version
stringclasses 1
value | hypothesis
stringlengths 11
215
| hypothesis_formula
stringlengths 3
39
| context
stringlengths 0
2.9k
| context_formula
stringlengths 0
905
| proofs
sequence | proofs_formula
sequence | negative_hypothesis
stringlengths 15
193
⌀ | negative_hypothesis_formula
stringlengths 3
37
⌀ | negative_proofs
sequence | negative_original_tree_depth
int64 0
25
⌀ | original_tree_depth
int64 1
4
| depth
int64 0
3
⌀ | num_formula_distractors
int64 0
22
| num_translation_distractors
int64 0
0
| num_all_distractors
int64 0
22
| proof_label
stringclasses 3
values | negative_proof_label
stringclasses 2
values | world_assump_label
stringclasses 3
values | negative_world_assump_label
stringclasses 2
values | prompt_serial
stringlengths 89
3.09k
| proof_serial
stringlengths 11
654
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DeductionInstance | the fact that the souse is a Klaproth is right. | {C}{b} | sent1: the fact that if that the transportation is gynecological is not right the transportation is not a cardinal and it is not unholy is not false. sent2: something is nonwashable if it does not sob hoofing. sent3: the transportation is not unholy. sent4: the souse is not full and it is not unholy if it is not gynecological. sent5: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a cardinal and it is not unholy then the souse is not full. sent6: if something that is not a cardinal is not holy then the souse is not full. sent7: if something does not full then it is a Klaproth. sent8: if something is a kind of non-unholy thing that is not gynecological the transportation is not a Klaproth. sent9: if something is gynecological and is full then the souse is not a Klaproth. | sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent2: (x): ¬{EI}x -> {GN}x sent3: ¬{AB}{a} sent4: ¬{A}{b} -> (¬{B}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent5: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}{b} sent6: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}{b} sent7: (x): ¬{B}x -> {C}x sent8: (x): (¬{AB}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{C}{a} sent9: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}{b} | [
"sent7 -> int1: if the souse is not full then it is a Klaproth.;"
] | [
"sent7 -> int1: ¬{B}{b} -> {C}{b};"
] | the souse is not a Klaproth. | ¬{C}{b} | [] | 7 | 4 | null | 6 | 0 | 6 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the souse is a Klaproth is right. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that if that the transportation is gynecological is not right the transportation is not a cardinal and it is not unholy is not false. sent2: something is nonwashable if it does not sob hoofing. sent3: the transportation is not unholy. sent4: the souse is not full and it is not unholy if it is not gynecological. sent5: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a cardinal and it is not unholy then the souse is not full. sent6: if something that is not a cardinal is not holy then the souse is not full. sent7: if something does not full then it is a Klaproth. sent8: if something is a kind of non-unholy thing that is not gynecological the transportation is not a Klaproth. sent9: if something is gynecological and is full then the souse is not a Klaproth. ; $proof$ = | sent7 -> int1: if the souse is not full then it is a Klaproth.; __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | the handwheel does transmit sequin. | {E}{b} | sent1: the fact that the foal sobs contusion is not false. sent2: if the foal does sob contusion it is a ash-key. sent3: the Lama sobs contusion and is a ash-key if the taurine does not slap. sent4: the violator is a kind of a ash-key that carbonates bitterwood. sent5: something is fashionable. sent6: the handwheel does not transmit sequin if the foal does not transmit sequin. sent7: if the fact that the surfboat is efficient is not incorrect then that it is a kind of a bong and is not reproducible is not true. sent8: something does transmit sequin if it sobs contusion. sent9: the handwheel is oracular and citifies. sent10: if that the surfboat transmits sequin but it is not a ash-key is not true the fact that the foal does not transmits sequin is correct. sent11: the quadruplicate is not a Brule if there exists something such that it is fashionable. sent12: if a ash-key slaps it does not cabin. sent13: the surfboat is efficient but not non-macrobiotics. sent14: the foal is not a ash-key and/or is not a nutlet if the handwheel cabins. sent15: the hydrolith does not transmit sequin. sent16: if the foal is not a ash-key and/or it is not a nutlet the quadruplicate is a nutlet. sent17: the taurine is not a kind of a slap if that it is reproducible and a cabin hold. sent18: something does sob contusion and it is a kind of a slap if it is not a Brule. sent19: the fact that the foal transmits sequin hold if the handwheel is not reproducible. sent20: something does not sob staggerbush if it carbonates bitterwood and is an elbow. sent21: if the foal does not cabin the handwheel does transmit sequin. sent22: the foal is not politics. sent23: The fact that the contusion sobs foal is not false. sent24: the foal is reproducible. | sent1: {A}{a} sent2: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent3: ¬{C}{e} -> ({A}{d} & {B}{d}) sent4: ({B}{cu} & {FF}{cu}) sent5: (Ex): {K}x sent6: ¬{E}{a} -> ¬{E}{b} sent7: {H}{c} -> ¬({G}{c} & ¬{F}{c}) sent8: (x): {A}x -> {E}x sent9: ({EL}{b} & {IL}{b}) sent10: ¬({E}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent11: (x): {K}x -> ¬{J}{ef} sent12: (x): ({B}x & {C}x) -> ¬{D}x sent13: ({H}{c} & {I}{c}) sent14: {D}{b} -> (¬{B}{a} v ¬{AT}{a}) sent15: ¬{E}{ab} sent16: (¬{B}{a} v ¬{AT}{a}) -> {AT}{ef} sent17: ({F}{e} & {D}{e}) -> ¬{C}{e} sent18: (x): ¬{J}x -> ({A}x & {C}x) sent19: ¬{F}{b} -> {E}{a} sent20: (x): ({FF}x & {IQ}x) -> ¬{DF}x sent21: ¬{D}{a} -> {E}{b} sent22: ¬{EU}{a} sent23: {AA}{aa} sent24: {F}{a} | [
"sent2 & sent1 -> int1: the foal is a ash-key.; sent12 -> int2: if the foal is a kind of a ash-key and does slap then it is not a kind of a cabin.;"
] | [
"sent2 & sent1 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent12 -> int2: ({B}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a};"
] | the handwheel does not transmit sequin. | ¬{E}{b} | [] | 9 | 4 | null | 20 | 0 | 20 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the handwheel does transmit sequin. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the foal sobs contusion is not false. sent2: if the foal does sob contusion it is a ash-key. sent3: the Lama sobs contusion and is a ash-key if the taurine does not slap. sent4: the violator is a kind of a ash-key that carbonates bitterwood. sent5: something is fashionable. sent6: the handwheel does not transmit sequin if the foal does not transmit sequin. sent7: if the fact that the surfboat is efficient is not incorrect then that it is a kind of a bong and is not reproducible is not true. sent8: something does transmit sequin if it sobs contusion. sent9: the handwheel is oracular and citifies. sent10: if that the surfboat transmits sequin but it is not a ash-key is not true the fact that the foal does not transmits sequin is correct. sent11: the quadruplicate is not a Brule if there exists something such that it is fashionable. sent12: if a ash-key slaps it does not cabin. sent13: the surfboat is efficient but not non-macrobiotics. sent14: the foal is not a ash-key and/or is not a nutlet if the handwheel cabins. sent15: the hydrolith does not transmit sequin. sent16: if the foal is not a ash-key and/or it is not a nutlet the quadruplicate is a nutlet. sent17: the taurine is not a kind of a slap if that it is reproducible and a cabin hold. sent18: something does sob contusion and it is a kind of a slap if it is not a Brule. sent19: the fact that the foal transmits sequin hold if the handwheel is not reproducible. sent20: something does not sob staggerbush if it carbonates bitterwood and is an elbow. sent21: if the foal does not cabin the handwheel does transmit sequin. sent22: the foal is not politics. sent23: The fact that the contusion sobs foal is not false. sent24: the foal is reproducible. ; $proof$ = | sent2 & sent1 -> int1: the foal is a ash-key.; sent12 -> int2: if the foal is a kind of a ash-key and does slap then it is not a kind of a cabin.; __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | the fact that the sickness occurs if that that the Rastafarianness does not occur and the boarding does not occur hold is wrong is wrong. | ¬(¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {A}) | sent1: if the flattering occurs the sick occurs. sent2: that the Rastafarian does not occur and the boarding does not occur triggers that the sick occurs. sent3: if the boarding happens the sick happens. sent4: the fact that the incurableness but not the portage occurs is not correct. sent5: the flattering occurs if that the Rastafarianness happens and the boarding does not occur is not true. sent6: the flattering occurs if the fact that the fact that the Rastafarian does not occur and the boarding does not occur hold is false. sent7: that the painting occurs prevents that the archangelicness does not occur. sent8: that not the Rastafarian but the boarding occurs is not true. sent9: the transmitting keelson happens if the amortization does not occur and the sobbing radius does not occur. | sent1: {B} -> {A} sent2: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {A} sent3: {AB} -> {A} sent4: ¬({ET} & ¬{EI}) sent5: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent6: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent7: {DE} -> {HE} sent8: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent9: (¬{HG} & ¬{II}) -> {CM} | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the Rastafarianness does not occur and the boarding does not occur does not hold.; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: the flattering happens.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the sick happens.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"void -> assump1: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}); sent6 & assump1 -> int1: {B}; int1 & sent1 -> int2: {A}; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null | [] | null | 3 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 7 | DISPROVED | null | DISPROVED | null | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the sickness occurs if that that the Rastafarianness does not occur and the boarding does not occur hold is wrong is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the flattering occurs the sick occurs. sent2: that the Rastafarian does not occur and the boarding does not occur triggers that the sick occurs. sent3: if the boarding happens the sick happens. sent4: the fact that the incurableness but not the portage occurs is not correct. sent5: the flattering occurs if that the Rastafarianness happens and the boarding does not occur is not true. sent6: the flattering occurs if the fact that the fact that the Rastafarian does not occur and the boarding does not occur hold is false. sent7: that the painting occurs prevents that the archangelicness does not occur. sent8: that not the Rastafarian but the boarding occurs is not true. sent9: the transmitting keelson happens if the amortization does not occur and the sobbing radius does not occur. ; $proof$ = | void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the Rastafarianness does not occur and the boarding does not occur does not hold.; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: the flattering happens.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the sick happens.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | that the metatarsal does not sob cull and it is not a bluffer is false. | ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) | sent1: if the fact that the algometer is a Alger that does not expectorate is not right then the standpipe is a barrels. sent2: that the metatarsal is both not leaden and a pawpaw is not right if it is not a brine. sent3: the chlorofucin does not unpack and does not drink Sofia. sent4: the fact that the algometer is a kind of a Alger that does not expectorate does not hold if the chlorofucin does not unpack. sent5: something that is not peroneal injures and/or is not Mauritanian. sent6: the suppression is a brine if it is leaden. sent7: something does not sob cull and it is not a kind of a bluffer if it is leaden. sent8: the fact that if that something is not leaden but it is a kind of a pawpaw is not right it is leaden is not incorrect. sent9: if something injures and/or it is not a Mauritanian it does not brine. sent10: the suppression is not a brine if the metatarsal does not sob cull and is not a kind of a bluffer. sent11: the suppression is leaden. sent12: the metatarsal is not peroneal if the fact that the suppression is not a steps but it is a tad does not hold. sent13: the suppression does not sob cull if the metatarsal is a brine and is not leaden. | sent1: ¬({K}{d} & ¬{J}{d}) -> {I}{c} sent2: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬(¬{A}{a} & {C}{a}) sent3: (¬{L}{e} & ¬{M}{e}) sent4: ¬{L}{e} -> ¬({K}{d} & ¬{J}{d}) sent5: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({E}x v ¬{D}x) sent6: {A}{b} -> {B}{b} sent7: (x): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent8: (x): ¬(¬{A}x & {C}x) -> {A}x sent9: (x): ({E}x v ¬{D}x) -> ¬{B}x sent10: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent11: {A}{b} sent12: ¬(¬{H}{b} & {G}{b}) -> ¬{F}{a} sent13: ({B}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> ¬{AA}{b} | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the metatarsal does not sob cull and is not a kind of a bluffer.; sent10 & assump1 -> int1: the suppression is not a brine.; sent6 & sent11 -> int2: the suppression is a brine.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"void -> assump1: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); sent10 & assump1 -> int1: ¬{B}{b}; sent6 & sent11 -> int2: {B}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | the metatarsal does not sob cull and it is not a bluffer. | (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) | [
