact that that non-cladness and that corrigibleness occurs is false. fact4: That backflow leads to that this cladness does not occurs and that corrigibleness does not happens. fact5: That backflow occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = Let's assume that this shying does not occurs. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that this shying does not occurs.; fact1 & assump1 -> int1: The fact that that that non-cladness and that non-corrigibleness happens is wrong is correct.; fact4 & fact5 -> int2: That non-cladness and this incorrigibleness happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: This is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

Either this wantoning does not happens or that leadeding melagra happens or both.

(¬{C} v {D})

fact1: That breakfasting Antwerp does not happens if that notthis rehearsing Weil but that breakfasting Antwerp occurs does not hold. fact2: Either this non-tetravalentness or the unappetizingness or both occurs. fact3: That that anictericness does not happens brings about that the patristicness does not happens and that extracellularness does not occurs. fact4: The fact that the fact that this rehearsing Weil does not happens but that breakfasting Antwerp occurs does not hold hold if this tabulation occurs. fact5: That the fact that this wantoning does not occurs and/or that leadeding melagra occurs is false if that crowding evilness does not occurs hold. fact6: This wantoning or that leadeding melagra or both occurs. fact7: The fact that this cesareanness does not happens and this rehearsing Weil does not happens is false. fact8: That crowding evilness happens. fact9: That crowding evilness does not occurs if that both that crowding evilness and this cesareanness happens is false. fact10: This non-extracellularness brings about that both this tabulation and this medicalness happens. fact11: That the fact that that crowding evilness and this cesareanness happens hold is incorrect if that breakfasting Antwerp does not happens. fact12: The fact that this wantoning does not occurs hold if that crowding evilness happens or that breakfasting Antwerp happens or both.

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

The fact that this wantoning does not occurs and/or that leadeding melagra occurs does not hold.

¬(¬{C} v {D})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That breakfasting Antwerp does not happens if that notthis rehearsing Weil but that breakfasting Antwerp occurs does not hold. fact2: Either this non-tetravalentness or the unappetizingness or both occurs. fact3: That that anictericness does not happens brings about that the patristicness does not happens and that extracellularness does not occurs. fact4: The fact that the fact that this rehearsing Weil does not happens but that breakfasting Antwerp occurs does not hold hold if this tabulation occurs. fact5: That the fact that this wantoning does not occurs and/or that leadeding melagra occurs is false if that crowding evilness does not occurs hold. fact6: This wantoning or that leadeding melagra or both occurs. fact7: The fact that this cesareanness does not happens and this rehearsing Weil does not happens is false. fact8: That crowding evilness happens. fact9: That crowding evilness does not occurs if that both that crowding evilness and this cesareanness happens is false. fact10: This non-extracellularness brings about that both this tabulation and this medicalness happens. fact11: That the fact that that crowding evilness and this cesareanness happens hold is incorrect if that breakfasting Antwerp does not happens. fact12: The fact that this wantoning does not occurs hold if that crowding evilness happens or that breakfasting Antwerp happens or both. ; $hypothesis$ = Either this wantoning does not happens or that leadeding melagra happens or both. ; $proof$ =

fact8 -> int1: That crowding evilness or that breakfasting Antwerp or both happens.; int1 & fact12 -> int2: This wantoning does not happens.; int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

The fact that there is somebody such that it is not absorptive is wrong.

¬((Ex): ¬{B}x)

fact1: Everything is not a kind of a Lully. fact2: That crowberry is not endomorphic. fact3: If that crowberry is not endomorphic and it does not plunder then that angelim is not absorptive. fact4: That crowberry is not endomorphic and the thing does not plunder.

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

The fact that that souther is curable thing that is not a pleasantness is true.

(¬{FU}{en} & ¬{CF}{en})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: Everything is not a kind of a Lully. fact2: That crowberry is not endomorphic. fact3: If that crowberry is not endomorphic and it does not plunder then that angelim is not absorptive. fact4: That crowberry is not endomorphic and the thing does not plunder. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that there is somebody such that it is not absorptive is wrong. ; $proof$ =

fact3 & fact4 -> int1: That angelim is not absorptive.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That banditry occurs.

{A}

fact1: The fact that notthat furnishing ureteritis but this coronation happens is incorrect if this jointing occurs. fact2: This dignifying logotype does not happens if that banditry does not happens but this jointing happens. fact3: If that kinking coccidiosis does not occurs that banditry does not occurs and/or this jointing occurs. fact4: That that down and the deluding Caviidae occurs does not hold. fact5: That that wedding does not happens and that kinking coccidiosis does not happens is triggered by this non-Bruneianness. fact6: Notthat banditry but this jointing occurs if the fact that that kinking coccidiosis does not occurs is correct. fact7: The fact that this jointing occurs is right. fact8: That that furnishing ureteritis happens is prevented by that that banditry does not happens. fact9: That Bruneianness does not occurs if the fact that both that Bruneianness and this Latvianness occurs is incorrect. fact10: That this skittering Mauritius happens is prevented by that shedding. fact11: If this skittering Mauritius does not occurs then the fact that the fact that that Bruneianness and this Latvianness occurs is incorrect hold.

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

Let's assume that that banditry does not happens.

¬{A}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: The fact that notthat furnishing ureteritis but this coronation happens is incorrect if this jointing occurs. fact2: This dignifying logotype does not happens if that banditry does not happens but this jointing happens. fact3: If that kinking coccidiosis does not occurs that banditry does not occurs and/or this jointing occurs. fact4: That that down and the deluding Caviidae occurs does not hold. fact5: That that wedding does not happens and that kinking coccidiosis does not happens is triggered by this non-Bruneianness. fact6: Notthat banditry but this jointing occurs if the fact that that kinking coccidiosis does not occurs is correct. fact7: The fact that this jointing occurs is right. fact8: That that furnishing ureteritis happens is prevented by that that banditry does not happens. fact9: That Bruneianness does not occurs if the fact that both that Bruneianness and this Latvianness occurs is incorrect. fact10: That this skittering Mauritius happens is prevented by that shedding. fact11: If this skittering Mauritius does not occurs then the fact that the fact that that Bruneianness and this Latvianness occurs is incorrect hold. ; $hypothesis$ = That banditry occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That the fact that both that non-unclearness and that non-ruggedness happens is not incorrect does not hold.

¬(¬{D} & ¬{E})

fact1: If the coasting does not happens then that the abasing Flemish does not happens and this palpation does not happens is wrong. fact2: That this receding occurs hold. fact3: The fact that both that non-lexicographicalness and that non-unfilledness occurs does not hold if the rotting does not happens. fact4: That mononucleateness happens and that dignifying portability happens. fact5: That both that non-unclearness and that non-ruggedness occurs is wrong if that this handstand does not happens is true. fact6: That the roofing does not happens is caused by that this Courting aching and the maturing happens. fact7: That that non-anarchisticness and this stiffening Marche occurs does not hold if that rushing naivete does not happens. fact8: That blurring occurs.

fact1: ¬{FM} -> ¬(¬{DS} & ¬{ET}) fact2: {B} fact3: ¬{JI} -> ¬(¬{HA} & ¬{CF}) fact4: ({BU} & {DE}) fact5: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{D} & ¬{E}) fact6: ({AH} & {GK}) -> ¬{K} fact7: ¬{BF} -> ¬(¬{GB} & {DT}) fact8: {A}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If the coasting does not happens then that the abasing Flemish does not happens and this palpation does not happens is wrong. fact2: That this receding occurs hold. fact3: The fact that both that non-lexicographicalness and that non-unfilledness occurs does not hold if the rotting does not happens. fact4: That mononucleateness happens and that dignifying portability happens. fact5: That both that non-unclearness and that non-ruggedness occurs is wrong if that this handstand does not happens is true. fact6: That the roofing does not happens is caused by that this Courting aching and the maturing happens. fact7: That that non-anarchisticness and this stiffening Marche occurs does not hold if that rushing naivete does not happens. fact8: That blurring occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = That the fact that both that non-unclearness and that non-ruggedness happens is not incorrect does not hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That financing rectocele happens.

{B}

fact1: This bodieding Hesiod does not happens. fact2: That financing rectocele is triggered by that that backing does not happens and the prefecture does not happens. fact3: The morning does not occurs and that invoking 8 does not occurs if this bodieding Hesiod occurs.

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

The morning does not happens and that invoking 8 does not occurs.

(¬{CR} & ¬{IF})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This bodieding Hesiod does not happens. fact2: That financing rectocele is triggered by that that backing does not happens and the prefecture does not happens. fact3: The morning does not occurs and that invoking 8 does not occurs if this bodieding Hesiod occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = That financing rectocele happens. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That that fatism occurs causes that that homologousness happens.

{A} -> {C}

fact1: The hassling Jong occurs if the hypophysialness occurs. fact2: If the stipendiariness happens that impalpableness happens. fact3: The offsideness occurs. fact4: That that chucking gulden happens yields that that vexation occurs. fact5: If the fact that this determining Deuteronomy does not happens and that disappointment does not occurs is wrong this determining Deuteronomy happens. fact6: The forming listlessness happens. fact7: The demagogicalness happens. fact8: If that fatism does not occurs the fact that this determining Deuteronomy does not happens and that disappointment does not occurs does not hold. fact9: That comparableness occurs. fact10: This calcedness happens. fact11: The stifling proctitis occurs. fact12: The Dionysia occurs. fact13: That unapologeticness occurs if the compressing Sipuncula happens. fact14: The fact that that voting occurs is correct. fact15: That the tugging does not happens is prevented by that this vanilla occurs. fact16: That lecturing occurs if this pup occurs. fact17: The frizzling Granth brings about that that gustatoriness happens. fact18: The restoring inattentiveness happens. fact19: If this Ac occurs then the soling numbness happens. fact20: If that disappointment occurs that homologousness happens.

fact1: {AJ} -> {AA} fact2: {HE} -> {CL} fact3: {BO} fact4: {EP} -> {BM} fact5: ¬(¬{BI} & ¬{B}) -> {BI} fact6: {EK} fact7: {EJ} fact8: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{BI} & ¬{B}) fact9: {CN} fact10: {DI} fact11: {EQ} fact12: {AD} fact13: {DQ} -> {EM} fact14: {DM} fact15: {DK} -> {BF} fact16: {DS} -> {DB} fact17: {FM} -> {HG} fact18: {BP} fact19: {IT} -> {HA} fact20: {B} -> {C}

This determining Deuteronomy happens.

{BI}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: The hassling Jong occurs if the hypophysialness occurs. fact2: If the stipendiariness happens that impalpableness happens. fact3: The offsideness occurs. fact4: That that chucking gulden happens yields that that vexation occurs. fact5: If the fact that this determining Deuteronomy does not happens and that disappointment does not occurs is wrong this determining Deuteronomy happens. fact6: The forming listlessness happens. fact7: The demagogicalness happens. fact8: If that fatism does not occurs the fact that this determining Deuteronomy does not happens and that disappointment does not occurs does not hold. fact9: That comparableness occurs. fact10: This calcedness happens. fact11: The stifling proctitis occurs. fact12: The Dionysia occurs. fact13: That unapologeticness occurs if the compressing Sipuncula happens. fact14: The fact that that voting occurs is correct. fact15: That the tugging does not happens is prevented by that this vanilla occurs. fact16: That lecturing occurs if this pup occurs. fact17: The frizzling Granth brings about that that gustatoriness happens. fact18: The restoring inattentiveness happens. fact19: If this Ac occurs then the soling numbness happens. fact20: If that disappointment occurs that homologousness happens. ; $hypothesis$ = That that fatism occurs causes that that homologousness happens. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

This lyre sublimates baffled.

{B}{aa}

fact1: If this lyre is not a kind of a northern the person vitriols kegful. fact2: If the fact that this lyre is a Neoceratodus and a sounding does not hold it is not a northern. fact3: Some person is neonatal and is presidential if it is not a maximum. fact4: If that the fact that this lyre does not earth steepness and is a forethought is false is right then this lyre is not a flux. fact5: This lyre is not a yobibit. fact6: That this lyre is a Neoceratodus and is a kind of a sounding is incorrect. fact7: That this claxon is long and it muddies bewitchment is false. fact8: The harness is a kind of Peloponnesian person that is a kind of a Tayassu. fact9: If this lyre is not a Neoceratodus this lyre is a northern and that sublimates baffled. fact10: Something that is not a flux is not a kind of a sounding and does not motor Rameau. fact11: If something is baccate and vitriols kegful then that does not sublimate baffled. fact12: If something that is not a kind of a sounding does not motor Rameau then it is not a Neoceratodus.

fact1: ¬{A}{aa} -> {AB}{aa} fact2: ¬({C}{aa} & {D}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{aa} fact3: (x): ¬{BB}x -> ({DM}x & {AO}x) fact4: ¬(¬{G}{aa} & {H}{aa}) -> ¬{F}{aa} fact5: ¬{BD}{aa} fact6: ¬({C}{aa} & {D}{aa}) fact7: ¬({BM}{br} & {GT}{br}) fact8: ({IQ}{cd} & {I}{cd}) fact9: ¬{C}{aa} -> ({A}{aa} & {B}{aa}) fact10: (x): ¬{F}x -> (¬{D}x & ¬{E}x) fact11: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x fact12: (x): (¬{D}x & ¬{E}x) -> ¬{C}x

This lyre sublimates baffled.

{B}{aa}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If this lyre is not a kind of a northern the person vitriols kegful. fact2: If the fact that this lyre is a Neoceratodus and a sounding does not hold it is not a northern. fact3: Some person is neonatal and is presidential if it is not a maximum. fact4: If that the fact that this lyre does not earth steepness and is a forethought is false is right then this lyre is not a flux. fact5: This lyre is not a yobibit. fact6: That this lyre is a Neoceratodus and is a kind of a sounding is incorrect. fact7: That this claxon is long and it muddies bewitchment is false. fact8: The harness is a kind of Peloponnesian person that is a kind of a Tayassu. fact9: If this lyre is not a Neoceratodus this lyre is a northern and that sublimates baffled. fact10: Something that is not a flux is not a kind of a sounding and does not motor Rameau. fact11: If something is baccate and vitriols kegful then that does not sublimate baffled. fact12: If something that is not a kind of a sounding does not motor Rameau then it is not a Neoceratodus. ; $hypothesis$ = This lyre sublimates baffled. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That holothurian is a Tennessee.

{B}{b}

fact1: This Triangle is not Anglophobic. fact2: If the fact that the conscript mutters shocked and is not Demosthenic is correct then that this Triangle is Demosthenic is true. fact3: The fact that that trousseau is a Tennessee is true. fact4: This Triangle impinges LLud. fact5: If this Triangle is not a Tennessee then that holothurian does not apotheose shine and is unauthorised. fact6: The fact that that holothurian is not a kind of a Nevis is incorrect. fact7: If someone is a solmisation she mutters shocked and she is non-Demosthenic. fact8: Anastasia is a Tennessee. fact9: If this Triangle is not unauthorised then that holothurian is not a beauteousness but the person apotheoses shine. fact10: Some man is a Tennessee if that it apotheoses shine is true. fact11: This Triangle is both not a beauteousness and a Tennessee if that holothurian is not unauthorised. fact12: If this Triangle is unauthorised then that this gal apotheoses shine and is not a Tennessee does not hold. fact13: This Triangle does not apotheose shine if that holothurian is authorized. fact14: The storax is not a kind of a Tennessee. fact15: If something is unauthorised then this is a beauteousness. fact16: This Triangle is a kind of a Tennessee. fact17: If this Triangle is not a beauteousness then that holothurian is not unauthorised but it apotheoses shine. fact18: If this Triangle is not non-Demosthenic then that holothurian is not a kind of a Tennessee but that person is unauthorised. fact19: This Triangle does apotheose shine if it is unauthorised.

fact1: ¬{AN}{a} fact2: ({D}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) -> {C}{a} fact3: {B}{bn} fact4: {H}{a} fact5: ¬{B}{a} -> (¬{AB}{b} & {A}{b}) fact6: {HM}{b} fact7: (x): {E}x -> ({D}x & ¬{C}x) fact8: {B}{dk} fact9: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) fact10: (x): {AB}x -> {B}x fact11: ¬{A}{b} -> (¬{AA}{a} & {B}{a}) fact12: {A}{a} -> ¬({AB}{ce} & ¬{B}{ce}) fact13: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬{AB}{a} fact14: ¬{B}{ea} fact15: (x): {A}x -> {AA}x fact16: {B}{a} fact17: ¬{AA}{a} -> (¬{A}{b} & {AB}{b}) fact18: {C}{a} -> (¬{B}{b} & {A}{b}) fact19: {A}{a} -> {AB}{a}

This gal does not apotheose shine.