"sent7 -> int4: if the metatarsal is leaden then it does not sob cull and it is not a kind of a bluffer.; sent8 -> int5: if the fact that that the metatarsal is non-leaden thing that is a pawpaw does not hold hold then it is non-leaden.; sent9 -> int6: if the metatarsal does injure and/or it is non-Mauritanian then it is not a kind of a brine.; sent5 -> int7: either the metatarsal injures or it is not a Mauritanian or both if it is not peroneal.; sent3 -> int8: the chlorofucin does not unpack.; sent4 & int8 -> int9: that the algometer is a kind of a Alger and does not expectorate is incorrect.; sent1 & int9 -> int10: the standpipe is a kind of a barrels.; int10 -> int11: there is something such that it is a kind of a barrels.;"
] | 11 | 3 | 3 | 10 | 0 | 10 | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = that the metatarsal does not sob cull and it is not a bluffer is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the algometer is a Alger that does not expectorate is not right then the standpipe is a barrels. sent2: that the metatarsal is both not leaden and a pawpaw is not right if it is not a brine. sent3: the chlorofucin does not unpack and does not drink Sofia. sent4: the fact that the algometer is a kind of a Alger that does not expectorate does not hold if the chlorofucin does not unpack. sent5: something that is not peroneal injures and/or is not Mauritanian. sent6: the suppression is a brine if it is leaden. sent7: something does not sob cull and it is not a kind of a bluffer if it is leaden. sent8: the fact that if that something is not leaden but it is a kind of a pawpaw is not right it is leaden is not incorrect. sent9: if something injures and/or it is not a Mauritanian it does not brine. sent10: the suppression is not a brine if the metatarsal does not sob cull and is not a kind of a bluffer. sent11: the suppression is leaden. sent12: the metatarsal is not peroneal if the fact that the suppression is not a steps but it is a tad does not hold. sent13: the suppression does not sob cull if the metatarsal is a brine and is not leaden. ; $proof$ = | void -> assump1: Let's assume that the metatarsal does not sob cull and is not a kind of a bluffer.; sent10 & assump1 -> int1: the suppression is not a brine.; sent6 & sent11 -> int2: the suppression is a brine.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the fact that there exists something such that if it is a kind of a kymograph it is not a tambour and/or it is a humanities is incorrect. | ¬((Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x v {AB}x)) | sent1: there is something such that if it carbonates quarrelsomeness then it does sob kimono or is a Phoenician or both. sent2: there exists something such that if that it is a Crawford is correct then it does not sob Eurocurrency and/or is a Wykehamist. sent3: if something is a kind of an iconoclasm then it is not a arete or is a kind of a sheepshead or both. sent4: there exists something such that if it is a kymograph it is a tambour and/or it is a humanities. sent5: there is something such that if it sobs beebread then it is a kind of a self-criticism and/or it is a petabyte. sent6: the hexachlorophene is not a tambour and/or it is a humanities if it is a kymograph. sent7: if the hexachlorophene is a chancery it does not carbonate boring and/or it does grit. sent8: the fact that there is something such that if it glorifies then it is not a Eucharist or it drinks jackhammer or both hold. sent9: the gamp does not carbonate gamp or is not non-celestial or both if it is a humanities. sent10: there exists something such that if it drinks bravo it either does not carbonate zymology or is a Mormon or both. sent11: if the hexachlorophene is a kymograph either it is a kind of a tambour or it is a humanities or both. | sent1: (Ex): {IR}x -> ({DF}x v {GG}x) sent2: (Ex): {H}x -> (¬{EE}x v {HM}x) sent3: (x): {CO}x -> (¬{AT}x v {BD}x) sent4: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x v {AB}x) sent5: (Ex): {AK}x -> ({FJ}x v {CT}x) sent6: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent7: {DR}{aa} -> (¬{GP}{aa} v {GM}{aa}) sent8: (Ex): {HQ}x -> (¬{S}x v {CA}x) sent9: {AB}{s} -> (¬{BQ}{s} v {AS}{s}) sent10: (Ex): {HU}x -> (¬{FL}x v {HN}x) sent11: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) | [
"sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] | there exists something such that if it is an iconoclasm it is not a kind of a arete and/or it is a sheepshead. | (Ex): {CO}x -> (¬{AT}x v {BD}x) | [
"sent3 -> int1: the zenith is not a arete or it is a sheepshead or both if it is a kind of an iconoclasm.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 0 | 10 | DISPROVED | PROVED | DISPROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it is a kind of a kymograph it is not a tambour and/or it is a humanities is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it carbonates quarrelsomeness then it does sob kimono or is a Phoenician or both. sent2: there exists something such that if that it is a Crawford is correct then it does not sob Eurocurrency and/or is a Wykehamist. sent3: if something is a kind of an iconoclasm then it is not a arete or is a kind of a sheepshead or both. sent4: there exists something such that if it is a kymograph it is a tambour and/or it is a humanities. sent5: there is something such that if it sobs beebread then it is a kind of a self-criticism and/or it is a petabyte. sent6: the hexachlorophene is not a tambour and/or it is a humanities if it is a kymograph. sent7: if the hexachlorophene is a chancery it does not carbonate boring and/or it does grit. sent8: the fact that there is something such that if it glorifies then it is not a Eucharist or it drinks jackhammer or both hold. sent9: the gamp does not carbonate gamp or is not non-celestial or both if it is a humanities. sent10: there exists something such that if it drinks bravo it either does not carbonate zymology or is a Mormon or both. sent11: if the hexachlorophene is a kymograph either it is a kind of a tambour or it is a humanities or both. ; $proof$ = | sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the cabaret does not sob Kuiper. | ¬{B}{aa} | sent1: if something is not a basilisk then it is not imprecise. sent2: if the cabaret does not transmit waterloo then the fact that it is not a tubercle hold. sent3: the cabaret does not transmit waterloo. sent4: if that the fact that something is not a basilisk but it is impatient is not incorrect does not hold it sobs Kuiper. sent5: the fact that something is not a basilisk but it is impatient is false if it is not a tubercle. sent6: The waterloo does not transmit cabaret. sent7: something blitzes. sent8: the fact that something does not sob Kuiper or does not transmit waterloo or both hold if it is not a kind of a tubercle. | sent1: (x): ¬{AA}x -> ¬{J}x sent2: ¬{C}{aa} -> ¬{A}{aa} sent3: ¬{C}{aa} sent4: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent6: ¬{AD}{ac} sent7: (Ex): {F}x sent8: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{B}x v ¬{C}x) | [
"sent5 -> int1: the fact that that the cabaret is not a basilisk but it is impatient does not hold is true if that it is not a tubercle hold.; sent2 & sent3 -> int2: that the cabaret is not a kind of a tubercle is true.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the cabaret is not a basilisk and is impatient is not true.; sent4 -> int4: the cabaret does sob Kuiper if the fact that it is not a kind of a basilisk and it is impatient does not hold.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent5 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); sent2 & sent3 -> int2: ¬{A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); sent4 -> int4: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | the cabaret is not imprecise if it is not a basilisk. | ¬{AA}{aa} -> ¬{J}{aa} | [
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 4 | DISPROVED | PROVED | DISPROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = the cabaret does not sob Kuiper. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not a basilisk then it is not imprecise. sent2: if the cabaret does not transmit waterloo then the fact that it is not a tubercle hold. sent3: the cabaret does not transmit waterloo. sent4: if that the fact that something is not a basilisk but it is impatient is not incorrect does not hold it sobs Kuiper. sent5: the fact that something is not a basilisk but it is impatient is false if it is not a tubercle. sent6: The waterloo does not transmit cabaret. sent7: something blitzes. sent8: the fact that something does not sob Kuiper or does not transmit waterloo or both hold if it is not a kind of a tubercle. ; $proof$ = | sent5 -> int1: the fact that that the cabaret is not a basilisk but it is impatient does not hold is true if that it is not a tubercle hold.; sent2 & sent3 -> int2: that the cabaret is not a kind of a tubercle is true.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the cabaret is not a basilisk and is impatient is not true.; sent4 -> int4: the cabaret does sob Kuiper if the fact that it is not a kind of a basilisk and it is impatient does not hold.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the fact that the hipflask sobs osier and it does carbonate Speaker is not correct. | ¬({D}{b} & {C}{b}) | sent1: if that something does carbonate Speaker but it is not intrusive is not right then it does not carbonate Speaker. sent2: if the acetaldehyde is a moral then the hipflask carbonates Speaker. sent3: if the acetaldehyde is both sporadic and not immoral the crabgrass carbonates Speaker. sent4: the crabgrass does not drink Haley and is sporadic. sent5: the acetaldehyde is intrusive and is a moral. sent6: if the crabgrass does not transmit lipoma but it is a kind of a moral the acetaldehyde does drink Haley. sent7: the acetaldehyde drinks Haley. sent8: the crabgrass does sob osier. sent9: the acetaldehyde is a kind of a cubicity. sent10: something sobs osier if it transmits lipoma. sent11: the hipflask is not an artiodactyl and does carbonate xeroradiography. sent12: the acetaldehyde is intrusive. sent13: the Viyella drinks Haley. sent14: the crabgrass is both non-windward and unexpendable. sent15: the recliner does drink Haley. sent16: the hipflask transmits lipoma if the crabgrass does not drink Haley and is sporadic. sent17: the acetaldehyde does sob osier. sent18: if that the acetaldehyde transmits lipoma and it carbonates Speaker does not hold that the trace does not carbonates Speaker is correct. sent19: the crabgrass is moral. sent20: the acetaldehyde is downstream. sent21: the busboy carbonates Speaker. sent22: that the acetaldehyde is erythropoietic and does oblige is true. sent23: the crabgrass is sporadic and it is not unintrusive. sent24: the crabgrass is sporadic. | sent1: (x): ¬({C}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{C}x sent2: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent3: ({G}{a} & {B}{a}) -> {C}{c} sent4: (¬{F}{c} & {G}{c}) sent5: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent6: (¬{E}{c} & {B}{c}) -> {F}{a} sent7: {F}{a} sent8: {D}{c} sent9: {FL}{a} sent10: (x): {E}x -> {D}x sent11: (¬{HH}{b} & {FJ}{b}) sent12: {A}{a} sent13: {F}{fb} sent14: (¬{DJ}{c} & {DO}{c}) sent15: {F}{dn} sent16: (¬{F}{c} & {G}{c}) -> {E}{b} sent17: {D}{a} sent18: ¬({E}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{C}{ip} sent19: {B}{c} sent20: {IQ}{a} sent21: {C}{br} sent22: ({DM}{a} & {ES}{a}) sent23: ({G}{c} & {A}{c}) sent24: {G}{c} | [
"sent5 -> int1: the acetaldehyde is a kind of a moral.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the hipflask carbonates Speaker.; sent10 -> int3: if the hipflask transmits lipoma it sobs osier.; sent16 & sent4 -> int4: the hipflask does transmit lipoma.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the hipflask does sob osier.; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent5 -> int1: {B}{a}; int1 & sent2 -> int2: {C}{b}; sent10 -> int3: {E}{b} -> {D}{b}; sent16 & sent4 -> int4: {E}{b}; int3 & int4 -> int5: {D}{b}; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis;"
] | the fact that the hipflask sobs osier and it does carbonate Speaker is not right. | ¬({D}{b} & {C}{b}) | [
"sent1 -> int6: the acetaldehyde does not carbonate Speaker if the fact that it carbonate Speaker and it is not intrusive is not correct.;"
] | 5 | 3 | 3 | 19 | 0 | 19 | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the hipflask sobs osier and it does carbonate Speaker is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something does carbonate Speaker but it is not intrusive is not right then it does not carbonate Speaker. sent2: if the acetaldehyde is a moral then the hipflask carbonates Speaker. sent3: if the acetaldehyde is both sporadic and not immoral the crabgrass carbonates Speaker. sent4: the crabgrass does not drink Haley and is sporadic. sent5: the acetaldehyde is intrusive and is a moral. sent6: if the crabgrass does not transmit lipoma but it is a kind of a moral the acetaldehyde does drink Haley. sent7: the acetaldehyde drinks Haley. sent8: the crabgrass does sob osier. sent9: the acetaldehyde is a kind of a cubicity. sent10: something sobs osier if it transmits lipoma. sent11: the hipflask is not an artiodactyl and does carbonate xeroradiography. sent12: the acetaldehyde is intrusive. sent13: the Viyella drinks Haley. sent14: the crabgrass is both non-windward and unexpendable. sent15: the recliner does drink Haley. sent16: the hipflask transmits lipoma if the crabgrass does not drink Haley and is sporadic. sent17: the acetaldehyde does sob osier. sent18: if that the acetaldehyde transmits lipoma and it carbonates Speaker does not hold that the trace does not carbonates Speaker is correct. sent19: the crabgrass is moral. sent20: the acetaldehyde is downstream. sent21: the busboy carbonates Speaker. sent22: that the acetaldehyde is erythropoietic and does oblige is true. sent23: the crabgrass is sporadic and it is not unintrusive. sent24: the crabgrass is sporadic. ; $proof$ = | sent5 -> int1: the acetaldehyde is a kind of a moral.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the hipflask carbonates Speaker.; sent10 -> int3: if the hipflask transmits lipoma it sobs osier.; sent16 & sent4 -> int4: the hipflask does transmit lipoma.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the hipflask does sob osier.; int2 & int5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the curatorship and/or the sobbing thawed happens. | ({C} v {B}) | sent1: the drinking inverse prevents that the RF happens. sent2: the RF happens and the sobbing thawed occurs. sent3: the fives and/or the filling happens. sent4: the transmitting Eusebius occurs. sent5: the awfulness happens and the fill occurs. sent6: that the curatorship and/or the sobbing thawed happens does not hold if the RF does not occur. sent7: if the glyptography does not occur and the aceticness does not occur then the drinking inverse happens. sent8: the fact that the RF occurs is not incorrect. sent9: the gonadalness occurs. sent10: the saltiness occurs or the apposition happens or both. | sent1: {D} -> ¬{A} sent2: ({A} & {B}) sent3: ({EI} v {IH}) sent4: {GA} sent5: ({HR} & {IH}) sent6: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} v {B}) sent7: (¬{F} & ¬{E}) -> {D} sent8: {A} sent9: {EH} sent10: ({AQ} v {DQ}) | [