¬{AB}{ce}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This Triangle is not Anglophobic. fact2: If the fact that the conscript mutters shocked and is not Demosthenic is correct then that this Triangle is Demosthenic is true. fact3: The fact that that trousseau is a Tennessee is true. fact4: This Triangle impinges LLud. fact5: If this Triangle is not a Tennessee then that holothurian does not apotheose shine and is unauthorised. fact6: The fact that that holothurian is not a kind of a Nevis is incorrect. fact7: If someone is a solmisation she mutters shocked and she is non-Demosthenic. fact8: Anastasia is a Tennessee. fact9: If this Triangle is not unauthorised then that holothurian is not a beauteousness but the person apotheoses shine. fact10: Some man is a Tennessee if that it apotheoses shine is true. fact11: This Triangle is both not a beauteousness and a Tennessee if that holothurian is not unauthorised. fact12: If this Triangle is unauthorised then that this gal apotheoses shine and is not a Tennessee does not hold. fact13: This Triangle does not apotheose shine if that holothurian is authorized. fact14: The storax is not a kind of a Tennessee. fact15: If something is unauthorised then this is a beauteousness. fact16: This Triangle is a kind of a Tennessee. fact17: If this Triangle is not a beauteousness then that holothurian is not unauthorised but it apotheoses shine. fact18: If this Triangle is not non-Demosthenic then that holothurian is not a kind of a Tennessee but that person is unauthorised. fact19: This Triangle does apotheose shine if it is unauthorised. ; $hypothesis$ = That holothurian is a Tennessee. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

The fact that that horariness does not occurs and this pommelling fullness does not happens is not true.

¬(¬{B} & ¬{A})

fact1: That bawling doggedness does not happens if the fact that this thermal occurs and this fleetinging happens is incorrect. fact2: That republidoes not happens if the fact that that republican occurs and that Rastafarian occurs does not hold. fact3: That notthe embarrassment but the asphalting activeness happens does not hold. fact4: That analyticness does not happens if that notthat bryophyticness but that analyticness happens does not hold. fact5: This countersubversion brings about that this outflow does not happens. fact6: If this transplanting happens then the fact that that strangling manipulability but notthat horariness happens does not hold. fact7: This speckling percept yields this countersubversion. fact8: This synovialness and this speckling percept occurs if the no does not happens. fact9: If the fact that that strangling manipulability but notthat horariness happens is incorrect this synovialness does not happens. fact10: That crossbreed does not occurs but that warping occurs if this soundness happens. fact11: If that analyticness does not occurs then the fact that both this thermal and this fleetinging happens is incorrect. fact12: That this transplanting occurs and that strangling manipulability does not happens is caused by that that bawling doggedness does not occurs. fact13: If this outflow does not occurs that notthat bryophyticness but that analyticness happens is false. fact14: The oddness but notthe no occurs if that republidoes not occurs. fact15: The fact that that republican occurs and that Rastafarian occurs does not hold if that crossbreed does not occurs. fact16: The fact that this pommelling fullness does not happens and that strangling manipulability does not occurs is correct.

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

This synovialness does not happens and that delimiting Agha does not happens.

(¬{M} & ¬{FL})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That bawling doggedness does not happens if the fact that this thermal occurs and this fleetinging happens is incorrect. fact2: That republidoes not happens if the fact that that republican occurs and that Rastafarian occurs does not hold. fact3: That notthe embarrassment but the asphalting activeness happens does not hold. fact4: That analyticness does not happens if that notthat bryophyticness but that analyticness happens does not hold. fact5: This countersubversion brings about that this outflow does not happens. fact6: If this transplanting happens then the fact that that strangling manipulability but notthat horariness happens does not hold. fact7: This speckling percept yields this countersubversion. fact8: This synovialness and this speckling percept occurs if the no does not happens. fact9: If the fact that that strangling manipulability but notthat horariness happens is incorrect this synovialness does not happens. fact10: That crossbreed does not occurs but that warping occurs if this soundness happens. fact11: If that analyticness does not occurs then the fact that both this thermal and this fleetinging happens is incorrect. fact12: That this transplanting occurs and that strangling manipulability does not happens is caused by that that bawling doggedness does not occurs. fact13: If this outflow does not occurs that notthat bryophyticness but that analyticness happens is false. fact14: The oddness but notthe no occurs if that republidoes not occurs. fact15: The fact that that republican occurs and that Rastafarian occurs does not hold if that crossbreed does not occurs. fact16: The fact that this pommelling fullness does not happens and that strangling manipulability does not occurs is correct. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that that horariness does not occurs and this pommelling fullness does not happens is not true. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That dynamo is a bravery.

{B}{b}

fact1: If the fact that that either this hammerhead is fibreoptic or this thing is not a bravery or both is right does not hold that dynamo does not houseclean. fact2: This hammerhead is not fibreoptic. fact3: Some man is an expedient and is not sigmoid if he/she is not a candor. fact4: That this hammerhead is fibreoptic or is not a bravery or both is incorrect. fact5: This hammerhead does not houseclean if that that dynamo is a bravery or not fibreoptic or both does not hold. fact6: That toetoe is not a kind of a bravery. fact7: This hammerhead does not knight monetarism. fact8: That dynamo is not a bravery if that this hammerhead is not non-fibreoptic and/or does not houseclean is not right. fact9: If the fact that that dynamo is fibreoptic or it does not houseclean or both is incorrect this hammerhead is not a bravery. fact10: That this hammerhead is fibreoptic and/or does not houseclean is not right. fact11: That this hammerhead does not houseclean if that that dynamo is fibreoptic and/or that is not a bravery is not correct is correct. fact12: If somebody is a kind of an expedient that person is a bravery.

fact1: ¬({AA}{a} v ¬{B}{a}) -> ¬{AB}{b} fact2: ¬{AA}{a} fact3: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({A}x & ¬{C}x) fact4: ¬({AA}{a} v ¬{B}{a}) fact5: ¬({B}{b} v ¬{AA}{b}) -> ¬{AB}{a} fact6: ¬{B}{ir} fact7: ¬{DT}{a} fact8: ¬({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} fact9: ¬({AA}{b} v ¬{AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} fact10: ¬({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) fact11: ¬({AA}{b} v ¬{B}{b}) -> ¬{AB}{a} fact12: (x): {A}x -> {B}x

That dynamo is a bravery.

{B}{b}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If the fact that that either this hammerhead is fibreoptic or this thing is not a bravery or both is right does not hold that dynamo does not houseclean. fact2: This hammerhead is not fibreoptic. fact3: Some man is an expedient and is not sigmoid if he/she is not a candor. fact4: That this hammerhead is fibreoptic or is not a bravery or both is incorrect. fact5: This hammerhead does not houseclean if that that dynamo is a bravery or not fibreoptic or both does not hold. fact6: That toetoe is not a kind of a bravery. fact7: This hammerhead does not knight monetarism. fact8: That dynamo is not a bravery if that this hammerhead is not non-fibreoptic and/or does not houseclean is not right. fact9: If the fact that that dynamo is fibreoptic or it does not houseclean or both is incorrect this hammerhead is not a bravery. fact10: That this hammerhead is fibreoptic and/or does not houseclean is not right. fact11: That this hammerhead does not houseclean if that that dynamo is fibreoptic and/or that is not a bravery is not correct is correct. fact12: If somebody is a kind of an expedient that person is a bravery. ; $hypothesis$ = That dynamo is a bravery. ; $proof$ =

fact8 & fact10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That deoxyephedrine does not writhis Vespula.

¬{B}{c}

fact1: This surgeonfish does not ponder objectivity. fact2: This surgeonfish does not relegate Picasso if that this surgeonfish is a kind of a hypercalciuria that does shine GHz does not hold. fact3: If this surgeonfish does not ponder objectivity then that SEAL does not writhis Vespula. fact4: If that SEAL is not a hypercalciuria or it is not postganglionic or both this surgeonfish is not postganglionic. fact5: If the fact that this surgeonfish relegates Picasso or it ponders objectivity or both is false that this karakul does not writhis Vespula is true. fact6: That deoxyephedrine writhes Vespula but the thing is not postganglionic if that SEAL does not writhes Vespula. fact7: this objectivity does not ponder surgeonfish. fact8: The fact that this surgeonfish does ponder objectivity and it is postganglionic is false if that this surgeonfish does not relegate Picasso is true. fact9: If something is not postganglionic the fact that this thing relegates Picasso and/or this thing ponders objectivity does not hold. fact10: That SEAL either is not a kind of a hypercalciuria or is not postganglionic or both if that deoxyephedrine shines GHz.

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

That deoxyephedrine does not writhis Vespula.

¬{B}{c}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This surgeonfish does not ponder objectivity. fact2: This surgeonfish does not relegate Picasso if that this surgeonfish is a kind of a hypercalciuria that does shine GHz does not hold. fact3: If this surgeonfish does not ponder objectivity then that SEAL does not writhis Vespula. fact4: If that SEAL is not a hypercalciuria or it is not postganglionic or both this surgeonfish is not postganglionic. fact5: If the fact that this surgeonfish relegates Picasso or it ponders objectivity or both is false that this karakul does not writhis Vespula is true. fact6: That deoxyephedrine writhes Vespula but the thing is not postganglionic if that SEAL does not writhes Vespula. fact7: this objectivity does not ponder surgeonfish. fact8: The fact that this surgeonfish does ponder objectivity and it is postganglionic is false if that this surgeonfish does not relegate Picasso is true. fact9: If something is not postganglionic the fact that this thing relegates Picasso and/or this thing ponders objectivity does not hold. fact10: That SEAL either is not a kind of a hypercalciuria or is not postganglionic or both if that deoxyephedrine shines GHz. ; $hypothesis$ = That deoxyephedrine does not writhis Vespula. ; $proof$ =

fact3 & fact1 -> int1: That SEAL does not writhis Vespula.; int1 & fact6 -> int2: That deoxyephedrine writhes Vespula and is not postganglionic.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That angering eighties does not occurs.

¬{C}

fact1: That arthroscopy does not occurs if this caruncularness does not happens. fact2: If the fact that both that angering eighties and that unshockableness occurs is not false then this anathema does not happens. fact3: This palatal happens. fact4: That angering eighties is prevented by that this anathema does not occurs and/or that angering eighties does not happens. fact5: That this palatal occurs yields that this anathema happens. fact6: That this anathema happens prevents that that angering eighties does not occurs. fact7: If that arthroscopy does not occurs that angering eighties and that unshockableness occurs. fact8: If that this palatal does not happens is correct then either this anathema does not occurs or that angering eighties does not happens or both.

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

The fact that this vomiting occurs hold.

{BH}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That arthroscopy does not occurs if this caruncularness does not happens. fact2: If the fact that both that angering eighties and that unshockableness occurs is not false then this anathema does not happens. fact3: This palatal happens. fact4: That angering eighties is prevented by that this anathema does not occurs and/or that angering eighties does not happens. fact5: That this palatal occurs yields that this anathema happens. fact6: That this anathema happens prevents that that angering eighties does not occurs. fact7: If that arthroscopy does not occurs that angering eighties and that unshockableness occurs. fact8: If that this palatal does not happens is correct then either this anathema does not occurs or that angering eighties does not happens or both. ; $hypothesis$ = That angering eighties does not occurs. ; $proof$ =

fact5 & fact3 -> int1: This anathema occurs.; int1 & fact6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

This liberalist is a Planera or it tots jauntiness or both.

({A}{a} v {B}{a})

fact1: The fact that someone is a calyx but it is not South does not hold if that it does not answer dialectology hold. fact2: This polyester registers if the hatch registers. fact3: That hairnet is a kind of bipolar man that is a Onopordon. fact4: The conservationist is a Planera and tots jauntiness if this liberalist is not a Cyrillic. fact5: this jauntiness tots liberalist. fact6: If some man that is bipolar stains Cercosporella then she does not answer dialectology. fact7: That hairnet is a peevishness if this polyester registers. fact8: If somebody is a peevishness then it does stain Cercosporella and it does not joint Koln. fact9: If that that hairnet is a calyx but he/she is not South is wrong this liberalist is not a Cyrillic. fact10: The hatch does register.

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

The conservationist is a Planera.

{A}{il}

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

$facts$ = fact1: The fact that someone is a calyx but it is not South does not hold if that it does not answer dialectology hold. fact2: This polyester registers if the hatch registers. fact3: That hairnet is a kind of bipolar man that is a Onopordon. fact4: The conservationist is a Planera and tots jauntiness if this liberalist is not a Cyrillic. fact5: this jauntiness tots liberalist. fact6: If some man that is bipolar stains Cercosporella then she does not answer dialectology. fact7: That hairnet is a peevishness if this polyester registers. fact8: If somebody is a peevishness then it does stain Cercosporella and it does not joint Koln. fact9: If that that hairnet is a calyx but he/she is not South is wrong this liberalist is not a Cyrillic. fact10: The hatch does register. ; $hypothesis$ = This liberalist is a Planera or it tots jauntiness or both. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

If this trencher is a fulsomeness then it is a fulsomeness and it is not mesial.

{A}{a} -> ({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a})

fact1: If this trencher is a disaffirmation then that this Sr does colour Giotto and is non-mesial is not true. fact2: That sire is not a fulsomeness. fact3: This trencher does organize Keb but it is not a Trogonidae. fact4: The foregrounding is mesial. fact5: The fact that something theologizes or is not a disaffirmation or both is wrong if this does not sample rawness. fact6: This trencher dips. fact7: If that someone is a kind of a botany and she/he is coordinative is incorrect then she/he does not sample rawness. fact8: This trencher is not a Interlaken. fact9: This trencher is a fulsomeness that is mesial if that is a fulsomeness. fact10: This trencher is not mesial. fact11: That clockmaker is not mesial. fact12: The fact that some person is not a disaffirmation but it theologizes does not hold if it does not sample rawness. fact13: The ministry is not a fulsomeness. fact14: If the fact that this trencher theologizes and/or it is not a disaffirmation does not hold that elkhound does not colour Giotto. fact15: The erotic is mesial. fact16: This trencher is a Schomburgkia but she/he is not a putrescence. fact17: Somebody is not non-mesial and the person is a fulsomeness if the person does not colour Giotto.

fact1: {D}{a} -> ¬({C}{gs} & ¬{B}{gs}) fact2: ¬{A}{eu} fact3: ({GI}{a} & ¬{HT}{a}) fact4: {B}{fg} fact5: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬({E}x v ¬{D}x) fact6: {DS}{a} fact7: (x): ¬({H}x & {G}x) -> ¬{F}x fact8: ¬{EP}{a} fact9: {A}{a} -> ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) fact10: ¬{B}{a} fact11: ¬{B}{it} fact12: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & {E}x) fact13: ¬{A}{ce} fact14: ¬({E}{a} v ¬{D}{a}) -> ¬{C}{hj} fact15: {B}{cd} fact16: ({AT}{a} & ¬{HL}{a}) fact17: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & {A}x)

That elkhound is mesial.

{B}{hj}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If this trencher is a disaffirmation then that this Sr does colour Giotto and is non-mesial is not true. fact2: That sire is not a fulsomeness. fact3: This trencher does organize Keb but it is not a Trogonidae. fact4: The foregrounding is mesial. fact5: The fact that something theologizes or is not a disaffirmation or both is wrong if this does not sample rawness. fact6: This trencher dips. fact7: If that someone is a kind of a botany and she/he is coordinative is incorrect then she/he does not sample rawness. fact8: This trencher is not a Interlaken. fact9: This trencher is a fulsomeness that is mesial if that is a fulsomeness. fact10: This trencher is not mesial. fact11: That clockmaker is not mesial. fact12: The fact that some person is not a disaffirmation but it theologizes does not hold if it does not sample rawness. fact13: The ministry is not a fulsomeness. fact14: If the fact that this trencher theologizes and/or it is not a disaffirmation does not hold that elkhound does not colour Giotto. fact15: The erotic is mesial. fact16: This trencher is a Schomburgkia but she/he is not a putrescence. fact17: Somebody is not non-mesial and the person is a fulsomeness if the person does not colour Giotto. ; $hypothesis$ = If this trencher is a fulsomeness then it is a fulsomeness and it is not mesial. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that this trencher is a kind of a fulsomeness.; assump1 & fact10 -> int1: This trencher is both a fulsomeness and non-mesial.; [assump1] & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

The fact that that teazel is not an anguish but the one is Brobdingnagian does not hold.

¬(¬{D}{b} & {C}{b})

fact1: The fact that that teazel is not an anguish but it is a beginning is incorrect. fact2: This nib is a parenthetical and he/she is a kind of a beginning. fact3: That that teazel is an anguish and it is Brobdingnagian does not hold if this nib is a parenthetical. fact4: The fact that that teazel is an anguish and is Brobdingnagian does not hold. fact5: That this nib is a beginning is not false.

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: The fact that that teazel is not an anguish but it is a beginning is incorrect. fact2: This nib is a parenthetical and he/she is a kind of a beginning. fact3: That that teazel is an anguish and it is Brobdingnagian does not hold if this nib is a parenthetical. fact4: The fact that that teazel is an anguish and is Brobdingnagian does not hold. fact5: That this nib is a beginning is not false. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that that teazel is not an anguish but the one is Brobdingnagian does not hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

The fact that this Bermudian fouls Kennelly hold.

{D}{b}

fact1: This Bermudian is effective if that handline is not non-Coleridgean. fact2: That handline upchucks. fact3: If the fact that someone is not a Alisma but he is effective does not hold he is not Coleridgean. fact4: If that handline upchucks then that handline is Coleridgean. fact5: That licenser is not Coleridgean if that that handline does not foul Kennelly and is a Alisma is false. fact6: The fact that something does not foul Kennelly and is a Alisma is wrong if this thing borders incalescence. fact7: That some person fouls Kennelly if this person is effective hold.

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

That licenser is not ineffective.

{C}{ab}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This Bermudian is effective if that handline is not non-Coleridgean. fact2: That handline upchucks. fact3: If the fact that someone is not a Alisma but he is effective does not hold he is not Coleridgean. fact4: If that handline upchucks then that handline is Coleridgean. fact5: That licenser is not Coleridgean if that that handline does not foul Kennelly and is a Alisma is false. fact6: The fact that something does not foul Kennelly and is a Alisma is wrong if this thing borders incalescence. fact7: That some person fouls Kennelly if this person is effective hold. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that this Bermudian fouls Kennelly hold. ; $proof$ =

fact4 & fact2 -> int1: That that handline is Coleridgean hold.; int1 & fact1 -> int2: This Bermudian is effective.; fact7 -> int3: This Bermudian fouls Kennelly if it is not ineffective.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

This rendering does not unwrap ton.

¬{B}{a}

fact1: Something is both not sublunary and not a swank if it is a kind of a stephead. fact2: If this rendering does not buffet Tilletia then this rendering does sob. fact3: That this sunbeam is not canicular but it is a stephead is wrong if that county does not slimed. fact4: If that this sunbeam is not canicular but a stephead is wrong that coffeepot is a kind of a stephead. fact5: Jacky does not unwrap ton if Jacky is socioeconomic and a perpendicular. fact6: That constrictor buffets Tilletia and does mull Democritus if the fact that that coffeepot is not sublunary hold. fact7: This rendering does not buffet Tilletia. fact8: This rendering is not a Chelyabinsk and sobs if it does not buffet Tilletia. fact9: This rendering does unwrap ton if that constrictor buffets Tilletia. fact10: that Tilletia does not buffet rendering.

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

This rendering unwraps ton.

{B}{a}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: Something is both not sublunary and not a swank if it is a kind of a stephead. fact2: If this rendering does not buffet Tilletia then this rendering does sob. fact3: That this sunbeam is not canicular but it is a stephead is wrong if that county does not slimed. fact4: If that this sunbeam is not canicular but a stephead is wrong that coffeepot is a kind of a stephead. fact5: Jacky does not unwrap ton if Jacky is socioeconomic and a perpendicular. fact6: That constrictor buffets Tilletia and does mull Democritus if the fact that that coffeepot is not sublunary hold. fact7: This rendering does not buffet Tilletia. fact8: This rendering is not a Chelyabinsk and sobs if it does not buffet Tilletia. fact9: This rendering does unwrap ton if that constrictor buffets Tilletia. fact10: that Tilletia does not buffet rendering. ; $hypothesis$ = This rendering does not unwrap ton. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

This syndicalist is a playtime.

{D}{c}

fact1: That this syndicalist is a kind of a playtime is correct if this stoppage does eliminate mindfulness. fact2: This barbwire does leave Dracenaceae and this thing is precise.

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

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That this syndicalist is a kind of a playtime is correct if this stoppage does eliminate mindfulness. fact2: This barbwire does leave Dracenaceae and this thing is precise. ; $hypothesis$ = This syndicalist is a playtime. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

The fact that there exists something such that if that it attires manifesto hold then it does not labor ambivalence and does not surge radicalism is not right.

¬((Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x))

fact1: If this forestay attires manifesto then that thing does not labor ambivalence and does not surge radicalism. fact2: There is something such that if it attires manifesto it does not surge radicalism. fact3: The fact that something does not plate Rubicon and does not rush Tiarella is not incorrect if it is unaltered. fact4: There is something such that if it does attire manifesto it labors ambivalence and it does not surge radicalism. fact5: This forestay labors ambivalence and does not surge radicalism if this forestay attires manifesto.

fact1: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) fact2: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬{AB}x fact3: (x): {GP}x -> (¬{IM}x & ¬{CP}x) fact4: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) fact5: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})

This vardenafil does not plate Rubicon and does not rush Tiarella if this vardenafil is unaltered.

{GP}{ia} -> (¬{IM}{ia} & ¬{CP}{ia})

DISPROVED

PROVED

DISPROVED

PROVED

$facts$ = fact1: If this forestay attires manifesto then that thing does not labor ambivalence and does not surge radicalism. fact2: There is something such that if it attires manifesto it does not surge radicalism. fact3: The fact that something does not plate Rubicon and does not rush Tiarella is not incorrect if it is unaltered. fact4: There is something such that if it does attire manifesto it labors ambivalence and it does not surge radicalism. fact5: This forestay labors ambivalence and does not surge radicalism if this forestay attires manifesto. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that there exists something such that if that it attires manifesto hold then it does not labor ambivalence and does not surge radicalism is not right. ; $proof$ =

fact1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That catabolicness does not happens.

¬{D}

fact1: If this nativity occurs the saying Hals occurs. fact2: That that analog does not occurs causes that this estrogenicness occurs and this nativity happens. fact3: If this diving does not happens then that unsentness occurs or that motionalness occurs or both. fact4: That that vesting frivolousness occurs and this accenting occurs is brought about by that that inexactness does not occurs. fact5: That analog occurs. fact6: If that this sultriness happens and this syncretisticness happens is false then the nightcap does not happens. fact7: Both that grasping and this intersecting occurs. fact8: That the unpropitiousness does not happens and this offering happens does not hold if this albinisticness occurs. fact9: That blending occurs. fact10: This scavenging Tulostomatales does not happens if this echoing occurs and this peeing Hoth does not occurs. fact11: If the fact that that analog does not occurs and/or this nativity happens is false then that catabolicness does not occurs. fact12: If the fact that that grasping does not happens is correct then notthe saying Hals but that noisiness occurs. fact13: This nativity and that analog happens. fact14: If the nightcap does not happens this diving does not happens. fact15: That inexactness does not happens if that notthis ragging O.K. but that inexactness happens is not correct. fact16: That this intersecting does not occurs is correct if that notthe unpropitiousness but this offering occurs is incorrect. fact17: That this accenting happens causes that this echoing but notthis peeing Hoth occurs. fact18: That catabolicness occurs if the saying Hals happens. fact19: The fact that both this sultriness and this syncretisticness occurs is incorrect if this scavenging Tulostomatales does not occurs. fact20: If this intersecting does not happens that that grasping does not happens hold.

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

This estrogenicness occurs.

{CU}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If this nativity occurs the saying Hals occurs. fact2: That that analog does not occurs causes that this estrogenicness occurs and this nativity happens. fact3: If this diving does not happens then that unsentness occurs or that motionalness occurs or both. fact4: That that vesting frivolousness occurs and this accenting occurs is brought about by that that inexactness does not occurs. fact5: That analog occurs. fact6: If that this sultriness happens and this syncretisticness happens is false then the nightcap does not happens. fact7: Both that grasping and this intersecting occurs. fact8: That the unpropitiousness does not happens and this offering happens does not hold if this albinisticness occurs. fact9: That blending occurs. fact10: This scavenging Tulostomatales does not happens if this echoing occurs and this peeing Hoth does not occurs. fact11: If the fact that that analog does not occurs and/or this nativity happens is false then that catabolicness does not occurs. fact12: If the fact that that grasping does not happens is correct then notthe saying Hals but that noisiness occurs. fact13: This nativity and that analog happens. fact14: If the nightcap does not happens this diving does not happens. fact15: That inexactness does not happens if that notthis ragging O.K. but that inexactness happens is not correct. fact16: That this intersecting does not occurs is correct if that notthe unpropitiousness but this offering occurs is incorrect. fact17: That this accenting happens causes that this echoing but notthis peeing Hoth occurs. fact18: That catabolicness occurs if the saying Hals happens. fact19: The fact that both this sultriness and this syncretisticness occurs is incorrect if this scavenging Tulostomatales does not occurs. fact20: If this intersecting does not happens that that grasping does not happens hold. ; $hypothesis$ = That catabolicness does not happens. ; $proof$ =

fact13 -> int1: This nativity happens.; int1 & fact1 -> int2: The saying Hals happens.; int2 & fact18 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

The fact that that dispraise and that thumping occurs does not hold.

¬({B} & {C})

fact1: That thumping occurs and this pining occurs. fact2: The cerousness occurs and that dispraise occurs.

fact1: ({C} & {D}) fact2: ({A} & {B})

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$facts$ = fact1: That thumping occurs and this pining occurs. fact2: The cerousness occurs and that dispraise occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that that dispraise and that thumping occurs does not hold. ; $proof$ =

fact2 -> int1: That dispraise occurs.; fact1 -> int2: That thumping occurs.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That maple is bismuthal.

{D}{b}

fact1: This carpeting is not a kind of a faithful. fact2: That lazaretto is a kind of a snit if that lazaretto is a beaming. fact3: If this carpeting is not a local the fact that that maple is not a kind of a beaming and it is not a faithful is false. fact4: If somebody is a local this person is bismuthal. fact5: If something is a beaming then that is a kind of a local. fact6: If this carpeting is not a kind of a faithful then that maple is a beaming.

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

That maple is non-bismuthal.

¬{D}{b}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This carpeting is not a kind of a faithful. fact2: That lazaretto is a kind of a snit if that lazaretto is a beaming. fact3: If this carpeting is not a local the fact that that maple is not a kind of a beaming and it is not a faithful is false. fact4: If somebody is a local this person is bismuthal. fact5: If something is a beaming then that is a kind of a local. fact6: If this carpeting is not a kind of a faithful then that maple is a beaming. ; $hypothesis$ = That maple is bismuthal. ; $proof$ =

fact6 & fact1 -> int1: That maple is a kind of a beaming.; fact5 -> int2: If that maple is a beaming then that maple is a local.; int1 & int2 -> int3: That maple is a local.; fact4 -> int4: That maple is bismuthal if he is a local.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

This achromatin is unaddressed.

{C}{c}

fact1: This achromatin is unaddressed if that artilleryman is a kind of an octahedron. fact2: That that artilleryman is an octahedron is true if that ringmaster wallpapers Qaeda. fact3: That ringmaster wallpapers Qaeda. fact4: the Qaeda wallpapers ringmaster. fact5: The fact that if the fact that somebody does wallpaper Qaeda and is an octahedron is false it is not unaddressed hold.

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

The fact that this achromatin is addressed hold.

¬{C}{c}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This achromatin is unaddressed if that artilleryman is a kind of an octahedron. fact2: That that artilleryman is an octahedron is true if that ringmaster wallpapers Qaeda. fact3: That ringmaster wallpapers Qaeda. fact4: the Qaeda wallpapers ringmaster. fact5: The fact that if the fact that somebody does wallpaper Qaeda and is an octahedron is false it is not unaddressed hold. ; $hypothesis$ = This achromatin is unaddressed. ; $proof$ =

fact2 & fact3 -> int1: That artilleryman is an octahedron.; int1 & fact1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

This bookmark does not drudge archaeozoic.

¬{C}{a}

fact1: This bookmark kibbitzes Urochorda and it is a kind of a Ruhr. fact2: If the fact that that jackfruit is not a Ruhr and is not nonmagnetic does not hold then the Francophobe does not kibbitz Urochorda. fact3: This bookmark does not drudge archaeozoic if the Francophobe does not kibbitz Urochorda. fact4: Somebody does drudge archaeozoic if the one is a kind of a Ruhr. fact5: This Sepia drudges archaeozoic. fact6: Something is not a kind of a Arecidae if that either it is absorbable or it is a hypocellularity or both is wrong. fact7: If Daniel is a kind of a self that that jackfruit is not a Ruhr and not nonmagnetic is false. fact8: This bookmark does concern Sphagnales if the fact that this one kibbitzes Urochorda is correct. fact9: That this bookmark kibbitzes Urochorda is right.

fact1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) fact2: ¬(¬{B}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) -> ¬{A}{b} fact3: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬{C}{a} fact4: (x): {B}x -> {C}x fact5: {C}{ha} fact6: (x): ¬({I}x v {H}x) -> ¬{G}x fact7: {E}{d} -> ¬(¬{B}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) fact8: {A}{a} -> {GD}{a} fact9: {A}{a}

This bookmark does not drudge archaeozoic.

¬{C}{a}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This bookmark kibbitzes Urochorda and it is a kind of a Ruhr. fact2: If the fact that that jackfruit is not a Ruhr and is not nonmagnetic does not hold then the Francophobe does not kibbitz Urochorda. fact3: This bookmark does not drudge archaeozoic if the Francophobe does not kibbitz Urochorda. fact4: Somebody does drudge archaeozoic if the one is a kind of a Ruhr. fact5: This Sepia drudges archaeozoic. fact6: Something is not a kind of a Arecidae if that either it is absorbable or it is a hypocellularity or both is wrong. fact7: If Daniel is a kind of a self that that jackfruit is not a Ruhr and not nonmagnetic is false. fact8: This bookmark does concern Sphagnales if the fact that this one kibbitzes Urochorda is correct. fact9: That this bookmark kibbitzes Urochorda is right. ; $hypothesis$ = This bookmark does not drudge archaeozoic. ; $proof$ =

fact1 -> int1: This bookmark is a Ruhr.; fact4 -> int2: That this bookmark does drudge archaeozoic hold if this bookmark is a Ruhr.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

The fact that either that macer is Jacobinic or it antiquates pidgin or both is wrong.

¬({B}{b} v {A}{b})

fact1: That that macer is both splenic and not Jacobinic does not hold. fact2: That introduction flighteds luxuriousness. fact3: That macer engineers pay and/or it is manlike. fact4: If that that that introduction is Jacobinic but this thing does not antiquate pidgin is false is true that macer is manlike. fact5: That that macer is manlike and is not Jacobinic is incorrect. fact6: That that introduction is splenic but it is not manlike is incorrect. fact7: If that introduction is not sciatic then that that macer is Jacobinic and/or he/she antiquates pidgin is not true. fact8: If the fact that that gazania is a mimesis but it is not splenic is not true then the sericulture is manlike. fact9: The fact that that introduction antiquates pidgin but the one is not splenic is wrong. fact10: That that macer is Jacobinic and she/he is manlike does not hold. fact11: That that introduction is Jacobinic hold if the fact that that macer is both manlike and not splenic does not hold. fact12: That that macer is Jacobinic and is not splenic is wrong. fact13: The fact that that introduction is not non-Jacobinic but manlike does not hold. fact14: If that that macer is splenic but this is not manlike does not hold then that introduction is Jacobinic. fact15: That macer heaves breasted and/or it does antiquate pidgin. fact16: The baritone is manlike. fact17: That macer is Jacobinic if that the fact that that introduction is splenic but this is not manlike does not hold is right. fact18: The headwater is splenic. fact19: That that that introduction does deviate Dolichotis and is manlike does not hold is not false. fact20: The fact that some man is manlike but she/he is not a kind of a sorrow is incorrect if she/he does not antiquate pidgin. fact21: That introduction is splenic or is Jacobinic or both. fact22: If that something is a Gilgamesh but that is not a blended does not hold that is not sciatic.

fact1: ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) fact2: {EJ}{a} fact3: ({BC}{b} v {AB}{b}) fact4: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> {AB}{b} fact5: ¬({AB}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) fact6: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) fact7: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬({B}{b} v {A}{b}) fact8: ¬({BG}{gh} & ¬{AA}{gh}) -> {AB}{cp} fact9: ¬({A}{a} & ¬{AA}{a}) fact10: ¬({B}{b} & {AB}{b}) fact11: ¬({AB}{b} & ¬{AA}{b}) -> {B}{a} fact12: ¬({B}{b} & ¬{AA}{b}) fact13: ¬({B}{a} & {AB}{a}) fact14: ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) -> {B}{a} fact15: ({FH}{b} v {A}{b}) fact16: {AB}{ec} fact17: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} fact18: {AA}{ib} fact19: ¬({FM}{a} & {AB}{a}) fact20: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AB}x & ¬{HN}x) fact21: ({AA}{a} v {B}{a}) fact22: (x): ¬({D}x & ¬{E}x) -> ¬{C}x

That that harebell is manlike but he/she is not a sorrow is false.

¬({AB}{bo} & ¬{HN}{bo})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That that macer is both splenic and not Jacobinic does not hold. fact2: That introduction flighteds luxuriousness. fact3: That macer engineers pay and/or it is manlike. fact4: If that that that introduction is Jacobinic but this thing does not antiquate pidgin is false is true that macer is manlike. fact5: That that macer is manlike and is not Jacobinic is incorrect. fact6: That that introduction is splenic but it is not manlike is incorrect. fact7: If that introduction is not sciatic then that that macer is Jacobinic and/or he/she antiquates pidgin is not true. fact8: If the fact that that gazania is a mimesis but it is not splenic is not true then the sericulture is manlike. fact9: The fact that that introduction antiquates pidgin but the one is not splenic is wrong. fact10: That that macer is Jacobinic and she/he is manlike does not hold. fact11: That that introduction is Jacobinic hold if the fact that that macer is both manlike and not splenic does not hold. fact12: That that macer is Jacobinic and is not splenic is wrong. fact13: The fact that that introduction is not non-Jacobinic but manlike does not hold. fact14: If that that macer is splenic but this is not manlike does not hold then that introduction is Jacobinic. fact15: That macer heaves breasted and/or it does antiquate pidgin. fact16: The baritone is manlike. fact17: That macer is Jacobinic if that the fact that that introduction is splenic but this is not manlike does not hold is right. fact18: The headwater is splenic. fact19: That that that introduction does deviate Dolichotis and is manlike does not hold is not false. fact20: The fact that some man is manlike but she/he is not a kind of a sorrow is incorrect if she/he does not antiquate pidgin. fact21: That introduction is splenic or is Jacobinic or both. fact22: If that something is a Gilgamesh but that is not a blended does not hold that is not sciatic. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that either that macer is Jacobinic or it antiquates pidgin or both is wrong. ; $proof$ =

fact17 & fact6 -> int1: That macer is Jacobinic.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

The fact that this bluewing blemishes Kordofanian but it is not a Talinum does not hold.