"sent2 -> int1: the sobbing thawed happens.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent2 -> int1: {B}; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | the fact that either the curatorship or the sobbing thawed or both happens is not correct. | ¬({C} v {B}) | [] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 9 | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the curatorship and/or the sobbing thawed happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the drinking inverse prevents that the RF happens. sent2: the RF happens and the sobbing thawed occurs. sent3: the fives and/or the filling happens. sent4: the transmitting Eusebius occurs. sent5: the awfulness happens and the fill occurs. sent6: that the curatorship and/or the sobbing thawed happens does not hold if the RF does not occur. sent7: if the glyptography does not occur and the aceticness does not occur then the drinking inverse happens. sent8: the fact that the RF occurs is not incorrect. sent9: the gonadalness occurs. sent10: the saltiness occurs or the apposition happens or both. ; $proof$ = | sent2 -> int1: the sobbing thawed happens.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the procession does not occur. | ¬{A} | sent1: that the drinking self-restraint and the dishonoring occurs leads to that the autosuggestion does not occur. sent2: the profaneness does not occur if that the attitude and the non-tectonicsness occurs is not true. sent3: the profaneness happens. sent4: if the fact that both the reorienting and the translation happens is not right the reorienting does not occur. sent5: the fact that the attitude happens and the tectonicsness does not occur is wrong if the autosuggestion does not occur. sent6: the ostomy does not occur if the fact that both the ostomy and the procession happens is incorrect. sent7: if the resultant does not occur the fact that the reorienting happens and the translation happens is not true. sent8: if the profaneness does not occur the fact that both the ostomy and the procession occurs is not true. sent9: both the drinking self-restraint and the lancers happens if the reorienting does not occur. sent10: if the consulship does not occur then the dishonoring happens and the note occurs. sent11: the monoclinicness does not occur. sent12: if the procession occurs then both the sobbing apron and the non-admissibleness happens. sent13: the photocoagulation does not occur and the resultant does not occur. | sent1: ({F} & {G}) -> ¬{E} sent2: ¬({D} & ¬{C}) -> ¬{B} sent3: {B} sent4: ¬({K} & {N}) -> ¬{K} sent5: ¬{E} -> ¬({D} & ¬{C}) sent6: ¬({HL} & {A}) -> ¬{HL} sent7: ¬{O} -> ¬({K} & {N}) sent8: ¬{B} -> ¬({HL} & {A}) sent9: ¬{K} -> ({F} & {J}) sent10: ¬{I} -> ({G} & {H}) sent11: ¬{GK} sent12: {A} -> ({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent13: (¬{P} & ¬{O}) | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the procession happens.; sent12 & assump1 -> int1: the sobbing apron and the non-admissibleness occurs.;"
] | [
"void -> assump1: {A}; sent12 & assump1 -> int1: ({AA} & ¬{AB});"
] | the fact that the ostomy does not occur hold. | ¬{HL} | [
"sent13 -> int2: the resultant does not occur.; sent7 & int2 -> int3: the fact that both the reorienting and the translation occurs does not hold.; sent4 & int3 -> int4: the reorienting does not occur.; sent9 & int4 -> int5: the drinking self-restraint and the lancers occurs.; int5 -> int6: the drinking self-restraint happens.;"
] | 11 | 3 | null | 11 | 0 | 11 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the procession does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the drinking self-restraint and the dishonoring occurs leads to that the autosuggestion does not occur. sent2: the profaneness does not occur if that the attitude and the non-tectonicsness occurs is not true. sent3: the profaneness happens. sent4: if the fact that both the reorienting and the translation happens is not right the reorienting does not occur. sent5: the fact that the attitude happens and the tectonicsness does not occur is wrong if the autosuggestion does not occur. sent6: the ostomy does not occur if the fact that both the ostomy and the procession happens is incorrect. sent7: if the resultant does not occur the fact that the reorienting happens and the translation happens is not true. sent8: if the profaneness does not occur the fact that both the ostomy and the procession occurs is not true. sent9: both the drinking self-restraint and the lancers happens if the reorienting does not occur. sent10: if the consulship does not occur then the dishonoring happens and the note occurs. sent11: the monoclinicness does not occur. sent12: if the procession occurs then both the sobbing apron and the non-admissibleness happens. sent13: the photocoagulation does not occur and the resultant does not occur. ; $proof$ = | void -> assump1: Let's assume that the procession happens.; sent12 & assump1 -> int1: the sobbing apron and the non-admissibleness occurs.; __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | the hemagglutination is not a plucked. | ¬{C}{b} | sent1: the hemagglutination does carbonate Skagerrak if it is a Chaetodontidae. sent2: if there exists something such that that it is not insensitive and it is a rotifer is not true then that the tadpole is not a rotifer hold. sent3: that the suppression is both not a rotifer and a plucked is false if something is a kind of a rotifer. sent4: the hemagglutination is a rotifer if the tadpole is amphitheatric. sent5: if something does not sob ordainer it does transmit Sumerian. sent6: that the acanthopterygian is not a kind of a Chaetodontidae is not wrong. sent7: something is a rotifer and is amphitheatric if the fact that it is not insensitive hold. sent8: the tadpole is amphitheatric. sent9: if the hemagglutination does not transmit Sumerian the tadpole is not insensitive. sent10: the fact that something is amphitheatric and it is a plucked is not true if it is not a rotifer. sent11: if the branch is a rotifer then it is a kind of a forest. sent12: something is a plucked if it is a kind of a rotifer. sent13: the hemagglutination is a Chaetodontidae. sent14: something does sob ordainer and/or it does not transmit Sumerian if that it does carbonate Skagerrak is not false. sent15: if the acanthopterygian is not a Chaetodontidae it does not sob ordainer and it does not carbonate Skagerrak. sent16: that the napery is a kind of non-insensitive thing that is a kind of a rotifer is not true if the fact that the acanthopterygian does transmit Sumerian is not false. | sent1: {H}{b} -> {G}{b} sent2: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & {B}x) -> ¬{B}{a} sent3: (x): {B}x -> ¬(¬{B}{gl} & {C}{gl}) sent4: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent5: (x): ¬{F}x -> {E}x sent6: ¬{H}{d} sent7: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({B}x & {A}x) sent8: {A}{a} sent9: ¬{E}{b} -> ¬{D}{a} sent10: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({A}x & {C}x) sent11: {B}{ar} -> {BA}{ar} sent12: (x): {B}x -> {C}x sent13: {H}{b} sent14: (x): {G}x -> ({F}x v ¬{E}x) sent15: ¬{H}{d} -> (¬{F}{d} & ¬{G}{d}) sent16: {E}{d} -> ¬(¬{D}{c} & {B}{c}) | [
"sent4 & sent8 -> int1: the hemagglutination is a rotifer.; sent12 -> int2: the hemagglutination does pluck if it is a rotifer.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent4 & sent8 -> int1: {B}{b}; sent12 -> int2: {B}{b} -> {C}{b}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | the suppression is a kind of a rotifer. | {B}{gl} | [
"sent7 -> int3: the tadpole is both a rotifer and amphitheatric if that the fact that it is insensitive hold is incorrect.; sent14 -> int4: the hemagglutination does sob ordainer and/or it does not transmit Sumerian if it carbonates Skagerrak.; sent1 & sent13 -> int5: the hemagglutination does carbonate Skagerrak.; int4 & int5 -> int6: that either the hemagglutination does sob ordainer or it does not transmit Sumerian or both is true.;"
] | 8 | 2 | 2 | 13 | 0 | 13 | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the hemagglutination is not a plucked. ; $context$ = sent1: the hemagglutination does carbonate Skagerrak if it is a Chaetodontidae. sent2: if there exists something such that that it is not insensitive and it is a rotifer is not true then that the tadpole is not a rotifer hold. sent3: that the suppression is both not a rotifer and a plucked is false if something is a kind of a rotifer. sent4: the hemagglutination is a rotifer if the tadpole is amphitheatric. sent5: if something does not sob ordainer it does transmit Sumerian. sent6: that the acanthopterygian is not a kind of a Chaetodontidae is not wrong. sent7: something is a rotifer and is amphitheatric if the fact that it is not insensitive hold. sent8: the tadpole is amphitheatric. sent9: if the hemagglutination does not transmit Sumerian the tadpole is not insensitive. sent10: the fact that something is amphitheatric and it is a plucked is not true if it is not a rotifer. sent11: if the branch is a rotifer then it is a kind of a forest. sent12: something is a plucked if it is a kind of a rotifer. sent13: the hemagglutination is a Chaetodontidae. sent14: something does sob ordainer and/or it does not transmit Sumerian if that it does carbonate Skagerrak is not false. sent15: if the acanthopterygian is not a Chaetodontidae it does not sob ordainer and it does not carbonate Skagerrak. sent16: that the napery is a kind of non-insensitive thing that is a kind of a rotifer is not true if the fact that the acanthopterygian does transmit Sumerian is not false. ; $proof$ = | sent4 & sent8 -> int1: the hemagglutination is a rotifer.; sent12 -> int2: the hemagglutination does pluck if it is a rotifer.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the civilization is not a cooling. | ¬{C}{b} | sent1: if something does sob pythoness that it does specialize and is not a pothole does not hold. sent2: the drive specializes. sent3: the fact that if there exists something such that it is a pothole or specializes or both then the civilization does cool hold. | sent1: (x): {D}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{A}x) sent2: {B}{a} sent3: (x): ({A}x v {B}x) -> {C}{b} | [
"sent2 -> int1: the drive either is a pothole or specializes or both.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that it either is a pothole or specializes or both.; int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent2 -> int1: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): ({A}x v {B}x); int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | the civilization does not cool. | ¬{C}{b} | [
"sent1 -> int3: if the drive sobs pythoness the fact that it does specialize and is not a pothole does not hold.;"
] | 5 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the civilization is not a cooling. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does sob pythoness that it does specialize and is not a pothole does not hold. sent2: the drive specializes. sent3: the fact that if there exists something such that it is a pothole or specializes or both then the civilization does cool hold. ; $proof$ = | sent2 -> int1: the drive either is a pothole or specializes or both.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that it either is a pothole or specializes or both.; int2 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the comestible is a Haematoxylum. | {AB}{a} | sent1: if the fact that the comestible is not earthy and is a Haematoxylum is incorrect the thrust is not cyprian. sent2: if the thrust is not short-order then the comestible is a Gloucestershire that is interlinear. sent3: something is interlinear and it is cyprian if it is not a Gloucestershire. sent4: the thrust is not short-order if that the radiologist is a Lubeck and questions is false. sent5: if something that is interlinear is cyprian it is not a Haematoxylum. sent6: that the comestible is earthy and it is a Haematoxylum is false. sent7: if that the comestible is a kind of a Gloucestershire that does not drink symbolatry is not true the fact that it is not a Gloucestershire is true. sent8: the thrust is cyprian if something that is a Aramean is not interlinear. sent9: if something is interlinear the fact that the prototherian is not a dishonor hold. | sent1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent2: ¬{E}{b} -> ({D}{a} & {A}{a}) sent3: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({A}x & {B}x) sent4: ¬({H}{c} & {G}{c}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent5: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{AB}x sent6: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent7: ¬({D}{a} & ¬{F}{a}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent8: (x): ({C}x & ¬{A}x) -> {B}{b} sent9: (x): {A}x -> ¬{IK}{dt} | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the comestible is a kind of non-earthy thing that is a Haematoxylum is not right.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the thrust is not cyprian.;"
] | [
"void -> assump1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}); sent1 & assump1 -> int1: ¬{B}{b};"
] | the comestible is not a Haematoxylum. | ¬{AB}{a} | [
"sent5 -> int2: if the comestible is interlinear and it is cyprian it is not a Haematoxylum.;"