¬({E}{b} & ¬{C}{b})

fact1: Something that does not survive crabbed is both not a binary and a Talinum. fact2: If this cognoscente is not a Talinum this bluewing is not a Talinum. fact3: If something that blemishes Kordofanian mapquests then it does not survive crabbed. fact4: If something does mapquest then the fact that it survives crabbed and it is not a Polyhymnia does not hold. fact5: This bluewing is not a kind of a Talinum. fact6: If that ape does not satiate Centaurea then that ape blemishes Kordofanian and she/he does mapquest. fact7: This cognoscente does satiate Centaurea and does mapquest if the hydrometer is not a veterinary. fact8: This cognoscente is a binary. fact9: If this cognoscente is not a binary then that this bluewing blemishes Kordofanian and is not a Talinum does not hold. fact10: This cognoscente is a Polyhymnia if it is a binary. fact11: Something does not blemish Kordofanian if it is a Talinum. fact12: If that something is a kind of a Polyhymnia is true the fact that it is not a Talinum is true. fact13: This bluewing satiates Centaurea.

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

The fact that this bluewing blemishes Kordofanian but it is not a Talinum does not hold.

¬({E}{b} & ¬{C}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: Something that does not survive crabbed is both not a binary and a Talinum. fact2: If this cognoscente is not a Talinum this bluewing is not a Talinum. fact3: If something that blemishes Kordofanian mapquests then it does not survive crabbed. fact4: If something does mapquest then the fact that it survives crabbed and it is not a Polyhymnia does not hold. fact5: This bluewing is not a kind of a Talinum. fact6: If that ape does not satiate Centaurea then that ape blemishes Kordofanian and she/he does mapquest. fact7: This cognoscente does satiate Centaurea and does mapquest if the hydrometer is not a veterinary. fact8: This cognoscente is a binary. fact9: If this cognoscente is not a binary then that this bluewing blemishes Kordofanian and is not a Talinum does not hold. fact10: This cognoscente is a Polyhymnia if it is a binary. fact11: Something does not blemish Kordofanian if it is a Talinum. fact12: If that something is a kind of a Polyhymnia is true the fact that it is not a Talinum is true. fact13: This bluewing satiates Centaurea. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that this bluewing blemishes Kordofanian but it is not a Talinum does not hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

The fact that that fete happens hold.

{B}

fact1: If that that modulation does not occurs but that relation happens is wrong that fete occurs. fact2: That notthat modulation but that relation occurs does not hold if the surrender happens. fact3: If this servomechanicalness does not happens both that blithering and the gaseousness occurs. fact4: That publishing Tarsius happens. fact5: The surrender happens. fact6: The accenting Microdesmidae happens. fact7: That this notarizing summertime happens is caused by that that blithering happens. fact8: That that fete does not occurs is prevented by that that relation does not happens.

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

That fete does not occurs.

¬{B}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If that that modulation does not occurs but that relation happens is wrong that fete occurs. fact2: That notthat modulation but that relation occurs does not hold if the surrender happens. fact3: If this servomechanicalness does not happens both that blithering and the gaseousness occurs. fact4: That publishing Tarsius happens. fact5: The surrender happens. fact6: The accenting Microdesmidae happens. fact7: That this notarizing summertime happens is caused by that that blithering happens. fact8: That that fete does not occurs is prevented by that that relation does not happens. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that that fete happens hold. ; $proof$ =

fact2 & fact5 -> int1: That that modulation does not occurs and that relation happens does not hold.; int1 & fact1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

That cappuccino is a IMU but this thing is not a aboulia.

({C}{b} & ¬{E}{b})

fact1: If this towelling is a repentance either this towelling is a thriftiness or this thing is not a Perth or both. fact2: The fact that that cappuccino is a IMU and this thing is a kind of a aboulia is false. fact3: There exists something such that it destructs Trumbull and it is a kind of a Eglevsky. fact4: If this cascara is not a brachycephaly but it is yeastlike then this intrenchment is not yeastlike. fact5: That that cappuccino is a IMU and not a aboulia is false if that latakia is a kind of a IMU. fact6: If this loiterer is variolous that that latakia is a kind of a Eglevsky and is not a Trumbo is false. fact7: If something is not a thriftiness then it reconnoiters and is a logotype. fact8: This bedding is a Aengus if something is a IMU and burns technobabble. fact9: If this towelling is a thriftiness then this champaign is not a thriftiness. fact10: If that that latakia does not destruct Trumbull is wrong then that cappuccino is a IMU and is not a aboulia. fact11: Something is both sophistic and a Aengus if that the thing is not yeastlike is not wrong. fact12: There is something such that that thing is a Eglevsky. fact13: That that cappuccino is a kind of a IMU that is a aboulia does not hold if that latakia is a IMU. fact14: That latakia is a kind of a IMU if there exists something such that this thing destructs Trumbull and is a Eglevsky. fact15: This loiterer is variolous if the fact that this intrenchment is variolous is correct. fact16: This towelling is not unadaptable. fact17: If this towelling is not unadaptable then she is a repentance and does preen anticipation. fact18: Something does destruct Trumbull. fact19: If that something is a Eglevsky but it is not a Trumbo does not hold then it destructs Trumbull. fact20: If something is sophistic it is a crinkle. fact21: If this champaign reconnoiters then this cascara is not a brachycephaly and not non-yeastlike. fact22: That cappuccino is a granted if some person that etymologizings is a Perth. fact23: If something is a crinkle then this is variolous.

fact1: {P}{g} -> ({N}{g} v ¬{O}{g}) fact2: ¬({C}{b} & {E}{b}) fact3: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x) fact4: (¬{K}{e} & {J}{e}) -> ¬{J}{d} fact5: {C}{a} -> ¬({C}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) fact6: {F}{c} -> ¬({B}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) fact7: (x): ¬{N}x -> ({L}x & {M}x) fact8: (x): ({C}x & {BP}x) -> {I}{gs} fact9: {N}{g} -> ¬{N}{f} fact10: {A}{a} -> ({C}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) fact11: (x): ¬{J}x -> ({H}x & {I}x) fact12: (Ex): {B}x fact13: {C}{a} -> ¬({C}{b} & {E}{b}) fact14: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> {C}{a} fact15: {F}{d} -> {F}{c} fact16: ¬{R}{g} fact17: ¬{R}{g} -> ({P}{g} & {Q}{g}) fact18: (Ex): {A}x fact19: (x): ¬({B}x & ¬{D}x) -> {A}x fact20: (x): {H}x -> {G}x fact21: {L}{f} -> (¬{K}{e} & {J}{e}) fact22: (x): ({CB}x & {O}x) -> {DA}{b} fact23: (x): {G}x -> {F}x

That cappuccino is a IMU but this thing is not a aboulia.

({C}{b} & ¬{E}{b})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If this towelling is a repentance either this towelling is a thriftiness or this thing is not a Perth or both. fact2: The fact that that cappuccino is a IMU and this thing is a kind of a aboulia is false. fact3: There exists something such that it destructs Trumbull and it is a kind of a Eglevsky. fact4: If this cascara is not a brachycephaly but it is yeastlike then this intrenchment is not yeastlike. fact5: That that cappuccino is a IMU and not a aboulia is false if that latakia is a kind of a IMU. fact6: If this loiterer is variolous that that latakia is a kind of a Eglevsky and is not a Trumbo is false. fact7: If something is not a thriftiness then it reconnoiters and is a logotype. fact8: This bedding is a Aengus if something is a IMU and burns technobabble. fact9: If this towelling is a thriftiness then this champaign is not a thriftiness. fact10: If that that latakia does not destruct Trumbull is wrong then that cappuccino is a IMU and is not a aboulia. fact11: Something is both sophistic and a Aengus if that the thing is not yeastlike is not wrong. fact12: There is something such that that thing is a Eglevsky. fact13: That that cappuccino is a kind of a IMU that is a aboulia does not hold if that latakia is a IMU. fact14: That latakia is a kind of a IMU if there exists something such that this thing destructs Trumbull and is a Eglevsky. fact15: This loiterer is variolous if the fact that this intrenchment is variolous is correct. fact16: This towelling is not unadaptable. fact17: If this towelling is not unadaptable then she is a repentance and does preen anticipation. fact18: Something does destruct Trumbull. fact19: If that something is a Eglevsky but it is not a Trumbo does not hold then it destructs Trumbull. fact20: If something is sophistic it is a crinkle. fact21: If this champaign reconnoiters then this cascara is not a brachycephaly and not non-yeastlike. fact22: That cappuccino is a granted if some person that etymologizings is a Perth. fact23: If something is a crinkle then this is variolous. ; $hypothesis$ = That cappuccino is a IMU but this thing is not a aboulia. ; $proof$ =

fact3 & fact14 -> int1: That latakia is a IMU.; int1 & fact5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That fissiped does not uniform epithet.

¬{D}{b}

fact1: Something is not non-Jesuitic if that it accoutres gynarchy hold. fact2: This sanctuary is a vii. fact3: That fissiped does not uniform epithet if this sanctuary is Jesuitic. fact4: That that the propanediol does not accoutre gynarchy is correct does not hold. fact5: If this sanctuary is a vii then this sanctuary does accoutre gynarchy.

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

PROVED

PROVED

$facts$ = fact1: Something is not non-Jesuitic if that it accoutres gynarchy hold. fact2: This sanctuary is a vii. fact3: That fissiped does not uniform epithet if this sanctuary is Jesuitic. fact4: That that the propanediol does not accoutre gynarchy is correct does not hold. fact5: If this sanctuary is a vii then this sanctuary does accoutre gynarchy. ; $hypothesis$ = That fissiped does not uniform epithet. ; $proof$ =

fact5 & fact2 -> int1: This sanctuary accoutres gynarchy.; fact1 -> int2: If this sanctuary accoutres gynarchy it is Jesuitic.; int1 & int2 -> int3: This sanctuary is Jesuitic.; int3 & fact3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

This fascista overthrows Akha.

{C}{b}

fact1: If this fascista is colourful then it monishes. fact2: If this fascista genuflects Kashag and it is a kind of a sackful this cove does not overthrow Akha. fact3: This fascista is pantheistic if this fascista monishes. fact4: This fascista is not a sackful if this cove overthrows Akha and does genuflect Kashag. fact5: That this fascista is a sackful hold. fact6: This cove genuflects Kashag. fact7: If this cove genuflects Kashag and it overthrows Akha this fascista is not a sackful. fact8: If this fascista genuflects Kashag and overthrows Akha this cove is not a sackful. fact9: the Kashag genuflects cove. fact10: This cove is not a kind of a sackful if this fascista does overthrow Akha and the thing does genuflect Kashag. fact11: If something is not non-pantheistic but this does not schmoose Cocteau this is not a sackful. fact12: This cove is a sackful. fact13: This fascista is a lumma. fact14: The fact that the vernier is not a kind of a sackful is false. fact15: This fascista does not overthrow Akha if this cove genuflects Kashag and she is a kind of a sackful.

fact1: {G}{b} -> {F}{b} fact2: ({A}{b} & {B}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} fact3: {F}{b} -> {D}{b} fact4: ({C}{a} & {A}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} fact5: {B}{b} fact6: {A}{a} fact7: ({A}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} fact8: ({A}{b} & {C}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} fact9: {AA}{aa} fact10: ({C}{b} & {A}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} fact11: (x): ({D}x & ¬{E}x) -> ¬{B}x fact12: {B}{a} fact13: {GU}{b} fact14: {B}{ge} fact15: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b}

This fascista overthrows Akha.

{C}{b}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If this fascista is colourful then it monishes. fact2: If this fascista genuflects Kashag and it is a kind of a sackful this cove does not overthrow Akha. fact3: This fascista is pantheistic if this fascista monishes. fact4: This fascista is not a sackful if this cove overthrows Akha and does genuflect Kashag. fact5: That this fascista is a sackful hold. fact6: This cove genuflects Kashag. fact7: If this cove genuflects Kashag and it overthrows Akha this fascista is not a sackful. fact8: If this fascista genuflects Kashag and overthrows Akha this cove is not a sackful. fact9: the Kashag genuflects cove. fact10: This cove is not a kind of a sackful if this fascista does overthrow Akha and the thing does genuflect Kashag. fact11: If something is not non-pantheistic but this does not schmoose Cocteau this is not a sackful. fact12: This cove is a sackful. fact13: This fascista is a lumma. fact14: The fact that the vernier is not a kind of a sackful is false. fact15: This fascista does not overthrow Akha if this cove genuflects Kashag and she is a kind of a sackful. ; $hypothesis$ = This fascista overthrows Akha. ; $proof$ =

fact6 & fact12 -> int1: This cove genuflects Kashag and is a sackful.; int1 & fact15 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That daring occurs.

{D}

fact1: This noncausativeness does not happens. fact2: Notthe Mexican but this rhomboidalness occurs. fact3: This triggering vassalage occurs. fact4: The revolving dichromasy occurs. fact5: If this stenographicness occurs that this acaudalness happens and that amicableness does not happens is wrong. fact6: That this unnoticedness and this acaudalness occurs leads to that that daring does not occurs. fact7: That that moltening occurs prevents that that papilloseness does not happens. fact8: This acaudalness occurs if that amicableness happens. fact9: The dignifying Nassau happens and that piano occurs. fact10: That amicableness occurs. fact11: If the unbinding fingered happens then this micaceousness happens. fact12: That dillydallying Ovis happens. fact13: This micaceousness occurs. fact14: If both this spoilage and that IW occurs then that decaying does not happens. fact15: The neutralization occurs. fact16: That if the fact that this stenographicness but notthis tutelage happens is wrong then that amicableness does not occurs is true. fact17: That the advertising moisture occurs is prevented by that this doing Anemopsis occurs and the subtilising Cambridge occurs. fact18: This aeroembolism does not happens. fact19: This adjourning impudence happens. fact20: That this salting Chermidae does not happens is brought about by that both this anterogradeness and the incomprehensiveness happens.

fact1: ¬{A} fact2: (¬{JI} & {AD}) fact3: {FL} fact4: {GI} fact5: {F} -> ¬({C} & ¬{E}) fact6: ({B} & {C}) -> ¬{D} fact7: {N} -> {FG} fact8: {E} -> {C} fact9: ({HD} & {EE}) fact10: {E} fact11: {I} -> {H} fact12: {IC} fact13: {H} fact14: ({CI} & {IQ}) -> ¬{BI} fact15: {DP} fact16: ¬({F} & ¬{G}) -> ¬{E} fact17: ({CR} & {AJ}) -> ¬{CE} fact18: ¬{DH} fact19: {CF} fact20: ({DU} & {Q}) -> ¬{JD}

This reading palaeodendrology occurs.

{GO}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This noncausativeness does not happens. fact2: Notthe Mexican but this rhomboidalness occurs. fact3: This triggering vassalage occurs. fact4: The revolving dichromasy occurs. fact5: If this stenographicness occurs that this acaudalness happens and that amicableness does not happens is wrong. fact6: That this unnoticedness and this acaudalness occurs leads to that that daring does not occurs. fact7: That that moltening occurs prevents that that papilloseness does not happens. fact8: This acaudalness occurs if that amicableness happens. fact9: The dignifying Nassau happens and that piano occurs. fact10: That amicableness occurs. fact11: If the unbinding fingered happens then this micaceousness happens. fact12: That dillydallying Ovis happens. fact13: This micaceousness occurs. fact14: If both this spoilage and that IW occurs then that decaying does not happens. fact15: The neutralization occurs. fact16: That if the fact that this stenographicness but notthis tutelage happens is wrong then that amicableness does not occurs is true. fact17: That the advertising moisture occurs is prevented by that this doing Anemopsis occurs and the subtilising Cambridge occurs. fact18: This aeroembolism does not happens. fact19: This adjourning impudence happens. fact20: That this salting Chermidae does not happens is brought about by that both this anterogradeness and the incomprehensiveness happens. ; $hypothesis$ = That daring occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That Tatiana is not a Hitchcock is correct.

¬{C}{a}

fact1: If the fact that Tatiana is a Hitchcock hold then the aspic is a kind of a Hitchcock. fact2: Something is a Fatihah and/or it is not a kind of a pictorial if it is not subtropic. fact3: If that chamfer is not a Cretaceous then that it does not inflame and is a kind of a profit is false. fact4: If some person inflames then it impends. fact5: If the fact that someone is a thaw and irons bedded is not right that one is not subtropic. fact6: If that that chamfer is labial one that does not desacralize Pyrenomycetes is incorrect that chamfer is not a kind of a Cretaceous. fact7: If something is a Aegospotamos it is a Hitchcock. fact8: The aspic is a Hitchcock if Tatiana is ovoviviparous. fact9: Tatiana is ovoviviparous a Aegospotamos. fact10: That chamfer is a unexpectedness. fact11: Tatiana is not a Fatihah if that chamfer is not a pictorial. fact12: That that that chamfer is labial but it does not desacralize Pyrenomycetes does not hold if that chamfer is a unexpectedness hold. fact13: If someone is not a kind of a Aegospotamos then either this one is a Hitchcock or this one is ovoviviparous or both. fact14: Tatiana inflames if that that chamfer does not inflames and is a profit does not hold. fact15: The fact that something either is not ovoviviparous or is not a kind of a Aegospotamos or both is false if it is not a Fatihah. fact16: Tatiana is unintelligible if that Tatiana is not a freethinking but it is secretarial is correct. fact17: If someone that impends is unintelligible then that one does not beaked Simpson. fact18: If Tatiana is ovoviviparous then Tatiana is a permissibility. fact19: Something is not a Aegospotamos if either it is a kind of a Fatihah or it is not a kind of a pictorial or both. fact20: Tatiana is ovoviviparous. fact21: That that something is a thaw and irons bedded is not true if this does not beaked Simpson hold.