] | 5 | 4 | null | 7 | 0 | 7 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the comestible is a Haematoxylum. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the comestible is not earthy and is a Haematoxylum is incorrect the thrust is not cyprian. sent2: if the thrust is not short-order then the comestible is a Gloucestershire that is interlinear. sent3: something is interlinear and it is cyprian if it is not a Gloucestershire. sent4: the thrust is not short-order if that the radiologist is a Lubeck and questions is false. sent5: if something that is interlinear is cyprian it is not a Haematoxylum. sent6: that the comestible is earthy and it is a Haematoxylum is false. sent7: if that the comestible is a kind of a Gloucestershire that does not drink symbolatry is not true the fact that it is not a Gloucestershire is true. sent8: the thrust is cyprian if something that is a Aramean is not interlinear. sent9: if something is interlinear the fact that the prototherian is not a dishonor hold. ; $proof$ = | void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the comestible is a kind of non-earthy thing that is a Haematoxylum is not right.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the thrust is not cyprian.; __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | that the endergonicness does not occur is true. | ¬{D} | sent1: that the centralistness happens is prevented by the non-colorectalness. sent2: the colorectalness happens if the fact that both the non-translatableness and the fattism occurs is true. sent3: the orderly happens. sent4: if the impairment does not occur then the fact that the non-endergonicness and the sass happens does not hold. sent5: that the viviparousness does not occur and the effacement does not occur is not correct if the fact that the centralistness does not occur hold. sent6: the fact that not the frivolity but the carbonating moment occurs does not hold if the fact that the parasympathomimeticness does not occur hold. sent7: the untranslatableness and the fattism happens. sent8: if the colorectalness happens that the sass does not occur and the centralistness does not occur is incorrect. sent9: if the orderly occurs then the parasympathomimeticness does not occur and the sobbing LLM does not occur. sent10: if the fact that the sass does not occur and the centralistness does not occur does not hold then the fact that the endergonicness occurs hold. sent11: if the frivolity and the propulsiveness happens the impairment does not occur. sent12: that the frivolity occurs is right if that not the frivolity but the carbonating moment happens is not correct. | sent1: ¬{B} -> ¬{A} sent2: (¬{AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent3: {N} sent4: ¬{E} -> ¬(¬{D} & {C}) sent5: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{M} & ¬{ID}) sent6: ¬{J} -> ¬(¬{F} & {I}) sent7: (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent8: {B} -> ¬(¬{C} & ¬{A}) sent9: {N} -> (¬{J} & ¬{L}) sent10: ¬(¬{C} & ¬{A}) -> {D} sent11: ({F} & {G}) -> ¬{E} sent12: ¬(¬{F} & {I}) -> {F} | [
"sent2 & sent7 -> int1: the colorectalness occurs.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: that the sass does not occur and the centralistness does not occur is wrong.; int2 & sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent2 & sent7 -> int1: {B}; int1 & sent8 -> int2: ¬(¬{C} & ¬{A}); int2 & sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] | the fact that the viviparousness does not occur and the effacement does not occur is not right. | ¬(¬{M} & ¬{ID}) | [
"sent9 & sent3 -> int3: the parasympathomimeticness does not occur and the sobbing LLM does not occur.; int3 -> int4: the parasympathomimeticness does not occur.; sent6 & int4 -> int5: the fact that the frivolity does not occur and the carbonating moment happens is not right.; sent12 & int5 -> int6: the frivolity happens.;"
] | 10 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 8 | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = that the endergonicness does not occur is true. ; $context$ = sent1: that the centralistness happens is prevented by the non-colorectalness. sent2: the colorectalness happens if the fact that both the non-translatableness and the fattism occurs is true. sent3: the orderly happens. sent4: if the impairment does not occur then the fact that the non-endergonicness and the sass happens does not hold. sent5: that the viviparousness does not occur and the effacement does not occur is not correct if the fact that the centralistness does not occur hold. sent6: the fact that not the frivolity but the carbonating moment occurs does not hold if the fact that the parasympathomimeticness does not occur hold. sent7: the untranslatableness and the fattism happens. sent8: if the colorectalness happens that the sass does not occur and the centralistness does not occur is incorrect. sent9: if the orderly occurs then the parasympathomimeticness does not occur and the sobbing LLM does not occur. sent10: if the fact that the sass does not occur and the centralistness does not occur does not hold then the fact that the endergonicness occurs hold. sent11: if the frivolity and the propulsiveness happens the impairment does not occur. sent12: that the frivolity occurs is right if that not the frivolity but the carbonating moment happens is not correct. ; $proof$ = | sent2 & sent7 -> int1: the colorectalness occurs.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: that the sass does not occur and the centralistness does not occur is wrong.; int2 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the kowhai is a kind of a pottage. | {E}{b} | sent1: the stringer is a Chinaman if the kowhai purses. sent2: the antispasmodic does not overprint. sent3: The ophthalmologist does sob stringer. sent4: the fact that the walker is not a purse and it is non-postnatal is false. sent5: if something is postnatal then it is a purse. sent6: if the kowhai is not a composite but it is a Chinaman then it is a kind of a pottage. sent7: the visitor does not sob ophthalmologist if something purses or it is a Chinaman or both. sent8: that if the stringer is eparchial and sobs ophthalmologist the stringer is not a composite hold. sent9: the kowhai is not a kind of a pottage if that the stringer is not a kind of a pottage is not false. sent10: something purses if that it is not a purses and is not postnatal does not hold. sent11: if the kowhai is composite a Chinaman then it is a kind of a pottage. sent12: the kowhai is not a composite. sent13: if the antispasmodic does not overprint that it is not a kind of a Strickland and it does not detach hold. sent14: the lobelia is eparchial if there is something such that that it does not sob ophthalmologist or it is a composite or both is wrong. sent15: if something is a Chinaman then the fact that it does not sob ophthalmologist or it is a composite or both is wrong. sent16: if something does not sob ophthalmologist then it is a kind of composite thing that is eparchial. sent17: that if the fact that the stringer is composite is false then the kowhai is not a composite hold. sent18: the stringer is eparchial. sent19: if the visitor is a kind of a composite and it is eparchial the antispasmodic is not eparchial. sent20: the stringer does sob ophthalmologist. sent21: if something is eparchial it is a pottage. | sent1: {F}{b} -> {D}{a} sent2: ¬{J}{c} sent3: {AA}{aa} sent4: ¬(¬{F}{e} & ¬{G}{e}) sent5: (x): {G}x -> {F}x sent6: (¬{C}{b} & {D}{b}) -> {E}{b} sent7: (x): ({F}x v {D}x) -> ¬{B}{d} sent8: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent9: ¬{E}{a} -> ¬{E}{b} sent10: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{G}x) -> {F}x sent11: ({C}{b} & {D}{b}) -> {E}{b} sent12: ¬{C}{b} sent13: ¬{J}{c} -> (¬{H}{c} & ¬{I}{c}) sent14: (x): ¬(¬{B}x v {C}x) -> {A}{ha} sent15: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{B}x v {C}x) sent16: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({C}x & {A}x) sent17: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬{C}{b} sent18: {A}{a} sent19: ({C}{d} & {A}{d}) -> ¬{A}{c} sent20: {B}{a} sent21: (x): {A}x -> {E}x | [
"sent18 & sent20 -> int1: the stringer is a kind of eparchial thing that does sob ophthalmologist.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the stringer is not a kind of a composite.;"
] | [
"sent18 & sent20 -> int1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}); int1 & sent8 -> int2: ¬{C}{a};"
] | the lobelia is a kind of a pottage. | {E}{ha} | [
"sent21 -> int3: the lobelia is a pottage if that it is eparchial hold.; sent15 -> int4: if the stringer is a Chinaman then the fact that the fact that it does not sob ophthalmologist or it is a kind of a composite or both is correct is not true.; sent5 -> int5: if the kowhai is postnatal that it is a kind of a purse hold.; sent13 & sent2 -> int6: the antispasmodic is not a Strickland and it does not detach.; int6 -> int7: there exists something such that it is not a Strickland and does not detach.;"
] | 9 | 4 | null | 17 | 0 | 17 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the kowhai is a kind of a pottage. ; $context$ = sent1: the stringer is a Chinaman if the kowhai purses. sent2: the antispasmodic does not overprint. sent3: The ophthalmologist does sob stringer. sent4: the fact that the walker is not a purse and it is non-postnatal is false. sent5: if something is postnatal then it is a purse. sent6: if the kowhai is not a composite but it is a Chinaman then it is a kind of a pottage. sent7: the visitor does not sob ophthalmologist if something purses or it is a Chinaman or both. sent8: that if the stringer is eparchial and sobs ophthalmologist the stringer is not a composite hold. sent9: the kowhai is not a kind of a pottage if that the stringer is not a kind of a pottage is not false. sent10: something purses if that it is not a purses and is not postnatal does not hold. sent11: if the kowhai is composite a Chinaman then it is a kind of a pottage. sent12: the kowhai is not a composite. sent13: if the antispasmodic does not overprint that it is not a kind of a Strickland and it does not detach hold. sent14: the lobelia is eparchial if there is something such that that it does not sob ophthalmologist or it is a composite or both is wrong. sent15: if something is a Chinaman then the fact that it does not sob ophthalmologist or it is a composite or both is wrong. sent16: if something does not sob ophthalmologist then it is a kind of composite thing that is eparchial. sent17: that if the fact that the stringer is composite is false then the kowhai is not a composite hold. sent18: the stringer is eparchial. sent19: if the visitor is a kind of a composite and it is eparchial the antispasmodic is not eparchial. sent20: the stringer does sob ophthalmologist. sent21: if something is eparchial it is a pottage. ; $proof$ = | sent18 & sent20 -> int1: the stringer is a kind of eparchial thing that does sob ophthalmologist.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the stringer is not a kind of a composite.; __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | there is something such that if it is womanly then that it carbonates childlessness and is not forgettable is not true. | (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) | sent1: there is something such that if it is aboral then that the fact that it does carbonate Myrmecobius and is not shelflike is true is not true. sent2: the fact that the kibble is a Chartist and not aboral is wrong if it does carbonate childlessness. sent3: that something is dyadic but it does not endorse is not true if it is a kind of a Quechua. sent4: there exists something such that if it is womanly the fact that it does carbonate childlessness and it is forgettable is false. sent5: if the railhead is a kind of a deputy the fact that it is blastomeric and it is not forgettable is not correct. sent6: that something is hopeful but it is not a ruthenium is not true if it is nonindulgent. sent7: if something is womanly the fact that it carbonates childlessness and is forgettable is false. sent8: if the kibble is therapeutic then the fact that it does drink saltiness and does not drink bacca is not correct. sent9: if something is womanly then that that it does carbonate childlessness and it is not forgettable is correct is not correct. sent10: there exists something such that if it is carinal then the fact that it is a wince and it does not carbonate pyroxylin is not true. sent11: the fact that something carbonates childlessness but it is not forgettable hold if it is womanly. sent12: that something is a war but it does not augment is not correct if it is exploratory. sent13: there is something such that if it is womanly then it does carbonate childlessness and it is not forgettable. sent14: if the kibble is womanly then the fact that it carbonates childlessness and is forgettable is not right. sent15: the fact that the kibble does carbonate pyroxylin but it does not delineate does not hold if it does carbonate childlessness. sent16: if something is inconsistent then the fact that it is belemnitic and it is not gonadotropic is false. sent17: the fact that the kibble carbonates childlessness but it does not sob tristearin is false if it is a revenant. sent18: the fact that something does commingle but it is not an afterthought is not right if it is practical. sent19: the kibble carbonates childlessness but it is not forgettable if it is womanly. sent20: if the archegonium is eparchial that it is carbonyl and it is unforgettable does not hold. | sent1: (Ex): {K}x -> ¬({CI}x & ¬{U}x) sent2: {AA}{aa} -> ¬({FE}{aa} & ¬{K}{aa}) sent3: (x): {HE}x -> ¬({DH}x & ¬{DJ}x) sent4: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent5: {EU}{hl} -> ¬({IQ}{hl} & ¬{AB}{hl}) sent6: (x): {AM}x -> ¬({T}x & ¬{J}x) sent7: (x): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent8: {BC}{aa} -> ¬({BA}{aa} & ¬{HC}{aa}) sent9: (x): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent10: (Ex): {HP}x -> ¬({Q}x & ¬{CG}x) sent11: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent12: (x): {IP}x -> ¬({HA}x & ¬{BR}x) sent13: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent14: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent15: {AA}{aa} -> ¬({CG}{aa} & ¬{GR}{aa}) sent16: (x): {ES}x -> ¬({D}x & ¬{HT}x) sent17: {FS}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{JF}{aa}) sent18: (x): {JB}x -> ¬({AK}x & ¬{FL}x) sent19: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent20: {EB}{hc} -> ¬({IC}{hc} & ¬{AB}{hc}) | [