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

That Tatiana is not a Hitchcock is correct.

¬{C}{a}

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If the fact that Tatiana is a Hitchcock hold then the aspic is a kind of a Hitchcock. fact2: Something is a Fatihah and/or it is not a kind of a pictorial if it is not subtropic. fact3: If that chamfer is not a Cretaceous then that it does not inflame and is a kind of a profit is false. fact4: If some person inflames then it impends. fact5: If the fact that someone is a thaw and irons bedded is not right that one is not subtropic. fact6: If that that chamfer is labial one that does not desacralize Pyrenomycetes is incorrect that chamfer is not a kind of a Cretaceous. fact7: If something is a Aegospotamos it is a Hitchcock. fact8: The aspic is a Hitchcock if Tatiana is ovoviviparous. fact9: Tatiana is ovoviviparous a Aegospotamos. fact10: That chamfer is a unexpectedness. fact11: Tatiana is not a Fatihah if that chamfer is not a pictorial. fact12: That that that chamfer is labial but it does not desacralize Pyrenomycetes does not hold if that chamfer is a unexpectedness hold. fact13: If someone is not a kind of a Aegospotamos then either this one is a Hitchcock or this one is ovoviviparous or both. fact14: Tatiana inflames if that that chamfer does not inflames and is a profit does not hold. fact15: The fact that something either is not ovoviviparous or is not a kind of a Aegospotamos or both is false if it is not a Fatihah. fact16: Tatiana is unintelligible if that Tatiana is not a freethinking but it is secretarial is correct. fact17: If someone that impends is unintelligible then that one does not beaked Simpson. fact18: If Tatiana is ovoviviparous then Tatiana is a permissibility. fact19: Something is not a Aegospotamos if either it is a kind of a Fatihah or it is not a kind of a pictorial or both. fact20: Tatiana is ovoviviparous. fact21: That that something is a thaw and irons bedded is not true if this does not beaked Simpson hold. ; $hypothesis$ = That Tatiana is not a Hitchcock is correct. ; $proof$ =

fact9 -> int1: Tatiana is a Aegospotamos.; fact7 -> int2: If Tatiana is a Aegospotamos it is a kind of a Hitchcock.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That pinchgut is not augitic.

¬{C}{a}

fact1: That stipe is a Slovakia. fact2: If that pinchgut is not a Slovakia and that is not a Sacco Kiara is a Slovakia. fact3: Something that is both a Slovakia and a feverishness is not augitic. fact4: That pinchgut is incorporeal. fact5: That pinchgut is a feverishness. fact6: This Kemadrin does not besprinkle but it States. fact7: That pinchgut is augitic if this tapa is not a kind of a feverishness and it is not augitic. fact8: Someone does not fleece UTC if that this person accretes speciousness and adjusts staginess is wrong. fact9: That this tapa is a feverishness and this person is an aquatic is right if that nitrofuran does not fleece UTC. fact10: If that nitrofuran is a kind of a Sacco then this tapa is a Slovakia. fact11: That pinchgut is a Slovakia. fact12: If this Kemadrin does not besprinkle but that thing States this Kemadrin affrights Lilium. fact13: Someone is a Sacco and it is an aquatic if it does not fleece UTC. fact14: That provenance is not a antinomian if that this Kemadrin affrights Lilium hold. fact15: This tapa is a Sacco if it is a feverishness.

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

That pinchgut is not non-augitic.

{C}{a}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That stipe is a Slovakia. fact2: If that pinchgut is not a Slovakia and that is not a Sacco Kiara is a Slovakia. fact3: Something that is both a Slovakia and a feverishness is not augitic. fact4: That pinchgut is incorporeal. fact5: That pinchgut is a feverishness. fact6: This Kemadrin does not besprinkle but it States. fact7: That pinchgut is augitic if this tapa is not a kind of a feverishness and it is not augitic. fact8: Someone does not fleece UTC if that this person accretes speciousness and adjusts staginess is wrong. fact9: That this tapa is a feverishness and this person is an aquatic is right if that nitrofuran does not fleece UTC. fact10: If that nitrofuran is a kind of a Sacco then this tapa is a Slovakia. fact11: That pinchgut is a Slovakia. fact12: If this Kemadrin does not besprinkle but that thing States this Kemadrin affrights Lilium. fact13: Someone is a Sacco and it is an aquatic if it does not fleece UTC. fact14: That provenance is not a antinomian if that this Kemadrin affrights Lilium hold. fact15: This tapa is a Sacco if it is a feverishness. ; $hypothesis$ = That pinchgut is not augitic. ; $proof$ =

fact11 & fact5 -> int1: That pinchgut is a Slovakia and it is a feverishness.; fact3 -> int2: That that pinchgut is not augitic if that pinchgut is a kind of a Slovakia and this thing is a feverishness is true.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

This chomp is not a ping and is not online.

(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa})

fact1: That this chomp is a kind of a centime is right. fact2: Some person that is not a Palinuridae is not uncreative or catabolizes Carabidae or both. fact3: Something that skreighs is not a Palinuridae. fact4: If that chimneypot is not uncreative and/or it catabolizes Carabidae then the autoerotism does not catabolizes Carabidae. fact5: Forrest is not a kind of a centime and it does not key accuracy. fact6: This chomp is not online. fact7: If this anchor is not Zimbabwean the fact that that dilator is a kind of a Panorpidae and it is a haycock is false. fact8: Someone that is a centime is not online. fact9: If that dilator is not a Panorpidae then that chimneypot skreighs and that thing is a bound. fact10: If this groomsman is a haunted then the ordnance is a centime. fact11: This chomp is not online if this chomp is a centime. fact12: Héctor is not anisotropic but he fines Eptesicus if the autoerotism does not catabolize Carabidae. fact13: That dilator is not a Panorpidae if the fact that it is a Panorpidae and it is a haycock is false. fact14: Something that is a centime is not a ping and is not online.

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

The ordnance is a centime.

{A}{im}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That this chomp is a kind of a centime is right. fact2: Some person that is not a Palinuridae is not uncreative or catabolizes Carabidae or both. fact3: Something that skreighs is not a Palinuridae. fact4: If that chimneypot is not uncreative and/or it catabolizes Carabidae then the autoerotism does not catabolizes Carabidae. fact5: Forrest is not a kind of a centime and it does not key accuracy. fact6: This chomp is not online. fact7: If this anchor is not Zimbabwean the fact that that dilator is a kind of a Panorpidae and it is a haycock is false. fact8: Someone that is a centime is not online. fact9: If that dilator is not a Panorpidae then that chimneypot skreighs and that thing is a bound. fact10: If this groomsman is a haunted then the ordnance is a centime. fact11: This chomp is not online if this chomp is a centime. fact12: Héctor is not anisotropic but he fines Eptesicus if the autoerotism does not catabolize Carabidae. fact13: That dilator is not a Panorpidae if the fact that it is a Panorpidae and it is a haycock is false. fact14: Something that is a centime is not a ping and is not online. ; $hypothesis$ = This chomp is not a ping and is not online. ; $proof$ =

fact14 -> int1: If this chomp is a centime he/she is not a kind of a ping and he/she is not online.; int1 & fact1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

The fact that that facilitation and that fakery happens is incorrect.

¬({A} & {C})

fact1: The fact that the nonperiodicness does not happens and this binning Sphyraenidae does not happens is not right. fact2: That facilitation occurs if that reckoning Indigofera does not happens. fact3: That reckoning Indigofera does not happens if that the nonperiodicness does not happens and this binning Sphyraenidae does not happens is not true. fact4: That fakery and the contributing Phenicia happens.

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$facts$ = fact1: The fact that the nonperiodicness does not happens and this binning Sphyraenidae does not happens is not right. fact2: That facilitation occurs if that reckoning Indigofera does not happens. fact3: That reckoning Indigofera does not happens if that the nonperiodicness does not happens and this binning Sphyraenidae does not happens is not true. fact4: That fakery and the contributing Phenicia happens. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that that facilitation and that fakery happens is incorrect. ; $proof$ =

fact3 & fact1 -> int1: That reckoning Indigofera does not occurs.; int1 & fact2 -> int2: That facilitation occurs.; fact4 -> int3: That fakery happens.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

This snake is a Peronospora.

{E}{b}

fact1: The fact that something is a kind of a plural and/or does not bloom 25 is wrong if it is a Peronospora. fact2: If the fact that this snake is a kind of a Peronospora or it is a plural or both is false Cj is not a peacefulness. fact3: The fact that Cj is not a kind of a asterisked but that one is a kind of a plural hold. fact4: The fact that either something is a peacefulness or this does not bloom 25 or both does not hold if this is a plural. fact5: This snake is not a Peronospora if that Cj is a peacefulness or it does not bloom 25 or both does not hold.

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

DISPROVED

DISPROVED

$facts$ = fact1: The fact that something is a kind of a plural and/or does not bloom 25 is wrong if it is a Peronospora. fact2: If the fact that this snake is a kind of a Peronospora or it is a plural or both is false Cj is not a peacefulness. fact3: The fact that Cj is not a kind of a asterisked but that one is a kind of a plural hold. fact4: The fact that either something is a peacefulness or this does not bloom 25 or both does not hold if this is a plural. fact5: This snake is not a Peronospora if that Cj is a peacefulness or it does not bloom 25 or both does not hold. ; $hypothesis$ = This snake is a Peronospora. ; $proof$ =

fact3 -> int1: Cj is a kind of a plural.; fact4 -> int2: The fact that Cj is a peacefulness and/or it does not bloom 25 does not hold if Cj is a plural.; int1 & int2 -> int3: The fact that Cj is a peacefulness or does not bloom 25 or both does not hold.; int3 & fact5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

This distributiveness does not happens.

¬{A}

fact1: That contrapuntalness does not occurs. fact2: If both that non-contrapuntalness and this distributiveness occurs then this conelikeness does not occurs. fact3: That notthe noosing Morus but that jumper occurs is incorrect if this distributiveness occurs. fact4: Both that baddie and this robbery occurs if the fact that the hydroponics does not occurs hold. fact5: Notthe noosing Morus but that jumper happens if that the fact that that contrapuntalness occurs is correct is not correct. fact6: Notthat contrapuntalness but this distributiveness occurs if that baddie happens.

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

This conelikeness does not happens.

¬{DS}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That contrapuntalness does not occurs. fact2: If both that non-contrapuntalness and this distributiveness occurs then this conelikeness does not occurs. fact3: That notthe noosing Morus but that jumper occurs is incorrect if this distributiveness occurs. fact4: Both that baddie and this robbery occurs if the fact that the hydroponics does not occurs hold. fact5: Notthe noosing Morus but that jumper happens if that the fact that that contrapuntalness occurs is correct is not correct. fact6: Notthat contrapuntalness but this distributiveness occurs if that baddie happens. ; $hypothesis$ = This distributiveness does not happens. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that this distributiveness happens.; fact3 & assump1 -> int1: The fact that the noosing Morus does not occurs but that jumper occurs is false.; fact1 & fact5 -> int2: Notthe noosing Morus but that jumper occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: This is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

That drainage does not happens.

¬{D}

fact1: If both this sloping hypoglycaemia and that carpal occurs then this heritage does not happens. fact2: This disseminating Meyerbeer leads to that this jigging does not happens and that nosing Corydalidae happens. fact3: That this jigging does not occurs triggers that this infusion and that crossing Bothrops occurs. fact4: The giveaway does not occurs. fact5: This begetting bountifulness and this treasurership occurs. fact6: That that this rodeo does not happens results in that this unmutilatedness happens and that drainage happens is not false. fact7: That that drainage does not occurs is brought about by that this unmutilatedness happens and this begetting bountifulness happens. fact8: The fact that that avirulentness occurs and the externalisation occurs is true. fact9: That water occurs and this reallotment happens. fact10: This jigging and that familiarising morphophysiology happens. fact11: The fact that notthis begetting bountifulness but this treasurership happens is wrong if this infusion occurs. fact12: If that this rodeo occurs and this effectuation does not occurs is incorrect this effectuation happens. fact13: That jocularity and the xeroradiography happens. fact14: This treasurership happens. fact15: This rodeo happens. fact16: This unmutilatedness occurs and this rodeo occurs. fact17: If both this alveolar and this copping Sibelius occurs then that exclusiveness does not occurs.

fact1: ({BC} & {HM}) -> ¬{JG} fact2: {J} -> (¬{H} & {I}) fact3: ¬{H} -> ({F} & {G}) fact4: ¬{EK} fact5: ({C} & {E}) fact6: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {D}) fact7: ({A} & {C}) -> ¬{D} fact8: ({BS} & {O}) fact9: ({FF} & {FN}) fact10: ({H} & {EH}) fact11: {F} -> ¬(¬{C} & {E}) fact12: ¬({B} & ¬{DL}) -> {DL} fact13: ({EA} & {BE}) fact14: {E} fact15: {B} fact16: ({A} & {B}) fact17: ({HA} & {FI}) -> ¬{HG}

That drainage happens.

{D}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If both this sloping hypoglycaemia and that carpal occurs then this heritage does not happens. fact2: This disseminating Meyerbeer leads to that this jigging does not happens and that nosing Corydalidae happens. fact3: That this jigging does not occurs triggers that this infusion and that crossing Bothrops occurs. fact4: The giveaway does not occurs. fact5: This begetting bountifulness and this treasurership occurs. fact6: That that this rodeo does not happens results in that this unmutilatedness happens and that drainage happens is not false. fact7: That that drainage does not occurs is brought about by that this unmutilatedness happens and this begetting bountifulness happens. fact8: The fact that that avirulentness occurs and the externalisation occurs is true. fact9: That water occurs and this reallotment happens. fact10: This jigging and that familiarising morphophysiology happens. fact11: The fact that notthis begetting bountifulness but this treasurership happens is wrong if this infusion occurs. fact12: If that this rodeo occurs and this effectuation does not occurs is incorrect this effectuation happens. fact13: That jocularity and the xeroradiography happens. fact14: This treasurership happens. fact15: This rodeo happens. fact16: This unmutilatedness occurs and this rodeo occurs. fact17: If both this alveolar and this copping Sibelius occurs then that exclusiveness does not occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = That drainage does not happens. ; $proof$ =

fact16 -> int1: This unmutilatedness happens.; fact5 -> int2: This begetting bountifulness happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: This unmutilatedness and this begetting bountifulness happens.; int3 & fact7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

That erection does not happens.

¬{A}

fact1: That depersonalisation does not occurs and that erection does not occurs if this rubriccing Elanus does not happens. fact2: If that this being revenue does not happens and the materialising does not happens is wrong then that heaving happens. fact3: That erection does not happens. fact4: If this tailoring Optez occurs that mononuclearness and/or this non-lenticness happens. fact5: If this bacteriologicalness does not happens that that dealing Cajanus happens and that cinching occurs does not hold. fact6: If the fact that this sparing occurs and/or this tailoring Optez happens is not right that mononuclearness does not occurs. fact7: That that gormandizing Dominica does not happens triggers that that salving implausibleness happens and this Niloticness happens. fact8: That erection occurs if the fact that that prehending does not occurs and that erection does not happens is incorrect. fact9: The fact that that prehending does not occurs and that erection does not occurs does not hold if this rubriccing Elanus does not occurs. fact10: That this divorcing and that limiting Sophocles happens is brought about by that that libidinalness does not occurs. fact11: That libidinalness does not occurs if that notthis hardball but that libidinalness happens is false. fact12: That this rubriccing Elanus does not occurs is brought about by the fact that that either that mononuclearness or this non-lenticness or both happens is not wrong. fact13: That both this sparing and this tailoring Optez occurs is caused by that that dealing Cajanus does not occurs. fact14: If that mononuclearness does not happens then that that prehending does not occurs and this lenticness does not occurs does not hold. fact15: That if that heaving happens that that this hardball does not happens and that libidinalness happens hold is false hold. fact16: If the fact that that dealing Cajanus occurs and that cinching happens is not correct the fact that that dealing Cajanus does not occurs is correct. fact17: If the fact that the flood does not happens or that materializing immenseness does not happens or both is incorrect this bacteriologicalness does not happens. fact18: If the fact that that limiting Sophocles happens is correct then that gormandizing Dominica does not occurs but that allogamousness occurs. fact19: The fact that either the flood does not happens or that materializing immenseness does not occurs or both is wrong if that salving implausibleness occurs.

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

That depersonalisation does not happens.

¬{AT}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That depersonalisation does not occurs and that erection does not occurs if this rubriccing Elanus does not happens. fact2: If that this being revenue does not happens and the materialising does not happens is wrong then that heaving happens. fact3: That erection does not happens. fact4: If this tailoring Optez occurs that mononuclearness and/or this non-lenticness happens. fact5: If this bacteriologicalness does not happens that that dealing Cajanus happens and that cinching occurs does not hold. fact6: If the fact that this sparing occurs and/or this tailoring Optez happens is not right that mononuclearness does not occurs. fact7: That that gormandizing Dominica does not happens triggers that that salving implausibleness happens and this Niloticness happens. fact8: That erection occurs if the fact that that prehending does not occurs and that erection does not happens is incorrect. fact9: The fact that that prehending does not occurs and that erection does not occurs does not hold if this rubriccing Elanus does not occurs. fact10: That this divorcing and that limiting Sophocles happens is brought about by that that libidinalness does not occurs. fact11: That libidinalness does not occurs if that notthis hardball but that libidinalness happens is false. fact12: That this rubriccing Elanus does not occurs is brought about by the fact that that either that mononuclearness or this non-lenticness or both happens is not wrong. fact13: That both this sparing and this tailoring Optez occurs is caused by that that dealing Cajanus does not occurs. fact14: If that mononuclearness does not happens then that that prehending does not occurs and this lenticness does not occurs does not hold. fact15: That if that heaving happens that that this hardball does not happens and that libidinalness happens hold is false hold. fact16: If the fact that that dealing Cajanus occurs and that cinching happens is not correct the fact that that dealing Cajanus does not occurs is correct. fact17: If the fact that the flood does not happens or that materializing immenseness does not happens or both is incorrect this bacteriologicalness does not happens. fact18: If the fact that that limiting Sophocles happens is correct then that gormandizing Dominica does not occurs but that allogamousness occurs. fact19: The fact that either the flood does not happens or that materializing immenseness does not occurs or both is wrong if that salving implausibleness occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = That erection does not happens. ; $proof$ =

fact3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

Let's assume that that titanosaur is non-choral.

¬{A}{a}

fact1: This Jordanian is choral. fact2: If this acetabulum is not choral then that the fact that it does not end patchiness and it is not a kW is correct is wrong. fact3: That that titanosaur is not choral but it is rheologic is incorrect. fact4: That that this acetabulum is a kind of non-choral person that is a Flodden is incorrect is right if that person is not feverish. fact5: If someone does not transaminate worthlessness then that one dogmatises grubstake and is a Apatura. fact6: The fact that this acetabulum is a kind of a retard but he is not a Bangiaceae is false if that caruncula is a kind of a Apatura. fact7: That that titanosaur is not rheologic and not choral is not correct if he is not a Flodden. fact8: That titanosaur is not choral if that this acetabulum is not choral but she is a paramilitary is not right. fact9: The fact that this acetabulum is both not a Flodden and not feverish is wrong if this acetabulum is not rheologic. fact10: If the fact that something is a retard and is not a Bangiaceae is false the thing is rheologic. fact11: That that caruncula is not nonfissionable and not a pyrotechnic does not hold if the one plights ductility. fact12: That some person is a kind of non-choral person that is a paramilitary is false if the one is rheologic. fact13: If someone is not a paramilitary and he/she is non-rheologic that he/she is not choral is correct. fact14: This acetabulum is not choral. fact15: If the fact that that titanosaur is non-choral hold this acetabulum is not a Flodden and not feverish. fact16: Somebody does not transaminate worthlessness if that that person is both not nonfissionable and not a pyrotechnic does not hold. fact17: That titanosaur is not feverish.

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

The fact that this acetabulum does not end patchiness and is not a kW is false.

¬(¬{FS}{b} & ¬{FM}{b})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This Jordanian is choral. fact2: If this acetabulum is not choral then that the fact that it does not end patchiness and it is not a kW is correct is wrong. fact3: That that titanosaur is not choral but it is rheologic is incorrect. fact4: That that this acetabulum is a kind of non-choral person that is a Flodden is incorrect is right if that person is not feverish. fact5: If someone does not transaminate worthlessness then that one dogmatises grubstake and is a Apatura. fact6: The fact that this acetabulum is a kind of a retard but he is not a Bangiaceae is false if that caruncula is a kind of a Apatura. fact7: That that titanosaur is not rheologic and not choral is not correct if he is not a Flodden. fact8: That titanosaur is not choral if that this acetabulum is not choral but she is a paramilitary is not right. fact9: The fact that this acetabulum is both not a Flodden and not feverish is wrong if this acetabulum is not rheologic. fact10: If the fact that something is a retard and is not a Bangiaceae is false the thing is rheologic. fact11: That that caruncula is not nonfissionable and not a pyrotechnic does not hold if the one plights ductility. fact12: That some person is a kind of non-choral person that is a paramilitary is false if the one is rheologic. fact13: If someone is not a paramilitary and he/she is non-rheologic that he/she is not choral is correct. fact14: This acetabulum is not choral. fact15: If the fact that that titanosaur is non-choral hold this acetabulum is not a Flodden and not feverish. fact16: Somebody does not transaminate worthlessness if that that person is both not nonfissionable and not a pyrotechnic does not hold. fact17: That titanosaur is not feverish. ; $hypothesis$ = Let's assume that that titanosaur is non-choral. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

If the fact that that struggler is not apsidal but it is a Deere is wrong then the fact that this necessary is not paniculate is right.

¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{A}{b}

fact1: The fact that this pseudophloem is not a caesura but the person is hemolytic is not correct. fact2: That this pseudophloem is non-chiasmic and is not a Trypetidae is incorrect if the acrobat does coat Marx. fact3: If something is not corporatist it is incomprehensive. fact4: This necessary is not paniculate if that struggler harpoons morbidness. fact5: If the fact that that Roquefort is not animalistic but it is a Frunze is not right the acrobat coats Marx. fact6: Something is a Trypetidae if the fact that this thing is both non-chiasmic and not a Trypetidae is false. fact7: This necessary is not a kind of a Trypetidae if this pseudophloem is incomprehensive and the thing is a Trypetidae. fact8: That struggler does harpoon morbidness if the fact that this thing is not apsidal and this thing is a Deere is false. fact9: If something is not a publicity then it is incomprehensive. fact10: The fact that that struggler wrenches and harpoons morbidness is false if this necessary is not a kind of a Trypetidae. fact11: If the fact that that this necessary does not harpoon morbidness but the one is paniculate does not hold is correct that struggler is a Deere. fact12: If the fact that somebody wrenches and harpoons morbidness is false the one does not harpoons morbidness. fact13: The fact that that this orthodontist is not paniculate but the person is a secondoes not hold hold if the fact that that struggler does not harpoon morbidness is correct. fact14: Somebody is not corporatist or not a publicity or both if it fluctuates. fact15: This pseudophloem does not pain Mohammed if that this pseudophloem is both not a caesura and hemolytic is wrong. fact16: If the fact that that Roquefort is a Benet is true the fact that that Roquefort is both not animalistic and a Frunze is not correct. fact17: If that that struggler is not a Deere but she harpoons morbidness is wrong this necessary is apsidal. fact18: This pseudophloem does fluctuate and this is tutorial if this pseudophloem does not pain Mohammed.

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

That this orthodontist is non-paniculate thing that is a secondo is incorrect.

¬(¬{A}{fq} & {CM}{fq})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: The fact that this pseudophloem is not a caesura but the person is hemolytic is not correct. fact2: That this pseudophloem is non-chiasmic and is not a Trypetidae is incorrect if the acrobat does coat Marx. fact3: If something is not corporatist it is incomprehensive. fact4: This necessary is not paniculate if that struggler harpoons morbidness. fact5: If the fact that that Roquefort is not animalistic but it is a Frunze is not right the acrobat coats Marx. fact6: Something is a Trypetidae if the fact that this thing is both non-chiasmic and not a Trypetidae is false. fact7: This necessary is not a kind of a Trypetidae if this pseudophloem is incomprehensive and the thing is a Trypetidae. fact8: That struggler does harpoon morbidness if the fact that this thing is not apsidal and this thing is a Deere is false. fact9: If something is not a publicity then it is incomprehensive. fact10: The fact that that struggler wrenches and harpoons morbidness is false if this necessary is not a kind of a Trypetidae. fact11: If the fact that that this necessary does not harpoon morbidness but the one is paniculate does not hold is correct that struggler is a Deere. fact12: If the fact that somebody wrenches and harpoons morbidness is false the one does not harpoons morbidness. fact13: The fact that that this orthodontist is not paniculate but the person is a secondoes not hold hold if the fact that that struggler does not harpoon morbidness is correct. fact14: Somebody is not corporatist or not a publicity or both if it fluctuates. fact15: This pseudophloem does not pain Mohammed if that this pseudophloem is both not a caesura and hemolytic is wrong. fact16: If the fact that that Roquefort is a Benet is true the fact that that Roquefort is both not animalistic and a Frunze is not correct. fact17: If that that struggler is not a Deere but she harpoons morbidness is wrong this necessary is apsidal. fact18: This pseudophloem does fluctuate and this is tutorial if this pseudophloem does not pain Mohammed. ; $hypothesis$ = If the fact that that struggler is not apsidal but it is a Deere is wrong then the fact that this necessary is not paniculate is right. ; $proof$ =

void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that that struggler is not apsidal but this person is a Deere is incorrect.; fact8 & assump1 -> int1: That struggler does harpoon morbidness.; int1 & fact4 -> int2: This necessary is not paniculate.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

This b is not a exocrine.

¬{C}{c}

fact1: This katydid is not unjust. fact2: That embellishment is unjust. fact3: If this katydid is soapy this b is not a exocrine. fact4: This katydid is soapy if that embellishment is unjust. fact5: That that something is soapy and it is biosynthetic is right is false if it is not a kind of a XXIII. fact6: Everyone is not a XXIII.

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

That this b is a exocrine hold.

{C}{c}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This katydid is not unjust. fact2: That embellishment is unjust. fact3: If this katydid is soapy this b is not a exocrine. fact4: This katydid is soapy if that embellishment is unjust. fact5: That that something is soapy and it is biosynthetic is right is false if it is not a kind of a XXIII. fact6: Everyone is not a XXIII. ; $hypothesis$ = This b is not a exocrine. ; $proof$ =

fact4 & fact2 -> int1: This katydid is soapy.; int1 & fact3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

This landler occurs.

{B}

fact1: That that readying Viverridae does not happens results in that this vitreousness does not occurs and the unlovingness does not occurs. fact2: If that fouled occurs that notthat proceedingsing but this gasping happens does not hold. fact3: If that that that homeness does not happens or this insectanness occurs or both does not hold hold this landler does not happens. fact4: That homeness does not happens. fact5: If this insectanness does not happens that homeness occurs and this landler happens. fact6: That that gymnastics does not occurs or this twang occurs or both does not hold. fact7: If this gasping occurs that either that homeness does not occurs or this insectanness occurs or both is wrong. fact8: This rhomboid occurs. fact9: This solemnizing precociousness happens but that microbicness does not occurs if this vitreousness does not occurs. fact10: Both that faking and that fouled occurs if this twang does not occurs. fact11: This damper happens if that either that readying Viverridae does not happens or this categoricness happens or both does not hold. fact12: This insectanness does not occurs if that this insectanness happens and that proceedingsing does not happens is incorrect. fact13: This twang does not happens if this mushroom happens. fact14: This amygdalineness does not happens if that that homeness does not happens is true. fact15: If that homeness happens the fact that either that non-surfaceness or that hydroponics or both happens does not hold. fact16: If this insectanness does not occurs this landler does not happens and that homeness does not happens. fact17: That this insectanness occurs and that proceedingsing does not happens does not hold if this gasping occurs. fact18: If that homeness does not occurs then that either this programme does not occurs or this amygdalineness occurs or both does not hold. fact19: If this solemnizing precociousness occurs then this mushroom happens. fact20: This amygdalineness does not happens. fact21: If this rhomboid happens that readying Viverridae does not happens and that wittingness does not happens. fact22: That the inertia does not happens is prevented by that the circumambulating cadenza does not occurs.

fact1: ¬{O} -> (¬{M} & ¬{N}) fact2: {F} -> ¬(¬{E} & {D}) fact3: ¬(¬{A} v {C}) -> ¬{B} fact4: ¬{A} fact5: ¬{C} -> ({A} & {B}) fact6: ¬(¬{BE} v {I}) fact7: {D} -> ¬(¬{A} v {C}) fact8: {Q} fact9: ¬{M} -> ({K} & ¬{L}) fact10: ¬{I} -> ({G} & {F}) fact11: ¬(¬{O} v {BM}) -> {JD} fact12: ¬({C} & ¬{E}) -> ¬{C} fact13: {J} -> ¬{I} fact14: ¬{A} -> ¬{AB} fact15: {A} -> ¬(¬{H} v {DB}) fact16: ¬{C} -> (¬{B} & ¬{A}) fact17: {D} -> ¬({C} & ¬{E}) fact18: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{AA} v {AB}) fact19: {K} -> {J} fact20: ¬{AB} fact21: {Q} -> (¬{O} & ¬{P}) fact22: ¬{DC} -> {IO}

This landler does not happens.

¬{B}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That that readying Viverridae does not happens results in that this vitreousness does not occurs and the unlovingness does not occurs. fact2: If that fouled occurs that notthat proceedingsing but this gasping happens does not hold. fact3: If that that that homeness does not happens or this insectanness occurs or both does not hold hold this landler does not happens. fact4: That homeness does not happens. fact5: If this insectanness does not happens that homeness occurs and this landler happens. fact6: That that gymnastics does not occurs or this twang occurs or both does not hold. fact7: If this gasping occurs that either that homeness does not occurs or this insectanness occurs or both is wrong. fact8: This rhomboid occurs. fact9: This solemnizing precociousness happens but that microbicness does not occurs if this vitreousness does not occurs. fact10: Both that faking and that fouled occurs if this twang does not occurs. fact11: This damper happens if that either that readying Viverridae does not happens or this categoricness happens or both does not hold. fact12: This insectanness does not occurs if that this insectanness happens and that proceedingsing does not happens is incorrect. fact13: This twang does not happens if this mushroom happens. fact14: This amygdalineness does not happens if that that homeness does not happens is true. fact15: If that homeness happens the fact that either that non-surfaceness or that hydroponics or both happens does not hold. fact16: If this insectanness does not occurs this landler does not happens and that homeness does not happens. fact17: That this insectanness occurs and that proceedingsing does not happens does not hold if this gasping occurs. fact18: If that homeness does not occurs then that either this programme does not occurs or this amygdalineness occurs or both does not hold. fact19: If this solemnizing precociousness occurs then this mushroom happens. fact20: This amygdalineness does not happens. fact21: If this rhomboid happens that readying Viverridae does not happens and that wittingness does not happens. fact22: That the inertia does not happens is prevented by that the circumambulating cadenza does not occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = This landler occurs. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That immoderateness occurs and/or that classicisticness happens.

({C} v {D})

fact1: This laryngospasm occurs. fact2: That that ELINT happens causes that that motorization happens and this inscribing oligodontia does not occurs. fact3: The fact that this precedency and this laryngospasm occurs is wrong if this freeingness does not happens. fact4: This precedency happens and this laryngospasm occurs. fact5: If this inscribing oligodontia does not occurs then this beguilement and this battling occurs. fact6: If that this beguilement occurs hold then this wailing Phoronida does not happens and this recording does not occurs. fact7: The fact that this freeingness happens and this inshoreness happens is not correct if this wailing Phoronida does not occurs. fact8: If the fact that both this freeingness and this inshoreness happens is wrong this freeingness does not happens. fact9: This precedency does not occurs if that this precedency and this laryngospasm happens is not right. fact10: This unlaureledness happens. fact11: The fact that that this precedency happens brings about that that immoderateness occurs is true. fact12: If this precedency does not occurs that either that immoderateness occurs or that classicisticness occurs or both is false. fact13: That helping occurs.

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

The fact that that immoderateness happens or that classicisticness occurs or both does not hold.

¬({C} v {D})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This laryngospasm occurs. fact2: That that ELINT happens causes that that motorization happens and this inscribing oligodontia does not occurs. fact3: The fact that this precedency and this laryngospasm occurs is wrong if this freeingness does not happens. fact4: This precedency happens and this laryngospasm occurs. fact5: If this inscribing oligodontia does not occurs then this beguilement and this battling occurs. fact6: If that this beguilement occurs hold then this wailing Phoronida does not happens and this recording does not occurs. fact7: The fact that this freeingness happens and this inshoreness happens is not correct if this wailing Phoronida does not occurs. fact8: If the fact that both this freeingness and this inshoreness happens is wrong this freeingness does not happens. fact9: This precedency does not occurs if that this precedency and this laryngospasm happens is not right. fact10: This unlaureledness happens. fact11: The fact that that this precedency happens brings about that that immoderateness occurs is true. fact12: If this precedency does not occurs that either that immoderateness occurs or that classicisticness occurs or both is false. fact13: That helping occurs. ; $hypothesis$ = That immoderateness occurs and/or that classicisticness happens. ; $proof$ =

fact4 -> int1: The fact that this precedency occurs is true.; int1 & fact11 -> int2: That immoderateness happens.; int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

The fact that there is something such that it is both not a Casmerodius and a McGuffey does not hold.

¬((Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x))

fact1: If the fact that something does not direct is right that thing is not a 24/7 and is a chromesthesia. fact2: There are non-Downing things. fact3: Something is a McGuffey.

fact1: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{CU}x & {E}x) fact2: (Ex): ¬{CR}x fact3: (Ex): {AB}x

There is something such that it is not a 24/7 and it is a chromesthesia.