"sent9 -> int1: the fact that the kibble carbonates childlessness but it is not forgettable is not true if it is womanly.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent9 -> int1: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null | [] | null | 2 | 2 | 19 | 0 | 19 | PROVED | null | PROVED | null | $hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is womanly then that it carbonates childlessness and is not forgettable is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is aboral then that the fact that it does carbonate Myrmecobius and is not shelflike is true is not true. sent2: the fact that the kibble is a Chartist and not aboral is wrong if it does carbonate childlessness. sent3: that something is dyadic but it does not endorse is not true if it is a kind of a Quechua. sent4: there exists something such that if it is womanly the fact that it does carbonate childlessness and it is forgettable is false. sent5: if the railhead is a kind of a deputy the fact that it is blastomeric and it is not forgettable is not correct. sent6: that something is hopeful but it is not a ruthenium is not true if it is nonindulgent. sent7: if something is womanly the fact that it carbonates childlessness and is forgettable is false. sent8: if the kibble is therapeutic then the fact that it does drink saltiness and does not drink bacca is not correct. sent9: if something is womanly then that that it does carbonate childlessness and it is not forgettable is correct is not correct. sent10: there exists something such that if it is carinal then the fact that it is a wince and it does not carbonate pyroxylin is not true. sent11: the fact that something carbonates childlessness but it is not forgettable hold if it is womanly. sent12: that something is a war but it does not augment is not correct if it is exploratory. sent13: there is something such that if it is womanly then it does carbonate childlessness and it is not forgettable. sent14: if the kibble is womanly then the fact that it carbonates childlessness and is forgettable is not right. sent15: the fact that the kibble does carbonate pyroxylin but it does not delineate does not hold if it does carbonate childlessness. sent16: if something is inconsistent then the fact that it is belemnitic and it is not gonadotropic is false. sent17: the fact that the kibble carbonates childlessness but it does not sob tristearin is false if it is a revenant. sent18: the fact that something does commingle but it is not an afterthought is not right if it is practical. sent19: the kibble carbonates childlessness but it is not forgettable if it is womanly. sent20: if the archegonium is eparchial that it is carbonyl and it is unforgettable does not hold. ; $proof$ = | sent9 -> int1: the fact that the kibble carbonates childlessness but it is not forgettable is not true if it is womanly.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the edge does sob Stinger. | {B}{aa} | sent1: if something is a fluoroform it is timid. sent2: the edge is not a kind of a beaver. sent3: the treehopper is a trouble. sent4: the blackfish is not a memorial if it is a thrill. sent5: if something is timid it does not sob Stinger. sent6: if something is not a memorial that it is both a Annunciation and not a fluoroform is not correct. sent7: if the annulus does thrill then the blackfish is a thrill. sent8: the fact that something does sob Stinger is not incorrect if the fact that either it does beaver or it is not a kind of a Satie or both is false. sent9: the annulus is a sparkle and it is a thrill if something is a kind of a trouble. sent10: the fact that the edge is a beaver and/or it is not a Satie is not correct. | sent1: (x): {C}x -> {A}x sent2: ¬{AA}{aa} sent3: {H}{c} sent4: {F}{a} -> ¬{D}{a} sent5: (x): {A}x -> ¬{B}x sent6: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬({E}x & ¬{C}x) sent7: {F}{b} -> {F}{a} sent8: (x): ¬({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent9: (x): {H}x -> ({G}{b} & {F}{b}) sent10: ¬({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) | [
"sent8 -> int1: the edge does sob Stinger if that it is a beaver or it is not a Satie or both is wrong.; int1 & sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent8 -> int1: ¬({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}; int1 & sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] | the edge does not sob Stinger. | ¬{B}{aa} | [
"sent5 -> int2: the edge does not sob Stinger if it is timid.; sent1 -> int3: the edge is a timid if it is a fluoroform.; sent6 -> int4: if the fact that the blackfish is not a memorial is not wrong then the fact that it is a Annunciation and it is not a kind of a fluoroform is not true.; sent3 -> int5: there is something such that it troubles.; int5 & sent9 -> int6: the annulus sparkles and it is a thrill.; int6 -> int7: the annulus is a thrill.; sent7 & int7 -> int8: the blackfish does thrill.; sent4 & int8 -> int9: the fact that the blackfish is not a memorial is not wrong.; int4 & int9 -> int10: the fact that the blackfish is a Annunciation but it is not a fluoroform does not hold.; int10 -> int11: there is something such that the fact that it is a Annunciation and is not a fluoroform is wrong.;"
] | 10 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 8 | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the edge does sob Stinger. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a fluoroform it is timid. sent2: the edge is not a kind of a beaver. sent3: the treehopper is a trouble. sent4: the blackfish is not a memorial if it is a thrill. sent5: if something is timid it does not sob Stinger. sent6: if something is not a memorial that it is both a Annunciation and not a fluoroform is not correct. sent7: if the annulus does thrill then the blackfish is a thrill. sent8: the fact that something does sob Stinger is not incorrect if the fact that either it does beaver or it is not a kind of a Satie or both is false. sent9: the annulus is a sparkle and it is a thrill if something is a kind of a trouble. sent10: the fact that the edge is a beaver and/or it is not a Satie is not correct. ; $proof$ = | sent8 -> int1: the edge does sob Stinger if that it is a beaver or it is not a Satie or both is wrong.; int1 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the mixture does not occur. | ¬{C} | sent1: the fact that the drinking geostrategy happens is true. sent2: the drinking ardor happens. sent3: the capitalisticness does not occur. sent4: that the liking and the counter-sabotage occurs prevents that the mixture occurs. sent5: the fact that the counter-sabotage occurs is correct. sent6: the aesthetics does not occur. sent7: that the sobbing slam and the Triassic occurs is brought about by the non-Praetorianness. sent8: that the interrupt happens and the likedness occurs is caused by that the counter-sabotage does not occur. sent9: the fact that the carbonating cream does not occur is not incorrect. sent10: that the ignobleness happens and the onstageness happens results in that the usury does not occur. sent11: the counter-sabotage does not occur if that both the sobbing slam and the counter-sabotage happens is false. sent12: both the mixture and the likedness occurs if the counter-sabotage does not occur. sent13: that the sobbing slam and the counter-sabotage occurs is not correct if the transmitting Auvergne does not occur. sent14: if the reshuffle and the drinking well occurs the transmitting phrontistery does not occur. sent15: the liked happens. sent16: if the sobbing slam occurs that the mixture occurs but the transmitting Auvergne does not occur is false. sent17: the Vienneseness happens. sent18: the sharking does not occur if the drinking jumpsuit happens and the plucking happens. sent19: that the flagellating happens is not wrong. sent20: if the tonalness occurs and the black happens the hyphenation does not occur. | sent1: {AO} sent2: {AD} sent3: ¬{ED} sent4: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent5: {B} sent6: ¬{DB} sent7: ¬{G} -> ({E} & {F}) sent8: ¬{B} -> ({FU} & {A}) sent9: ¬{EA} sent10: ({CU} & {CB}) -> ¬{FK} sent11: ¬({E} & {B}) -> ¬{B} sent12: ¬{B} -> ({C} & {A}) sent13: ¬{D} -> ¬({E} & {B}) sent14: ({BD} & {FD}) -> ¬{FM} sent15: {A} sent16: {E} -> ¬({C} & ¬{D}) sent17: {DU} sent18: ({JD} & {GD}) -> ¬{GP} sent19: {AK} sent20: ({AP} & {EF}) -> ¬{DI} | [
"sent15 & sent5 -> int1: both the liking and the counter-sabotage happens.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent15 & sent5 -> int1: ({A} & {B}); sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | the interrupt occurs. | {FU} | [] | 8 | 2 | 2 | 17 | 0 | 17 | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the mixture does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the drinking geostrategy happens is true. sent2: the drinking ardor happens. sent3: the capitalisticness does not occur. sent4: that the liking and the counter-sabotage occurs prevents that the mixture occurs. sent5: the fact that the counter-sabotage occurs is correct. sent6: the aesthetics does not occur. sent7: that the sobbing slam and the Triassic occurs is brought about by the non-Praetorianness. sent8: that the interrupt happens and the likedness occurs is caused by that the counter-sabotage does not occur. sent9: the fact that the carbonating cream does not occur is not incorrect. sent10: that the ignobleness happens and the onstageness happens results in that the usury does not occur. sent11: the counter-sabotage does not occur if that both the sobbing slam and the counter-sabotage happens is false. sent12: both the mixture and the likedness occurs if the counter-sabotage does not occur. sent13: that the sobbing slam and the counter-sabotage occurs is not correct if the transmitting Auvergne does not occur. sent14: if the reshuffle and the drinking well occurs the transmitting phrontistery does not occur. sent15: the liked happens. sent16: if the sobbing slam occurs that the mixture occurs but the transmitting Auvergne does not occur is false. sent17: the Vienneseness happens. sent18: the sharking does not occur if the drinking jumpsuit happens and the plucking happens. sent19: that the flagellating happens is not wrong. sent20: if the tonalness occurs and the black happens the hyphenation does not occur. ; $proof$ = | sent15 & sent5 -> int1: both the liking and the counter-sabotage happens.; sent4 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the Lie is alvine and is non-isotonic. | ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) | sent1: the Siouan is utopian if there exists something such that it is a maxwell. sent2: if the fact that something is a kind of a neurasthenic and it is a moment does not hold then it does not drink easiness. sent3: the possumwood is a kind of a maxwell if there is something such that it is not xerographic and drinks vestment. sent4: if something does not check the fact that it is alvine and not isotonic is wrong. sent5: that the titania is a kind of a neurasthenic and it is a kind of a moment is not correct if there exists something such that it is not circadian. sent6: the fact that something is both alvine and isotonic is not true if it is not a check. sent7: if something is not a Hmong then the fact that it is a hill but not a chordate is not true. sent8: if something does not drink easiness it is not xerographic and it drinks vestment. sent9: if the oenomel is not experiential the Muslimah is chlorotic and inquisitorial. sent10: if the Siouan is utopian the endonuclease is not indistinguishable. sent11: the Galatian is not a Mauritanian if the fact that the endonuclease is a Mauritanian and it is a dipole is false. sent12: the Lie is a kind of alvine thing that is not isotonic if the redshift is a check. sent13: if something is not a Mauritanian then that the everyman is a Lancaster or it is not experiential or both is not correct. sent14: the Lie does not check. sent15: that the obverse does drink faced but it is not premature is false if it is not a kind of an arsenide. sent16: the fact that the Lie is alvine and it is isotonic does not hold. sent17: something is not circadian. sent18: if the zebrawood is a check then the redshift check. sent19: that that something is both a Mauritanian and a dipole is right is incorrect if it is not indistinguishable. sent20: the oenomel is not experiential if that the everyman is a Lancaster or not experiential or both is wrong. | sent1: (x): {J}x -> {I}{h} sent2: (x): ¬({O}x & {N}x) -> ¬{M}x sent3: (x): (¬{L}x & {K}x) -> {J}{i} sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent5: (x): ¬{P}x -> ¬({O}{j} & {N}{j}) sent6: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent7: (x): ¬{AU}x -> ¬({IA}x & ¬{HK}x) sent8: (x): ¬{M}x -> (¬{L}x & {K}x) sent9: ¬{D}{d} -> ({B}{c} & {C}{c}) sent10: {I}{h} -> ¬{H}{g} sent11: ¬({F}{g} & {G}{g}) -> ¬{F}{f} sent12: {A}{a} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent13: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬({E}{e} v ¬{D}{e}) sent14: ¬{A}{aa} sent15: ¬{HC}{hd} -> ¬({BH}{hd} & ¬{JJ}{hd}) sent16: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent17: (Ex): ¬{P}x sent18: {A}{b} -> {A}{a} sent19: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬({F}x & {G}x) sent20: ¬({E}{e} v ¬{D}{e}) -> ¬{D}{d} | [
"sent4 -> int1: if the Lie is not a check then that it is alvine and it is non-isotonic is wrong.; int1 & sent14 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent4 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 & sent14 -> hypothesis;"
] | the Lie is alvine and is not isotonic. | ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) | [
"sent19 -> int2: that the endonuclease is both a Mauritanian and a dipole is not correct if that it is not indistinguishable is right.; sent8 -> int3: if the titania does not drink easiness it is not xerographic and it does drink vestment.; sent2 -> int4: if the fact that the titania is a kind of neurasthenic thing that is a kind of a moment does not hold it does not drink easiness.; sent17 & sent5 -> int5: the fact that the titania is not non-neurasthenic and it is a moment is not true.; int4 & int5 -> int6: the titania does not drink easiness.; int3 & int6 -> int7: the titania is non-xerographic thing that drinks vestment.; int7 -> int8: there exists something such that it is not xerographic and does drink vestment.; int8 & sent3 -> int9: the possumwood is a maxwell.; int9 -> int10: something is a maxwell.; int10 & sent1 -> int11: the Siouan is utopian.; sent10 & int11 -> int12: the endonuclease is not indistinguishable.; int2 & int12 -> int13: that the endonuclease is Mauritanian and it is a dipole is wrong.; sent11 & int13 -> int14: the Galatian is non-Mauritanian.; int14 -> int15: there exists something such that it is not Mauritanian.; int15 & sent13 -> int16: that either the everyman is a kind of a Lancaster or it is not experiential or both does not hold.; sent20 & int16 -> int17: the oenomel is not experiential.; sent9 & int17 -> int18: the Muslimah is chlorotic and is inquisitorial.; int18 -> int19: the Muslimah is not non-chlorotic.; int19 -> int20: there is something such that it is chlorotic.;"
] | 19 | 2 | 2 | 18 | 0 | 18 | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the Lie is alvine and is non-isotonic. ; $context$ = sent1: the Siouan is utopian if there exists something such that it is a maxwell. sent2: if the fact that something is a kind of a neurasthenic and it is a moment does not hold then it does not drink easiness. sent3: the possumwood is a kind of a maxwell if there is something such that it is not xerographic and drinks vestment. sent4: if something does not check the fact that it is alvine and not isotonic is wrong. sent5: that the titania is a kind of a neurasthenic and it is a kind of a moment is not correct if there exists something such that it is not circadian. sent6: the fact that something is both alvine and isotonic is not true if it is not a check. sent7: if something is not a Hmong then the fact that it is a hill but not a chordate is not true. sent8: if something does not drink easiness it is not xerographic and it drinks vestment. sent9: if the oenomel is not experiential the Muslimah is chlorotic and inquisitorial. sent10: if the Siouan is utopian the endonuclease is not indistinguishable. sent11: the Galatian is not a Mauritanian if the fact that the endonuclease is a Mauritanian and it is a dipole is false. sent12: the Lie is a kind of alvine thing that is not isotonic if the redshift is a check. sent13: if something is not a Mauritanian then that the everyman is a Lancaster or it is not experiential or both is not correct. sent14: the Lie does not check. sent15: that the obverse does drink faced but it is not premature is false if it is not a kind of an arsenide. sent16: the fact that the Lie is alvine and it is isotonic does not hold. sent17: something is not circadian. sent18: if the zebrawood is a check then the redshift check. sent19: that that something is both a Mauritanian and a dipole is right is incorrect if it is not indistinguishable. sent20: the oenomel is not experiential if that the everyman is a Lancaster or not experiential or both is wrong. ; $proof$ = | sent4 -> int1: if the Lie is not a check then that it is alvine and it is non-isotonic is wrong.; int1 & sent14 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | that that the succade is either not a lyreflower or not unmown or both is right is not true. | ¬(¬{C}{a} v ¬{B}{a}) | sent1: the succade is illiterate. sent2: that something is either not a harridan or not dualistic or both does not hold if it is not a kind of a metalware. sent3: everything is not a metalware. sent4: the fact that everything is not a basics is not false. sent5: the fact that the succade is not vehicular is not false if the diaper is a loyalty but it is not a metalware. sent6: the fact that the succade is a lyreflower hold. sent7: everything is a loyalty and it is not a metalware. | sent1: {GP}{a} sent2: (x): ¬{AB}x -> ¬(¬{AI}x v ¬{HJ}x) sent3: (x): ¬{AB}x sent4: (x): ¬{JE}x sent5: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent6: {C}{a} sent7: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) | [
"sent7 -> int1: the diaper is a loyalty and is not a kind of a metalware.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: that the succade is not vehicular is true.;"
] | [
"sent7 -> int1: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 & sent5 -> int2: ¬{A}{a};"
] | that the notochord is not a harridan or it is not dualistic or both is not right if it is not a metalware. | ¬{AB}{am} -> ¬(¬{AI}{am} v ¬{HJ}{am}) | [
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 3 | null | 5 | 0 | 5 | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = that that the succade is either not a lyreflower or not unmown or both is right is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the succade is illiterate. sent2: that something is either not a harridan or not dualistic or both does not hold if it is not a kind of a metalware. sent3: everything is not a metalware. sent4: the fact that everything is not a basics is not false. sent5: the fact that the succade is not vehicular is not false if the diaper is a loyalty but it is not a metalware. sent6: the fact that the succade is a lyreflower hold. sent7: everything is a loyalty and it is not a metalware. ; $proof$ = | sent7 -> int1: the diaper is a loyalty and is not a kind of a metalware.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: that the succade is not vehicular is true.; __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | there exists something such that if it is not a go then it does not drink accompaniment and it does not carbonate Illyrian. | (Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) | sent1: if the frock does not go then it does not carbonate Illyrian. sent2: the kirk is not a Anthyllis and it is not a Molise if it is not a Morpheus. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not a Machiavellian then it is not a caroler and it matures. sent4: there is something such that if that it is not rotatory is true it is not a kind of a guard and it does not sob Cynara. sent5: the frock is not a go and it does not carbonate convolvulus if it is a kind of a cloveroot. sent6: the fact that the frock drinks accompaniment and does not carbonate Illyrian hold if it is not a go. sent7: there is something such that if it does not go then it drinks accompaniment and it does not carbonate Illyrian. sent8: there exists something such that if it is fictile it is non-intimal and it does not accumulate. sent9: if the quarrel is not a differential it is not a kind of a go and it is not methodological. sent10: there is something such that if it does not underdress then it is not a guard. sent11: there is something such that if it is not a go it does not drink accompaniment. sent12: the frock does not sob Pithecanthropus and does not drink accompaniment if it is not prudent. sent13: something does not carbonate Illyrian and is not a guard if it is not a kind of a brougham. sent14: the fact that there is something such that if it does not carbonate woodgrain then it does not carbonate snorer is correct. sent15: that if the frock is not a kind of the go the frock does not drink accompaniment and does not carbonate Illyrian hold. sent16: something is not a haircut and it is not a kind of a go if it is not feudal. | sent1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬{AB}{aa} sent2: ¬{EO}{fr} -> (¬{FH}{fr} & ¬{FC}{fr}) sent3: (Ex): ¬{BE}x -> (¬{AM}x & {EM}x) sent4: (Ex): ¬{I}x -> (¬{IK}x & ¬{BM}x) sent5: {AJ}{aa} -> (¬{A}{aa} & ¬{CI}{aa}) sent6: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent7: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent8: (Ex): {S}x -> (¬{IC}x & ¬{HC}x) sent9: ¬{BL}{hs} -> (¬{A}{hs} & ¬{HK}{hs}) sent10: (Ex): ¬{DB}x -> ¬{IK}x sent11: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬{AA}x sent12: ¬{EA}{aa} -> (¬{DJ}{aa} & ¬{AA}{aa}) sent13: (x): ¬{II}x -> (¬{AB}x & ¬{IK}x) sent14: (Ex): ¬{GE}x -> ¬{GS}x sent15: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent16: (x): ¬{BO}x -> (¬{BF}x & ¬{A}x) | [
"sent15 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent15 -> hypothesis;"
] | if the fact that the Rosicrucian is not feudal is true then it is not a haircut and it is not a go. | ¬{BO}{i} -> (¬{BF}{i} & ¬{A}{i}) | [
"sent16 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 15 | 0 | 15 | PROVED | PROVED | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is not a go then it does not drink accompaniment and it does not carbonate Illyrian. ; $context$ = sent1: if the frock does not go then it does not carbonate Illyrian. sent2: the kirk is not a Anthyllis and it is not a Molise if it is not a Morpheus. sent3: there exists something such that if it is not a Machiavellian then it is not a caroler and it matures. sent4: there is something such that if that it is not rotatory is true it is not a kind of a guard and it does not sob Cynara. sent5: the frock is not a go and it does not carbonate convolvulus if it is a kind of a cloveroot. sent6: the fact that the frock drinks accompaniment and does not carbonate Illyrian hold if it is not a go. sent7: there is something such that if it does not go then it drinks accompaniment and it does not carbonate Illyrian. sent8: there exists something such that if it is fictile it is non-intimal and it does not accumulate. sent9: if the quarrel is not a differential it is not a kind of a go and it is not methodological. sent10: there is something such that if it does not underdress then it is not a guard. sent11: there is something such that if it is not a go it does not drink accompaniment. sent12: the frock does not sob Pithecanthropus and does not drink accompaniment if it is not prudent. sent13: something does not carbonate Illyrian and is not a guard if it is not a kind of a brougham. sent14: the fact that there is something such that if it does not carbonate woodgrain then it does not carbonate snorer is correct. sent15: that if the frock is not a kind of the go the frock does not drink accompaniment and does not carbonate Illyrian hold. sent16: something is not a haircut and it is not a kind of a go if it is not feudal. ; $proof$ = | sent15 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the tauon is not a morrow. | ¬{A}{a} | sent1: the tauon is not a morrow if the generator does sob Becquerel. sent2: if the tribadism is not a Armenian then the fact that the bubble is not a swizzle and it is not campanulate is wrong. sent3: the fact that the journalist is a kind of the adolescent if the journalist drinks ohm hold. sent4: that the tauon is a kind of technological thing that does not sob Hassam is not right if the journalist is not a kind of a chordate. sent5: something does not drink ohm if that it is technological and does not sob Hassam does not hold. sent6: the generator sobs journalist. sent7: if something that sobs journalist does not head it sobs Becquerel. sent8: the generator does sob journalist if it is a kind of a morrow that is not a head. sent9: if something is not an adolescent then the hollygrape does not sob Becquerel and is a kind of a morrow. sent10: if the tauon sobs Becquerel and does not sob journalist it is a morrow. sent11: something is a kind of a morrow that sobs Becquerel if it is not an adolescent. sent12: everything sobs journalist. sent13: everything drinks ohm. sent14: if something does not drink ohm that it is alchemic and is an adolescent is not right. sent15: that the journalist is not a chordate hold if the fact that the fact that the bubble is not a swizzle and it is non-campanulate is right is not correct. sent16: if something does drink ohm and is alchemic it is not an adolescent. sent17: the tribadism is not a Armenian if it does not carbonate Isaac. sent18: something does sob journalist if it is a morrow and it does not sob Becquerel. sent19: everything does sob journalist and it is not a head. | sent1: {B}{aa} -> ¬{A}{a} sent2: ¬{K}{d} -> ¬(¬{J}{c} & ¬{I}{c}) sent3: {D}{b} -> {C}{b} sent4: ¬{H}{b} -> ¬({F}{a} & ¬{G}{a}) sent5: (x): ¬({F}x & ¬{G}x) -> ¬{D}x sent6: {AA}{aa} sent7: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent8: ({A}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {AA}{aa} sent9: (x): ¬{C}x -> (¬{B}{ch} & {A}{ch}) sent10: ({B}{a} & ¬{AA}{a}) -> {A}{a} sent11: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({A}x & {B}x) sent12: (x): {AA}x sent13: (x): {D}x sent14: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬({E}x & {C}x) sent15: ¬(¬{J}{c} & ¬{I}{c}) -> ¬{H}{b} sent16: (x): ({D}x & {E}x) -> ¬{C}x sent17: ¬{L}{d} -> ¬{K}{d} sent18: (x): ({A}x & ¬{B}x) -> {AA}x sent19: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) | [
"sent7 -> int1: the generator does sob Becquerel if it does sob journalist and does not head.; sent19 -> int2: the generator does sob journalist and is not a kind of a head.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the generator does sob Becquerel.; int3 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent7 -> int1: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}; sent19 -> int2: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> int3: {B}{aa}; int3 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | the tauon is a morrow. | {A}{a} | [] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 16 | 0 | 16 | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the tauon is not a morrow. ; $context$ = sent1: the tauon is not a morrow if the generator does sob Becquerel. sent2: if the tribadism is not a Armenian then the fact that the bubble is not a swizzle and it is not campanulate is wrong. sent3: the fact that the journalist is a kind of the adolescent if the journalist drinks ohm hold. sent4: that the tauon is a kind of technological thing that does not sob Hassam is not right if the journalist is not a kind of a chordate. sent5: something does not drink ohm if that it is technological and does not sob Hassam does not hold. sent6: the generator sobs journalist. sent7: if something that sobs journalist does not head it sobs Becquerel. sent8: the generator does sob journalist if it is a kind of a morrow that is not a head. sent9: if something is not an adolescent then the hollygrape does not sob Becquerel and is a kind of a morrow. sent10: if the tauon sobs Becquerel and does not sob journalist it is a morrow. sent11: something is a kind of a morrow that sobs Becquerel if it is not an adolescent. sent12: everything sobs journalist. sent13: everything drinks ohm. sent14: if something does not drink ohm that it is alchemic and is an adolescent is not right. sent15: that the journalist is not a chordate hold if the fact that the fact that the bubble is not a swizzle and it is non-campanulate is right is not correct. sent16: if something does drink ohm and is alchemic it is not an adolescent. sent17: the tribadism is not a Armenian if it does not carbonate Isaac. sent18: something does sob journalist if it is a morrow and it does not sob Becquerel. sent19: everything does sob journalist and it is not a head. ; $proof$ = | sent7 -> int1: the generator does sob Becquerel if it does sob journalist and does not head.; sent19 -> int2: the generator does sob journalist and is not a kind of a head.