(Ex): (¬{CU}x & {E}x)

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If the fact that something does not direct is right that thing is not a 24/7 and is a chromesthesia. fact2: There are non-Downing things. fact3: Something is a McGuffey. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that there is something such that it is both not a Casmerodius and a McGuffey does not hold. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

The fact that that asp is a kind of non-prolate thing that is not a kind of a Batidaceae is wrong.

¬(¬{B}{b} & ¬{D}{b})

fact1: That that asp is prolate but the thing is not a Batidaceae is incorrect if this trazodone is prolate. fact2: That asp is a kind of a Melampsoraceae and is a whirlpool. fact3: This trazodone sizes Alepisaurus. fact4: If that asp is prolate then the fact that this trazodone is prolate but not a Batidaceae is wrong. fact5: If that asp is a Batidaceae then the fact that this trazodone is a Batidaceae but it is non-prolate is wrong. fact6: That that asp is prolate but that is not a Batidaceae is false. fact7: If that asp is a kind of a Batidaceae then the fact that this trazodone is not a kind of a Batidaceae and is not prolate is wrong. fact8: If this trazodone is prolate that that asp is non-prolate thing that is a kind of a Batidaceae does not hold. fact9: That that asp is not prolate but it is a kind of a Batidaceae does not hold. fact10: That asp sizes Alepisaurus. fact11: This trazodone sizes Alepisaurus and this thing is prolate.

fact1: {B}{a} -> ¬({B}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) fact2: ({CA}{b} & {EF}{b}) fact3: {A}{a} fact4: {B}{b} -> ¬({B}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) fact5: {D}{b} -> ¬({D}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) fact6: ¬({B}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) fact7: {D}{b} -> ¬(¬{D}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) fact8: {B}{a} -> ¬(¬{B}{b} & {D}{b}) fact9: ¬(¬{B}{b} & {D}{b}) fact10: {A}{b} fact11: ({A}{a} & {B}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That that asp is prolate but the thing is not a Batidaceae is incorrect if this trazodone is prolate. fact2: That asp is a kind of a Melampsoraceae and is a whirlpool. fact3: This trazodone sizes Alepisaurus. fact4: If that asp is prolate then the fact that this trazodone is prolate but not a Batidaceae is wrong. fact5: If that asp is a Batidaceae then the fact that this trazodone is a Batidaceae but it is non-prolate is wrong. fact6: That that asp is prolate but that is not a Batidaceae is false. fact7: If that asp is a kind of a Batidaceae then the fact that this trazodone is not a kind of a Batidaceae and is not prolate is wrong. fact8: If this trazodone is prolate that that asp is non-prolate thing that is a kind of a Batidaceae does not hold. fact9: That that asp is not prolate but it is a kind of a Batidaceae does not hold. fact10: That asp sizes Alepisaurus. fact11: This trazodone sizes Alepisaurus and this thing is prolate. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that that asp is a kind of non-prolate thing that is not a kind of a Batidaceae is wrong. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

Sebastian is insensitive.

{B}{b}

fact1: If some person does not hatch tantra and tranquilizings then it is not insensitive. fact2: Sebastian does not hatch tantra and tranquilizings if that macaque is not a Anthropoidea. fact3: Somebody is insensitive if he is a kind of a Anthropoidea.

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

Sebastian is insensitive.

{B}{b}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If some person does not hatch tantra and tranquilizings then it is not insensitive. fact2: Sebastian does not hatch tantra and tranquilizings if that macaque is not a Anthropoidea. fact3: Somebody is insensitive if he is a kind of a Anthropoidea. ; $hypothesis$ = Sebastian is insensitive. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

The fact that this reach is not non-metacentric and this ramifies is false.

¬({A}{a} & {B}{a})

fact1: This reach is metacentric. fact2: If something inures the fact that that does not pose verb and that ramifies does not hold. fact3: If something is a vigour then it inures. fact4: If the fact that somebody does not pose verb but it ramifies does not hold it pose verb. fact5: This reach does rouge cashcard and/or this is a Hebraism. fact6: This reach shelters. fact7: This reach is a kind of campanulate thing that is medieval. fact8: Some man is metacentric if it is not a partiality and it is dural. fact9: That INS is metacentric. fact10: Some man is not a kind of a partiality but he/she is dural if he/she is a vigour. fact11: Some man is not a partiality or it is dural or both if that it inures hold. fact12: That sassaby is metacentric. fact13: If this anthurium does not save Odontophorus that planula inures and it eludes Mergenthaler. fact14: This cornetist is metacentric. fact15: If this reach rouges cashcard then that planula is a kind of a vigour. fact16: That planula is a vigour if this reach is a Hebraism. fact17: Something is not a partiality if it is not a partiality or it is dural or both. fact18: This reach ramifies. fact19: The fact that some man is metacentric and it ramifies is not right if it is not a partiality.

fact1: {A}{a} fact2: (x): {E}x -> ¬(¬{BG}x & {B}x) fact3: (x): {F}x -> {E}x fact4: (x): ¬(¬{BG}x & {B}x) -> {BG}x fact5: ({H}{a} v {I}{a}) fact6: {JB}{a} fact7: ({O}{a} & {IG}{a}) fact8: (x): (¬{C}x & {D}x) -> {A}x fact9: {A}{je} fact10: (x): {F}x -> (¬{C}x & {D}x) fact11: (x): {E}x -> (¬{C}x v {D}x) fact12: {A}{o} fact13: ¬{J}{b} -> ({E}{p} & {G}{p}) fact14: {A}{r} fact15: {H}{a} -> {F}{p} fact16: {I}{a} -> {F}{p} fact17: (x): (¬{C}x v {D}x) -> ¬{C}x fact18: {B}{a} fact19: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({A}x & {B}x)

The fact that this reach is not non-metacentric and this ramifies is false.

¬({A}{a} & {B}{a})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This reach is metacentric. fact2: If something inures the fact that that does not pose verb and that ramifies does not hold. fact3: If something is a vigour then it inures. fact4: If the fact that somebody does not pose verb but it ramifies does not hold it pose verb. fact5: This reach does rouge cashcard and/or this is a Hebraism. fact6: This reach shelters. fact7: This reach is a kind of campanulate thing that is medieval. fact8: Some man is metacentric if it is not a partiality and it is dural. fact9: That INS is metacentric. fact10: Some man is not a kind of a partiality but he/she is dural if he/she is a vigour. fact11: Some man is not a partiality or it is dural or both if that it inures hold. fact12: That sassaby is metacentric. fact13: If this anthurium does not save Odontophorus that planula inures and it eludes Mergenthaler. fact14: This cornetist is metacentric. fact15: If this reach rouges cashcard then that planula is a kind of a vigour. fact16: That planula is a vigour if this reach is a Hebraism. fact17: Something is not a partiality if it is not a partiality or it is dural or both. fact18: This reach ramifies. fact19: The fact that some man is metacentric and it ramifies is not right if it is not a partiality. ; $hypothesis$ = The fact that this reach is not non-metacentric and this ramifies is false. ; $proof$ =

fact1 & fact18 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

This sixpack is not a Passiflora.

¬{A}{a}

fact1: If this dermatologist is Gandhian but that thing is not a schmeer that this Arkansan is a Passiflora is true. fact2: This sixpack is not a kind of a monotheism and it does not rollick Basutoland if this Arkansan is a Passiflora. fact3: This Arkansan does not overbear and is not Gandhian. fact4: If this sixpack is a Passiflora then this sixpack is a schmeer. fact5: Ryan is not a Passiflora. fact6: Somebody is a Passiflora that is not a schmeer if the one is Gandhian. fact7: This Arkansan is not Gandhian. fact8: This sixpack is not a schmeer if the fact that this Arkansan does not overbear but he is Gandhian is right. fact9: This Arkansan is not a Passiflora.

fact1: ({C}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) -> {A}{b} fact2: {A}{b} -> (¬{O}{a} & ¬{EO}{a}) fact3: (¬{D}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) fact4: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} fact5: ¬{A}{dh} fact6: (x): {C}x -> ({A}x & ¬{B}x) fact7: ¬{C}{b} fact8: (¬{D}{b} & {C}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} fact9: ¬{A}{b}

This sixpack is not a monotheism and that does not rollick Basutoland.

(¬{O}{a} & ¬{EO}{a})

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If this dermatologist is Gandhian but that thing is not a schmeer that this Arkansan is a Passiflora is true. fact2: This sixpack is not a kind of a monotheism and it does not rollick Basutoland if this Arkansan is a Passiflora. fact3: This Arkansan does not overbear and is not Gandhian. fact4: If this sixpack is a Passiflora then this sixpack is a schmeer. fact5: Ryan is not a Passiflora. fact6: Somebody is a Passiflora that is not a schmeer if the one is Gandhian. fact7: This Arkansan is not Gandhian. fact8: This sixpack is not a schmeer if the fact that this Arkansan does not overbear but he is Gandhian is right. fact9: This Arkansan is not a Passiflora. ; $hypothesis$ = This sixpack is not a Passiflora. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That snatch but notthat neriticness happens.

({D} & ¬{C})

fact1: If this menopausalness does not occurs then the commotion happens but this menopausalness does not occurs. fact2: This inappropriateness but notthe accumulation occurs. fact3: That neriticness does not occurs if that deceiving prowess occurs. fact4: If the unappendagedness occurs then this diluting does not happens. fact5: This debauchery does not occurs. fact6: That both this frescoing Vanellus and this EW happens is triggered by that that heisting does not occurs. fact7: That canonicness happens. fact8: This propheticalness does not happens if this EW occurs. fact9: This questing causes that the earlierness does not happens. fact10: If that deceiving prowess happens the fact that that snatch happens but that neriticness does not happens is not correct. fact11: If this propheticalness does not happens the fact that that deceiving prowess and that canonicness happens is correct. fact12: If that neriticness does not happens both that snatch and that neriticnessness happens. fact13: If that that canonicness happens but that deceiving prowess does not occurs is incorrect then this grasslessness does not happens.

fact1: ¬{GH} -> ({CA} & ¬{GH}) fact2: ({DH} & ¬{R}) fact3: {A} -> ¬{C} fact4: {IM} -> ¬{AD} fact5: ¬{EE} fact6: ¬{H} -> ({G} & {F}) fact7: {B} fact8: {F} -> ¬{E} fact9: {BR} -> ¬{CT} fact10: {A} -> ¬({D} & ¬{C}) fact11: ¬{E} -> ({A} & {B}) fact12: ¬{C} -> ({D} & ¬{C}) fact13: ¬({B} & ¬{A}) -> ¬{EB}

That this grasslessness does not occurs is right.

¬{EB}

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: If this menopausalness does not occurs then the commotion happens but this menopausalness does not occurs. fact2: This inappropriateness but notthe accumulation occurs. fact3: That neriticness does not occurs if that deceiving prowess occurs. fact4: If the unappendagedness occurs then this diluting does not happens. fact5: This debauchery does not occurs. fact6: That both this frescoing Vanellus and this EW happens is triggered by that that heisting does not occurs. fact7: That canonicness happens. fact8: This propheticalness does not happens if this EW occurs. fact9: This questing causes that the earlierness does not happens. fact10: If that deceiving prowess happens the fact that that snatch happens but that neriticness does not happens is not correct. fact11: If this propheticalness does not happens the fact that that deceiving prowess and that canonicness happens is correct. fact12: If that neriticness does not happens both that snatch and that neriticnessness happens. fact13: If that that canonicness happens but that deceiving prowess does not occurs is incorrect then this grasslessness does not happens. ; $hypothesis$ = That snatch but notthat neriticness happens. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That fiberscope is a compliment.

{A}{a}

fact1: That fiberscope is not a shigellosis. fact2: That fiberscope undercoats 500 if that fiberscope is a kind of a hemoglobinopathy but she/he is not a Sargent. fact3: That fiberscope undercoats 500 if that fiberscope is a kind of unappetising man that is not a kind of a shigellosis. fact4: If something does undercoat 500 then it is a compliment. fact5: That fiberscope is not a compliment if either that tolazamide is a compliment or it undercoats 500 or both. fact6: If this taxi undercoats 500 but it is not a Jacksonia then this taxi is a Saxon. fact7: That fiberscope does undercoat 500 if the person is unappetising and the person is a shigellosis. fact8: That that fiberscope is not appetizing and not a shigellosis is correct.

fact1: ¬{AB}{a} fact2: ({FR}{a} & ¬{GI}{a}) -> {B}{a} fact3: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} fact4: (x): {B}x -> {A}x fact5: ({A}{b} v {B}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a} fact6: ({B}{in} & ¬{FS}{in}) -> {DT}{in} fact7: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} fact8: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

That fiberscope is not a kind of a compliment.

¬{A}{a}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That fiberscope is not a shigellosis. fact2: That fiberscope undercoats 500 if that fiberscope is a kind of a hemoglobinopathy but she/he is not a Sargent. fact3: That fiberscope undercoats 500 if that fiberscope is a kind of unappetising man that is not a kind of a shigellosis. fact4: If something does undercoat 500 then it is a compliment. fact5: That fiberscope is not a compliment if either that tolazamide is a compliment or it undercoats 500 or both. fact6: If this taxi undercoats 500 but it is not a Jacksonia then this taxi is a Saxon. fact7: That fiberscope does undercoat 500 if the person is unappetising and the person is a shigellosis. fact8: That that fiberscope is not appetizing and not a shigellosis is correct. ; $hypothesis$ = That fiberscope is a compliment. ; $proof$ =

fact3 & fact8 -> int1: That fiberscope undercoats 500.; fact4 -> int2: That fiberscope is a compliment if it undercoats 500.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

That the fact that this unhappiness but notthe ignition happens is wrong is correct.

¬({AA} & ¬{AB})

fact1: This boycotting but notthe developing Tiresias occurs. fact2: If this mollification occurs that the occasions does not happens or that aggravating Polemoniales does not happens or both is not right. fact3: That this boycotting does not occurs brings about that that scabbing Korda occurs and this chaos occurs. fact4: That unliving Karenic happens and that Vienneseness does not happens. fact5: That this culinariness occurs and the rushing does not occurs is brought about by the neurosurgery. fact6: That goalkeeper but notthe unfrozenness happens if that scabbing Korda happens. fact7: The fact that this stylostixis does not occurs or that fledgeding innocency does not occurs or both is false if that filariidness does not happens. fact8: That this unhappiness but notthe ignition happens does not hold if that glaring inverse does not occurs. fact9: That this analyzing docility occurs prevents that that filariidness happens. fact10: If this trickling occurs then both this invertebrate and this non-forwardness occurs. fact11: The ignition does not occurs. fact12: If that that Vienneseness happens hold then this furnishing does not happens and this elysianness does not occurs. fact13: This non-unspacedness causes that this Angolan occurs and/or that mailing eudemonism occurs. fact14: This boycotting does not happens if that this stylostixis does not happens and/or that fledgeding innocency does not occurs is false. fact15: That glaring inverse does not happens if both that goalkeeper and that blockness happens. fact16: If that that glaring inverse happens is right this unhappiness occurs and the ignition does not occurs. fact17: That glaring inverse prevents that the ignition happens. fact18: This analyzing docility occurs if that that either the occasions does not happens or that aggravating Polemoniales does not happens or both hold does not hold. fact19: If that that eased does not happens and the assuming Aulostomidae does not happens does not hold then this unspacedness does not occurs. fact20: That this furnishing does not occurs leads to that this mollification and that unironedness happens. fact21: That that glaring inverse happens hold. fact22: The hugging but notthe thrombectomy happens.

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

That the fact that this unhappiness but notthe ignition happens is wrong is correct.

¬({AA} & ¬{AB})

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

DISPROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: This boycotting but notthe developing Tiresias occurs. fact2: If this mollification occurs that the occasions does not happens or that aggravating Polemoniales does not happens or both is not right. fact3: That this boycotting does not occurs brings about that that scabbing Korda occurs and this chaos occurs. fact4: That unliving Karenic happens and that Vienneseness does not happens. fact5: That this culinariness occurs and the rushing does not occurs is brought about by the neurosurgery. fact6: That goalkeeper but notthe unfrozenness happens if that scabbing Korda happens. fact7: The fact that this stylostixis does not occurs or that fledgeding innocency does not occurs or both is false if that filariidness does not happens. fact8: That this unhappiness but notthe ignition happens does not hold if that glaring inverse does not occurs. fact9: That this analyzing docility occurs prevents that that filariidness happens. fact10: If this trickling occurs then both this invertebrate and this non-forwardness occurs. fact11: The ignition does not occurs. fact12: If that that Vienneseness happens hold then this furnishing does not happens and this elysianness does not occurs. fact13: This non-unspacedness causes that this Angolan occurs and/or that mailing eudemonism occurs. fact14: This boycotting does not happens if that this stylostixis does not happens and/or that fledgeding innocency does not occurs is false. fact15: That glaring inverse does not happens if both that goalkeeper and that blockness happens. fact16: If that that glaring inverse happens is right this unhappiness occurs and the ignition does not occurs. fact17: That glaring inverse prevents that the ignition happens. fact18: This analyzing docility occurs if that that either the occasions does not happens or that aggravating Polemoniales does not happens or both hold does not hold. fact19: If that that eased does not happens and the assuming Aulostomidae does not happens does not hold then this unspacedness does not occurs. fact20: That this furnishing does not occurs leads to that this mollification and that unironedness happens. fact21: That that glaring inverse happens hold. fact22: The hugging but notthe thrombectomy happens. ; $hypothesis$ = That the fact that this unhappiness but notthe ignition happens is wrong is correct. ; $proof$ =

fact16 & fact21 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

That unsystematicness occurs.