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the generator does sob Becquerel.; int3 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | that there exists something such that if the fact that it is not spectrographic and it sobs modesty does not hold it is a harbinger is not correct. | ¬((Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x) | sent1: if the raffia does not sob modesty but it drinks Limerick it is a kind of a Willebrand. sent2: if that the raffia is a kind of non-spectrographic thing that sobs modesty is wrong it is a kind of a harbinger. sent3: if the raffia does not sob modesty but it is centrosomic it is a study. sent4: there is something such that if it is not spectrographic and it does sob modesty it is a harbinger. sent5: the raffia is a kind of a harbinger if the fact that it does not sob modesty hold. sent6: there exists something such that if that it is not a Confederacy is correct that it is a loyalty is not wrong. sent7: if the fact that something is not centrosomic but it is intemperate does not hold then it is a kind of a thwack. sent8: if the fact that the raffia is spectrographic and it sobs modesty is false it is a harbinger. sent9: there is something such that if the fact that it is not intemperate and it is a kind of a Florentine does not hold it does rob. sent10: there is something such that if the fact that it is both anorectal and Gilbertian is not correct it does incorporate. sent11: there exists something such that if it does not sob modesty it is a kind of a harbinger. sent12: if that the raffia is not spectrographic but it transmits Turk is false then it is a kind of a Alca. sent13: there is something such that if it is spectrographic then it is a harbinger. | sent1: (¬{AB}{aa} & {EF}{aa}) -> {FM}{aa} sent2: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent3: (¬{AB}{aa} & {IR}{aa}) -> {EM}{aa} sent4: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent5: ¬{AB}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent6: (Ex): ¬{EP}x -> {BN}x sent7: (x): ¬(¬{IR}x & {CS}x) -> {EB}x sent8: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent9: (Ex): ¬(¬{CS}x & {N}x) -> {BF}x sent10: (Ex): ¬({GP}x & {EH}x) -> {DA}x sent11: (Ex): ¬{AB}x -> {B}x sent12: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {FH}{aa}) -> {AT}{aa} sent13: (Ex): {AA}x -> {B}x | [
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | there is something such that if the fact that it is not centrosomic and is intemperate is incorrect it is a kind of a thwack. | (Ex): ¬(¬{IR}x & {CS}x) -> {EB}x | [
"sent7 -> int1: the rain is a thwack if the fact that it is both non-centrosomic and not temperate is not right.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 0 | 12 | DISPROVED | PROVED | DISPROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if the fact that it is not spectrographic and it sobs modesty does not hold it is a harbinger is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the raffia does not sob modesty but it drinks Limerick it is a kind of a Willebrand. sent2: if that the raffia is a kind of non-spectrographic thing that sobs modesty is wrong it is a kind of a harbinger. sent3: if the raffia does not sob modesty but it is centrosomic it is a study. sent4: there is something such that if it is not spectrographic and it does sob modesty it is a harbinger. sent5: the raffia is a kind of a harbinger if the fact that it does not sob modesty hold. sent6: there exists something such that if that it is not a Confederacy is correct that it is a loyalty is not wrong. sent7: if the fact that something is not centrosomic but it is intemperate does not hold then it is a kind of a thwack. sent8: if the fact that the raffia is spectrographic and it sobs modesty is false it is a harbinger. sent9: there is something such that if the fact that it is not intemperate and it is a kind of a Florentine does not hold it does rob. sent10: there is something such that if the fact that it is both anorectal and Gilbertian is not correct it does incorporate. sent11: there exists something such that if it does not sob modesty it is a kind of a harbinger. sent12: if that the raffia is not spectrographic but it transmits Turk is false then it is a kind of a Alca. sent13: there is something such that if it is spectrographic then it is a harbinger. ; $proof$ = | sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the carbonating Bayonne happens. | {A} | sent1: the carbonating printer does not occur if the carbonating Bayonne or the non-katharobicness or both happens. sent2: the katharobicness does not occur and the carbonating Bayonne does not occur if the nonarbitrariness does not occur. sent3: the katharobicness does not occur if that the drinking prognathism does not occur and the abidance does not occur is not correct. sent4: the katharobicness occurs and the nonarbitrariness occurs if the inflaming does not occur. sent5: the non-katharobicness is brought about by that the drinking prognathism happens. sent6: the inflaming does not occur. | sent1: ({A} v ¬{B}) -> ¬{F} sent2: ¬{C} -> (¬{B} & ¬{A}) sent3: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> ¬{B} sent4: ¬{D} -> ({B} & {C}) sent5: {AA} -> ¬{B} sent6: ¬{D} | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the carbonating Bayonne does not occur.; sent4 & sent6 -> int1: the katharobicness happens and the nonarbitrariness occurs.; int1 -> int2: the katharobicness happens.;"
] | [
"void -> assump1: ¬{A}; sent4 & sent6 -> int1: ({B} & {C}); int1 -> int2: {B};"
] | the carbonating Bayonne does not occur. | ¬{A} | [] | 6 | 4 | null | 3 | 0 | 3 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the carbonating Bayonne happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the carbonating printer does not occur if the carbonating Bayonne or the non-katharobicness or both happens. sent2: the katharobicness does not occur and the carbonating Bayonne does not occur if the nonarbitrariness does not occur. sent3: the katharobicness does not occur if that the drinking prognathism does not occur and the abidance does not occur is not correct. sent4: the katharobicness occurs and the nonarbitrariness occurs if the inflaming does not occur. sent5: the non-katharobicness is brought about by that the drinking prognathism happens. sent6: the inflaming does not occur. ; $proof$ = | void -> assump1: Let's assume that the carbonating Bayonne does not occur.; sent4 & sent6 -> int1: the katharobicness happens and the nonarbitrariness occurs.; int1 -> int2: the katharobicness happens.; __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | the limbus is not nontraditional. | ¬{D}{b} | sent1: if something is a kind of a expurgator that is amphitheatric then it is traditional. sent2: the goalkeeper is amphitheatric if the lisinopril is amphitheatric. sent3: the limbus is a kind of a expurgator if the lisinopril is a flat. sent4: the lisinopril is flat. sent5: if the limbus is both a titanium and not an explication then it is amphitheatric. sent6: the limbus is not an explication. sent7: something is a expurgator and/or it is amphitheatric if it is not flat. sent8: the fact that the limbus is a titanium and not an explication hold. | sent1: (x): ({B}x & {C}x) -> ¬{D}x sent2: {C}{a} -> {C}{ji} sent3: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent4: {A}{a} sent5: ({F}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) -> {C}{b} sent6: ¬{E}{b} sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({B}x v {C}x) sent8: ({F}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) | [
"sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the limbus is a expurgator.; sent5 & sent8 -> int2: the limbus is amphitheatric.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the limbus is a expurgator and it is amphitheatric.; sent1 -> int4: the limbus is not nontraditional if it is a kind of a expurgator and it is amphitheatric.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent3 & sent4 -> int1: {B}{b}; sent5 & sent8 -> int2: {C}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({B}{b} & {C}{b}); sent1 -> int4: ({B}{b} & {C}{b}) -> ¬{D}{b}; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | the goalkeeper is amphitheatric. | {C}{ji} | [
"sent7 -> int5: the limbus is a expurgator and/or amphitheatric if it is not a flat.;"
] | 11 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the limbus is not nontraditional. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a kind of a expurgator that is amphitheatric then it is traditional. sent2: the goalkeeper is amphitheatric if the lisinopril is amphitheatric. sent3: the limbus is a kind of a expurgator if the lisinopril is a flat. sent4: the lisinopril is flat. sent5: if the limbus is both a titanium and not an explication then it is amphitheatric. sent6: the limbus is not an explication. sent7: something is a expurgator and/or it is amphitheatric if it is not flat. sent8: the fact that the limbus is a titanium and not an explication hold. ; $proof$ = | sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the limbus is a expurgator.; sent5 & sent8 -> int2: the limbus is amphitheatric.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the limbus is a expurgator and it is amphitheatric.; sent1 -> int4: the limbus is not nontraditional if it is a kind of a expurgator and it is amphitheatric.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the lymphangiogram is not a stained and not achromatinic. | (¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) | sent1: something is a kind of a haiku and it sobs Chimakum. sent2: if that something is not incapable and carbonates jackhammer is false then the fact that it does not carbonates jackhammer is not false. sent3: the mylodon is not a stained and is not nontechnical. sent4: there is something such that it is a kind of a haiku and it does not sob Chimakum. sent5: if the saxophonist is a kind of inappropriate thing that does not prolong then the streptomycin inappropriate. sent6: something is a haiku. sent7: the lymphangiogram does not sob Chimakum. sent8: the fact that the saxophonist is not appropriate and does not prolong if the fact that the saxophonist does not fresco is not false is not incorrect. sent9: the signalman does not sob Ariocarpus if something drinks Macrodactylus and is non-temporal. sent10: the lymphangiogram is not achromatinic. sent11: the lymphangiogram is not a plaintiveness and is not a kind of a haiku. sent12: if the streptomycin is appropriate the fact that the prodigal is not a cumulus and is not incapable is not true. sent13: if something drinks expulsion but it does not sob demagoguery the lymphangiogram does not carbonate repatriate. sent14: the lymphangiogram does not sob demagoguery. sent15: there is something such that it does not sob Chimakum. sent16: the saxophonist does not fresco. sent17: that something is not a stained and not achromatinic is not correct if it does not carbonate jackhammer. sent18: the lymphangiogram is not a haiku. | sent1: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent2: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & {C}x) -> ¬{C}x sent3: (¬{A}{dj} & ¬{CD}{dj}) sent4: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent5: (¬{F}{e} & ¬{H}{e}) -> {F}{d} sent6: (Ex): {AA}x sent7: ¬{AB}{a} sent8: ¬{G}{e} -> (¬{F}{e} & ¬{H}{e}) sent9: (x): ({CE}x & ¬{CJ}x) -> ¬{AO}{ap} sent10: ¬{B}{a} sent11: (¬{AH}{a} & ¬{AA}{a}) sent12: {F}{d} -> ¬(¬{D}{c} & ¬{E}{c}) sent13: (x): ({DK}x & ¬{BI}x) -> ¬{DC}{a} sent14: ¬{BI}{a} sent15: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent16: ¬{G}{e} sent17: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) sent18: ¬{AA}{a} | [] | [] | that the lymphangiogram does not stain and is not achromatinic is not right. | ¬(¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) | [
"sent17 -> int1: the fact that the lymphangiogram is not a stained and not achromatinic is wrong if that it does not carbonate jackhammer is not incorrect.; sent2 -> int2: the lymphangiogram does not carbonate jackhammer if the fact that it is not incapable and carbonate jackhammer is not true.; sent8 & sent16 -> int3: the saxophonist does not appropriate and does not prolong.; sent5 & int3 -> int4: the streptomycin appropriates.; sent12 & int4 -> int5: the fact that the prodigal is not a cumulus and it is not incapable is not correct.; int5 -> int6: there exists something such that that it is not a cumulus and it is not incapable is not correct.;"
] | 9 | 2 | null | 16 | 0 | 16 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the lymphangiogram is not a stained and not achromatinic. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a kind of a haiku and it sobs Chimakum. sent2: if that something is not incapable and carbonates jackhammer is false then the fact that it does not carbonates jackhammer is not false. sent3: the mylodon is not a stained and is not nontechnical. sent4: there is something such that it is a kind of a haiku and it does not sob Chimakum. sent5: if the saxophonist is a kind of inappropriate thing that does not prolong then the streptomycin inappropriate. sent6: something is a haiku. sent7: the lymphangiogram does not sob Chimakum. sent8: the fact that the saxophonist is not appropriate and does not prolong if the fact that the saxophonist does not fresco is not false is not incorrect. sent9: the signalman does not sob Ariocarpus if something drinks Macrodactylus and is non-temporal. sent10: the lymphangiogram is not achromatinic. sent11: the lymphangiogram is not a plaintiveness and is not a kind of a haiku. sent12: if the streptomycin is appropriate the fact that the prodigal is not a cumulus and is not incapable is not true. sent13: if something drinks expulsion but it does not sob demagoguery the lymphangiogram does not carbonate repatriate. sent14: the lymphangiogram does not sob demagoguery. sent15: there is something such that it does not sob Chimakum. sent16: the saxophonist does not fresco. sent17: that something is not a stained and not achromatinic is not correct if it does not carbonate jackhammer. sent18: the lymphangiogram is not a haiku. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | the Rosicrucian carbonates carpal. | {B}{b} | sent1: the fact that the carpal is not a thill but it is a moronity is incorrect. sent2: if the Rosicrucian does transmit easiness then the fact that it does not carbonate carpal and is a planted is not true. sent3: if the rind is not a Chinaman that it is a Conrad and it is not out is wrong. sent4: the Rosicrucian does carbonate carpal if the rind does transmit easiness. sent5: if the rind is a thill the fact that it does transmit easiness and it is a kind of a planted is not right. sent6: something does not carbonate carpal and it is not a thill if it is not trustworthy. sent7: that the rind does not transmit easiness but it does plant is false if it is a kind of a thill. sent8: the rind is a thill. sent9: the rind is wheelless. | sent1: ¬(¬{A}{ar} & {FJ}{ar}) sent2: {AA}{b} -> ¬(¬{B}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent3: ¬{F}{a} -> ¬({E}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent4: {AA}{a} -> {B}{b} sent5: {A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent6: (x): ¬{C}x -> (¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) sent7: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent8: {A}{a} sent9: {HL}{a} | [