{C}

fact1: That unsystematicness does not occurs if that muchness does not occurs and this mugging does not happens. fact2: That unsystematicness occurs if that Parthianness happens. fact3: That unpackagedness causes that that uneducatedness does not happens and this tripos does not happens. fact4: That this demoing Puffinus and the piscineness happens is triggered by that this accomplishment does not happens. fact5: This radiologicalness occurs and this awarding happens if the fact that that Parthianness does not happens hold. fact6: Both this radiologicalness and that Parthianness happens. fact7: If the fact that notthe clubbing but that Andalusianness occurs is incorrect the fact that this mugging does not occurs is correct. fact8: If that this winnowing does not occurs is correct the fact that notthe clubbing but that Andalusianness occurs is incorrect. fact9: That unpackagedness occurs if that unpackagedness occurs and/or the engaging does not happens. fact10: That notthat muchness but this tameness occurs is brought about by that this demoing Puffinus occurs. fact11: This accomplishment does not occurs. fact12: That both this non-unsystematicness and this non-uneducatedness occurs brings about that that Parthianness does not happens.

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

This awarding occurs.

{G}

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: That unsystematicness does not occurs if that muchness does not occurs and this mugging does not happens. fact2: That unsystematicness occurs if that Parthianness happens. fact3: That unpackagedness causes that that uneducatedness does not happens and this tripos does not happens. fact4: That this demoing Puffinus and the piscineness happens is triggered by that this accomplishment does not happens. fact5: This radiologicalness occurs and this awarding happens if the fact that that Parthianness does not happens hold. fact6: Both this radiologicalness and that Parthianness happens. fact7: If the fact that notthe clubbing but that Andalusianness occurs is incorrect the fact that this mugging does not occurs is correct. fact8: If that this winnowing does not occurs is correct the fact that notthe clubbing but that Andalusianness occurs is incorrect. fact9: That unpackagedness occurs if that unpackagedness occurs and/or the engaging does not happens. fact10: That notthat muchness but this tameness occurs is brought about by that this demoing Puffinus occurs. fact11: This accomplishment does not occurs. fact12: That both this non-unsystematicness and this non-uneducatedness occurs brings about that that Parthianness does not happens. ; $hypothesis$ = That unsystematicness occurs. ; $proof$ =

fact6 -> int1: That Parthianness occurs.; int1 & fact2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

That davallia is a stripped.

{D}{c}

fact1: Someone Romances if he does not conform Pilularia and he is a burke. fact2: If that that davallia is not a team and does conform Pilularia hold this framework does not conform Pilularia. fact3: If this framework is indexical and/or geopolitical then that davallia is not a stripped. fact4: That polythene starts Heliobacter and is not geopolitical if this framework does Romance. fact5: If some person is not a kind of a pharmaceutical but he heads coronach then he is not a usufructuary. fact6: If that polythene does start Heliobacter and is not geopolitical this ledgeman is non-indexical. fact7: This framework is not a kind of a pharmaceutical and does head coronach. fact8: This framework is indexical if that polythene is a kind of a Vega. fact9: Some man is a Vega and it is a kind of a stripped if it is not indexical. fact10: That polythene is a Vega. fact11: Something is a burke and that thing is auric if that thing is not a kind of a usufructuary. fact12: If a indexical man is geopolitical then it is not a Vega. fact13: That davallia is not a team and conforms Pilularia.

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

This ledgeman is a stripped.

{D}{gt}

DISPROVED

PROVED

DISPROVED

PROVED

$facts$ = fact1: Someone Romances if he does not conform Pilularia and he is a burke. fact2: If that that davallia is not a team and does conform Pilularia hold this framework does not conform Pilularia. fact3: If this framework is indexical and/or geopolitical then that davallia is not a stripped. fact4: That polythene starts Heliobacter and is not geopolitical if this framework does Romance. fact5: If some person is not a kind of a pharmaceutical but he heads coronach then he is not a usufructuary. fact6: If that polythene does start Heliobacter and is not geopolitical this ledgeman is non-indexical. fact7: This framework is not a kind of a pharmaceutical and does head coronach. fact8: This framework is indexical if that polythene is a kind of a Vega. fact9: Some man is a Vega and it is a kind of a stripped if it is not indexical. fact10: That polythene is a Vega. fact11: Something is a burke and that thing is auric if that thing is not a kind of a usufructuary. fact12: If a indexical man is geopolitical then it is not a Vega. fact13: That davallia is not a team and conforms Pilularia. ; $hypothesis$ = That davallia is a stripped. ; $proof$ =

fact8 & fact10 -> int1: This framework is indexical.; int1 -> int2: This framework is indexical and/or geopolitical.; int2 & fact3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__

0.3

This Parsons does remain and does dilute Armeria.

({AA}{a} & {B}{a})

fact1: that Armeria does dilute Parsons. fact2: If this Parsons is not a hare it does remain and it is a guise. fact3: This Parsons is not a hare. fact4: This Parsons does dilute Armeria. fact5: If this sweep is not a hare then the fact that this Parsons remains and does dilute Armeria is false.

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

The fact that this Parsons remains and dilutes Armeria does not hold.

¬({AA}{a} & {B}{a})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: that Armeria does dilute Parsons. fact2: If this Parsons is not a hare it does remain and it is a guise. fact3: This Parsons is not a hare. fact4: This Parsons does dilute Armeria. fact5: If this sweep is not a hare then the fact that this Parsons remains and does dilute Armeria is false. ; $hypothesis$ = This Parsons does remain and does dilute Armeria. ; $proof$ =

fact2 & fact3 -> int1: This Parsons remains and it is a kind of a guise.; int1 -> int2: That this Parsons remains is not incorrect.; int2 & fact4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

This quad does not chairman hyperlipemia and does not bankroll.

(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a})

fact1: that if this silver either exhausts Blattodea or is not a kind of a aptness or both Eli does not uglify does not hold.

fact1: fake_formula

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: that if this silver either exhausts Blattodea or is not a kind of a aptness or both Eli does not uglify does not hold. ; $hypothesis$ = This quad does not chairman hyperlipemia and does not bankroll. ; $proof$ =

__UNKNOWN__

0.3

That that either this narwhal is not a basketful or this does not exact pointedness or both is not wrong is wrong.

¬(¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa})

fact1: Some man utters polydactyly if he is not exhaustible. fact2: If some person is not a Archilochus then the fact that it is not a kind of a basketful and/or does not exact pointedness does not hold. fact3: If something is not trabeculate then the fact that that Vijay is both not unaccustomed and not non-masonic is correct is not right. fact4: That this capacitance is a kind of non-pyroligneous thing that is trabeculate is wrong. fact5: The fact that this narwhal is both not a meet and not a hokum is not right. fact6: Something is a kind of a hokum if it is not a kind of a basketful. fact7: Somebody is a meet and/or not a lipogram if the fact that it is not masonic hold. fact8: This narwhal exacts pointedness if this narwhal is not a Archilochus. fact9: Some man is not masonic if that it is not unaccustomed and it is masonic is false. fact10: This narwhal is not a hokum if this narwhal privileges. fact11: If that that this narwhal is not a meet and this thing is not a hokum is correct does not hold this narwhal is not a Archilochus. fact12: If this narwhal is not an awe then it is a kind of a nonuniformity. fact13: That the aerogenerator is not a tameness and not a meet is incorrect. fact14: If someone does not slurp unappetisingness the fact that it outsails interrelatedness hold. fact15: If this mavin is not a Archilochus that this narwhal is both not Michelangelesque and not a hokum is wrong. fact16: This narwhal does not colour barbarousness. fact17: Something is not trabeculate if that it is both non-pyroligneous and trabeculate does not hold. fact18: That this femoris is cartographic one that does not simulate Gleditsia is wrong. fact19: If Vijay is a kind of a meet then this mavin is not a meet. fact20: This narwhal is Michelangelesque. fact21: That Nita is not a kind of a cryoanaesthesia and/or the one is not lasting is wrong. fact22: If that centaury is not a vii then that that centaury is a Kinosternidae hold.

fact1: (x): ¬{J}x -> {BI}x fact2: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) fact3: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬(¬{G}{b} & {D}{b}) fact4: ¬(¬{I}{c} & {F}{c}) fact5: ¬(¬{C}{aa} & ¬{B}{aa}) fact6: (x): ¬{AA}x -> {B}x fact7: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({C}x v ¬{E}x) fact8: ¬{A}{aa} -> {AB}{aa} fact9: (x): ¬(¬{G}x & {D}x) -> ¬{D}x fact10: {CN}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} fact11: ¬(¬{C}{aa} & ¬{B}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{aa} fact12: ¬{P}{aa} -> {HP}{aa} fact13: ¬(¬{AC}{aj} & ¬{C}{aj}) fact14: (x): ¬{O}x -> {EU}x fact15: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{FT}{aa} & ¬{B}{aa}) fact16: ¬{AK}{aa} fact17: (x): ¬(¬{I}x & {F}x) -> ¬{F}x fact18: ¬({EG}{ea} & ¬{DJ}{ea}) fact19: {C}{b} -> ¬{C}{a} fact20: {FT}{aa} fact21: ¬(¬{DN}{fk} v ¬{HM}{fk}) fact22: ¬{HK}{eu} -> {GR}{eu}

That this narwhal is non-Michelangelesque and he is not a hokum is incorrect.

¬(¬{FT}{aa} & ¬{B}{aa})

PROVED

UNKNOWN

PROVED

UNKNOWN

$facts$ = fact1: Some man utters polydactyly if he is not exhaustible. fact2: If some person is not a Archilochus then the fact that it is not a kind of a basketful and/or does not exact pointedness does not hold. fact3: If something is not trabeculate then the fact that that Vijay is both not unaccustomed and not non-masonic is correct is not right. fact4: That this capacitance is a kind of non-pyroligneous thing that is trabeculate is wrong. fact5: The fact that this narwhal is both not a meet and not a hokum is not right. fact6: Something is a kind of a hokum if it is not a kind of a basketful. fact7: Somebody is a meet and/or not a lipogram if the fact that it is not masonic hold. fact8: This narwhal exacts pointedness if this narwhal is not a Archilochus. fact9: Some man is not masonic if that it is not unaccustomed and it is masonic is false. fact10: This narwhal is not a hokum if this narwhal privileges. fact11: If that that this narwhal is not a meet and this thing is not a hokum is correct does not hold this narwhal is not a Archilochus. fact12: If this narwhal is not an awe then it is a kind of a nonuniformity. fact13: That the aerogenerator is not a tameness and not a meet is incorrect. fact14: If someone does not slurp unappetisingness the fact that it outsails interrelatedness hold. fact15: If this mavin is not a Archilochus that this narwhal is both not Michelangelesque and not a hokum is wrong. fact16: This narwhal does not colour barbarousness. fact17: Something is not trabeculate if that it is both non-pyroligneous and trabeculate does not hold. fact18: That this femoris is cartographic one that does not simulate Gleditsia is wrong. fact19: If Vijay is a kind of a meet then this mavin is not a meet. fact20: This narwhal is Michelangelesque. fact21: That Nita is not a kind of a cryoanaesthesia and/or the one is not lasting is wrong. fact22: If that centaury is not a vii then that that centaury is a Kinosternidae hold. ; $hypothesis$ = That that either this narwhal is not a basketful or this does not exact pointedness or both is not wrong is wrong. ; $proof$ =

fact2 -> int1: That this narwhal is not a kind of a basketful and/or does not exact pointedness is wrong if it is not a Archilochus.; fact11 & fact5 -> int2: This narwhal is not a kind of a Archilochus.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__

0.3

There is something such that if it deports Haftorah then the fact that it is not a kind of a Hermannia and does not bag does not hold.

(Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)

fact1: There is something such that if the thing reprints NLRB the fact that the thing flatters and the thing is not hyperthermal is false. fact2: There exists something such that if it deports Haftorah then that it is not a Hermannia and it bags is not correct. fact3: That that broad is insignificant but this is not a cracked does not hold if that broad is a kind of a plait. fact4: If Mariela does bag that Mariela is not a kind of a cadency and is a kind of a mettle is wrong. fact5: There exists something such that if the thing deports Haftorah then that the thing is a kind of a Hermannia and the thing does not bag does not hold. fact6: The fact that Mariela is not a Quebecois but this is not drinkable is incorrect if this bags. fact7: There exists something such that if that this is a kind of a femininity is true this is not a kind of an exhibit and this is not a daubing. fact8: The fact that Mariela is not a Hermannia and does not bag is false if Mariela deports Haftorah. fact9: That Mariela is not a Hermannia and bags is wrong if that one deports Haftorah. fact10: There exists something such that if that that deports Haftorah is right then that is not a Hermannia and does not bag. fact11: The fact that something is not a Chavez and it is not a suppertime does not hold if it is a fingered. fact12: The fact that Walter is a kind of susceptible one that bags does not hold if that one is a Schutzstaffel. fact13: Mariela is a kind of non-cuneiform man that does not deport Haftorah if Mariela preaches Patagonia. fact14: Mariela is not a Hermannia and does not bag if Mariela does deport Haftorah. fact15: There exists some person such that if it forts Brattleboro the fact that it is not a numeracy and it is not a Chavez is false. fact16: There is somebody such that if it preaches Patagonia that it is topographical and it does not squeal thanatology is wrong. fact17: If Mariela deports Haftorah then that Mariela is a kind of a Hermannia but he does not bag does not hold. fact18: If something is unclassified then that it is both not squinty and not a Riviera is false. fact19: There is somebody such that if the fact that she is unclassified is not wrong that she is adnate and she is not a Call does not hold. fact20: That Mariela mates myometritis and is not a kind of a union does not hold if it deports Haftorah.

fact1: (Ex): {JD}x -> ¬({JH}x & ¬{HI}x) fact2: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) fact3: {HL}{ho} -> ¬({HC}{ho} & ¬{HQ}{ho}) fact4: {AB}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AK}{aa} & {CS}{aa}) fact5: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) fact6: {AB}{aa} -> ¬(¬{FL}{aa} & {BT}{aa}) fact7: (Ex): {CI}x -> (¬{GR}x & ¬{DN}x) fact8: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) fact9: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) fact10: (Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) fact11: (x): {HP}x -> ¬(¬{DP}x & ¬{CJ}x) fact12: {DB}{fs} -> ¬(¬{CM}{fs} & {AB}{fs}) fact13: {ED}{aa} -> (¬{GG}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa}) fact14: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) fact15: (Ex): {ES}x -> ¬(¬{EU}x & ¬{DP}x) fact16: (Ex): {ED}x -> ¬({CF}x & ¬{HJ}x) fact17: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) fact18: (x): {BE}x -> ¬(¬{AF}x & ¬{BA}x) fact19: (Ex): {BE}x -> ¬({BI}x & ¬{IN}x) fact20: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AU}{aa} & ¬{DD}{aa})

There exists some man such that if it is a kind of a fingered then the fact that it is not a Chavez and not a suppertime is false.

(Ex): {HP}x -> ¬(¬{DP}x & ¬{CJ}x)

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

PROVED

$facts$ = fact1: There is something such that if the thing reprints NLRB the fact that the thing flatters and the thing is not hyperthermal is false. fact2: There exists something such that if it deports Haftorah then that it is not a Hermannia and it bags is not correct. fact3: That that broad is insignificant but this is not a cracked does not hold if that broad is a kind of a plait. fact4: If Mariela does bag that Mariela is not a kind of a cadency and is a kind of a mettle is wrong. fact5: There exists something such that if the thing deports Haftorah then that the thing is a kind of a Hermannia and the thing does not bag does not hold. fact6: The fact that Mariela is not a Quebecois but this is not drinkable is incorrect if this bags. fact7: There exists something such that if that this is a kind of a femininity is true this is not a kind of an exhibit and this is not a daubing. fact8: The fact that Mariela is not a Hermannia and does not bag is false if Mariela deports Haftorah. fact9: That Mariela is not a Hermannia and bags is wrong if that one deports Haftorah. fact10: There exists something such that if that that deports Haftorah is right then that is not a Hermannia and does not bag. fact11: The fact that something is not a Chavez and it is not a suppertime does not hold if it is a fingered. fact12: The fact that Walter is a kind of susceptible one that bags does not hold if that one is a Schutzstaffel. fact13: Mariela is a kind of non-cuneiform man that does not deport Haftorah if Mariela preaches Patagonia. fact14: Mariela is not a Hermannia and does not bag if Mariela does deport Haftorah. fact15: There exists some person such that if it forts Brattleboro the fact that it is not a numeracy and it is not a Chavez is false. fact16: There is somebody such that if it preaches Patagonia that it is topographical and it does not squeal thanatology is wrong. fact17: If Mariela deports Haftorah then that Mariela is a kind of a Hermannia but he does not bag does not hold. fact18: If something is unclassified then that it is both not squinty and not a Riviera is false. fact19: There is somebody such that if the fact that she is unclassified is not wrong that she is adnate and she is not a Call does not hold. fact20: That Mariela mates myometritis and is not a kind of a union does not hold if it deports Haftorah. ; $hypothesis$ = There is something such that if it deports Haftorah then the fact that it is not a kind of a Hermannia and does not bag does not hold. ; $proof$ =

fact8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__