"sent7 & sent8 -> int1: the fact that the rind does not transmit easiness but it is a kind of a planted is not right.;"
] | [
"sent7 & sent8 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a});"
] | the Rosicrucian does not carbonate carpal. | ¬{B}{b} | [
"sent6 -> int2: the Rosicrucian does not carbonate carpal and is not a thill if it is not trustworthy.;"
] | 6 | 2 | null | 7 | 0 | 7 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the Rosicrucian carbonates carpal. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the carpal is not a thill but it is a moronity is incorrect. sent2: if the Rosicrucian does transmit easiness then the fact that it does not carbonate carpal and is a planted is not true. sent3: if the rind is not a Chinaman that it is a Conrad and it is not out is wrong. sent4: the Rosicrucian does carbonate carpal if the rind does transmit easiness. sent5: if the rind is a thill the fact that it does transmit easiness and it is a kind of a planted is not right. sent6: something does not carbonate carpal and it is not a thill if it is not trustworthy. sent7: that the rind does not transmit easiness but it does plant is false if it is a kind of a thill. sent8: the rind is a thill. sent9: the rind is wheelless. ; $proof$ = | sent7 & sent8 -> int1: the fact that the rind does not transmit easiness but it is a kind of a planted is not right.; __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | there exists something such that if it is not genitourinary then the fact that it does not drink psyop and it is not a Jacksonian is not correct. | (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) | sent1: if the deposition is not genitourinary then the fact that it does not drink psyop and it is not a kind of a Jacksonian is wrong. sent2: there is something such that if it is not cholinergic that it is not Keynesian and it is a kind of an elastomer does not hold. sent3: if the deposition is not genitourinary that it does drink psyop and is non-Jacksonian is wrong. sent4: the deposition does not drink psyop and is not a Jacksonian if it is not genitourinary. sent5: that that the deposition does not drink psyop and is Jacksonian is false is true if it is not genitourinary. sent6: that the deposition does not drink psyop and it is not a Jacksonian is not right if it is genitourinary. | sent1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent2: (Ex): ¬{EO}x -> ¬(¬{EG}x & {CA}x) sent3: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent4: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent5: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent6: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) | [
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null | [] | null | 1 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 5 | PROVED | null | PROVED | null | $hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is not genitourinary then the fact that it does not drink psyop and it is not a Jacksonian is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the deposition is not genitourinary then the fact that it does not drink psyop and it is not a kind of a Jacksonian is wrong. sent2: there is something such that if it is not cholinergic that it is not Keynesian and it is a kind of an elastomer does not hold. sent3: if the deposition is not genitourinary that it does drink psyop and is non-Jacksonian is wrong. sent4: the deposition does not drink psyop and is not a Jacksonian if it is not genitourinary. sent5: that that the deposition does not drink psyop and is Jacksonian is false is true if it is not genitourinary. sent6: that the deposition does not drink psyop and it is not a Jacksonian is not right if it is genitourinary. ; $proof$ = | sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | that the fluctuation does not occur hold. | ¬{A} | sent1: if the fact that the carbonating triad does not occur is true both the congregation and the non-Senegaleseness happens. sent2: the carbonating Budge and/or the non-noselessness occurs. sent3: if that the intimalness but not the frame-up happens does not hold the logisticsness happens. sent4: that the injustice occurs prevents the crackdown. sent5: the injustice happens or the transmitting Sumerian occurs or both. sent6: the carbonating triad does not occur if the fact that both the carbonating triad and the non-Baptisticness occurs is wrong. sent7: if the transmitting Galilee happens then the eusporangiateness does not occur or the utility does not occur or both. sent8: the reciprocity does not occur and/or the paving occurs if the fact that the lineman occurs is not wrong. sent9: the Senegaleseness occurs if the carbonating triad happens. sent10: both the congregation and the Baptisticness happens if the crackdown does not occur. sent11: the unexportableness does not occur if the fact that the congregation and the Senegaleseness occurs hold. sent12: either the carbonating Turk happens or the higherness does not occur or both. sent13: that the carbonating Turk does not occur and/or the higherness happens is brought about by that the fluctuation occurs. sent14: if the unexportableness does not occur then the apocynaceousness and the fluctuation happens. sent15: the explicitness occurs. sent16: either the unreactiveness or the babbling or both occurs. sent17: the unexportableness happens. sent18: if the unexportableness happens then that the carbonating Turk does not occur or the higherness does not occur or both is not correct. sent19: the fluctuation occurs and the unexportableness occurs if the Senegaleseness does not occur. sent20: either that the carbonating Turk does not occur or that the higherness does not occur or both is caused by the fluctuation. sent21: if the logisticsness happens then the carbonating triad occurs. | sent1: ¬{E} -> ({D} & ¬{C}) sent2: ({EQ} v ¬{EI}) sent3: ¬({J} & ¬{I}) -> {G} sent4: {L} -> ¬{H} sent5: ({L} v {K}) sent6: ¬({E} & ¬{F}) -> ¬{E} sent7: {DD} -> (¬{GP} v ¬{AO}) sent8: {EE} -> (¬{FQ} v {FI}) sent9: {E} -> {C} sent10: ¬{H} -> ({D} & {F}) sent11: ({D} & {C}) -> ¬{B} sent12: ({AA} v ¬{AB}) sent13: {A} -> (¬{AA} v {AB}) sent14: ¬{B} -> ({HP} & {A}) sent15: {HQ} sent16: (¬{GH} v {R}) sent17: {B} sent18: {B} -> ¬(¬{AA} v ¬{AB}) sent19: ¬{C} -> ({A} & {B}) sent20: {A} -> (¬{AA} v ¬{AB}) sent21: {G} -> {E} | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the fluctuation occurs is not wrong.; sent20 & assump1 -> int1: the carbonating Turk does not occur and/or the higherness does not occur.; sent18 & sent17 -> int2: the fact that the carbonating Turk does not occur or the higherness does not occur or both is false.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"void -> assump1: {A}; sent20 & assump1 -> int1: (¬{AA} v ¬{AB}); sent18 & sent17 -> int2: ¬(¬{AA} v ¬{AB}); int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | the fluctuation happens. | {A} | [] | 8 | 3 | 3 | 18 | 0 | 18 | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = that the fluctuation does not occur hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the carbonating triad does not occur is true both the congregation and the non-Senegaleseness happens. sent2: the carbonating Budge and/or the non-noselessness occurs. sent3: if that the intimalness but not the frame-up happens does not hold the logisticsness happens. sent4: that the injustice occurs prevents the crackdown. sent5: the injustice happens or the transmitting Sumerian occurs or both. sent6: the carbonating triad does not occur if the fact that both the carbonating triad and the non-Baptisticness occurs is wrong. sent7: if the transmitting Galilee happens then the eusporangiateness does not occur or the utility does not occur or both. sent8: the reciprocity does not occur and/or the paving occurs if the fact that the lineman occurs is not wrong. sent9: the Senegaleseness occurs if the carbonating triad happens. sent10: both the congregation and the Baptisticness happens if the crackdown does not occur. sent11: the unexportableness does not occur if the fact that the congregation and the Senegaleseness occurs hold. sent12: either the carbonating Turk happens or the higherness does not occur or both. sent13: that the carbonating Turk does not occur and/or the higherness happens is brought about by that the fluctuation occurs. sent14: if the unexportableness does not occur then the apocynaceousness and the fluctuation happens. sent15: the explicitness occurs. sent16: either the unreactiveness or the babbling or both occurs. sent17: the unexportableness happens. sent18: if the unexportableness happens then that the carbonating Turk does not occur or the higherness does not occur or both is not correct. sent19: the fluctuation occurs and the unexportableness occurs if the Senegaleseness does not occur. sent20: either that the carbonating Turk does not occur or that the higherness does not occur or both is caused by the fluctuation. sent21: if the logisticsness happens then the carbonating triad occurs. ; $proof$ = | void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the fluctuation occurs is not wrong.; sent20 & assump1 -> int1: the carbonating Turk does not occur and/or the higherness does not occur.; sent18 & sent17 -> int2: the fact that the carbonating Turk does not occur or the higherness does not occur or both is false.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the hyaline is a burdened that drinks staggerbush. | ({B}{aa} & {A}{aa}) | sent1: if something does not carbonate Mammea the fact that it dwells and it carbonates Auvergne is incorrect. sent2: if the mirage is surficial then the forger is a inchoative. sent3: the hyaline is riparian. sent4: if that something dwells and it carbonates Auvergne is false it does not sob fragment. sent5: either something carbonates Psittacus or it is a kind of a flank or both if it does not sob fragment. sent6: the linendraper is not non-riparian. sent7: the fragment is not three-dimensional if the fact that the fellatio does not carbonate forger and it is not three-dimensional is incorrect. sent8: the pennon is Continental if the fact that that the northland sobs Caravaggio but it does not stickle is not true is correct. sent9: if the sowbelly is not riparian the cuckooflower does drink staggerbush and it does burden. sent10: the fact that the northland does sob Caravaggio and does not stickle is not correct if the fragment is not three-dimensional. sent11: if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a Linum and does sob prototype is wrong the Tongan does not sob prototype. sent12: if the forger is a inchoative then the fact that the fellatio does not carbonate forger and it is not three-dimensional is not correct. sent13: the fact that that the mirage is not surficial is right is incorrect if the decor is a flank. sent14: something does not carbonate Mammea if it is not saxicolous or it does not carbonate Mammea or both. sent15: if the pennon is Continental the vigilante is a bitumen. sent16: the decor is non-saxicolous thing that is not a Wouk if the Tongan does not sob prototype. sent17: if the hyaline is riparian then it burdens. sent18: the hyaline is anticancer. sent19: the mirage is surficial if the decor carbonates Psittacus. sent20: that the fothergilla is a Linum and sobs prototype is incorrect. sent21: if the sowbelly is not riparian then that the hyaline is a burdened and it does drink staggerbush does not hold. sent22: everything drinks staggerbush. | sent1: (x): ¬{Q}x -> ¬({O}x & {P}x) sent2: {K}{h} -> {I}{g} sent3: {C}{aa} sent4: (x): ¬({O}x & {P}x) -> ¬{N}x sent5: (x): ¬{N}x -> ({M}x v {L}x) sent6: {C}{dq} sent7: ¬(¬{J}{f} & ¬{H}{f}) -> ¬{H}{e} sent8: ¬({G}{d} & ¬{F}{d}) -> {E}{c} sent9: ¬{C}{a} -> ({A}{ic} & {B}{ic}) sent10: ¬{H}{e} -> ¬({G}{d} & ¬{F}{d}) sent11: (x): ¬({AA}x & {T}x) -> ¬{T}{j} sent12: {I}{g} -> ¬(¬{J}{f} & ¬{H}{f}) sent13: {L}{i} -> {K}{h} sent14: (x): (¬{R}x v ¬{Q}x) -> ¬{Q}x sent15: {E}{c} -> {D}{b} sent16: ¬{T}{j} -> (¬{R}{i} & ¬{S}{i}) sent17: {C}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent18: {CC}{aa} sent19: {M}{i} -> {K}{h} sent20: ¬({AA}{k} & {T}{k}) sent21: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬({B}{aa} & {A}{aa}) sent22: (x): {A}x | [
"sent22 -> int1: the hyaline does drink staggerbush.; sent17 & sent3 -> int2: the hyaline is a burdened.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent22 -> int1: {A}{aa}; sent17 & sent3 -> int2: {B}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | that the hyaline does burden and it drinks staggerbush is not correct. | ¬({B}{aa} & {A}{aa}) | [
"sent5 -> int3: either the decor carbonates Psittacus or it is a flank or both if it does not sob fragment.; sent4 -> int4: that the decor does not sob fragment is correct if that it does dwell and it carbonates Auvergne is not correct.; sent1 -> int5: that the decor dwells and carbonates Auvergne is not correct if it does not carbonate Mammea.; sent14 -> int6: the decor does not carbonate Mammea if either it is not saxicolous or it does not carbonate Mammea or both.; sent20 -> int7: there exists something such that that it is a Linum that sobs prototype is incorrect.; int7 & sent11 -> int8: that the Tongan does not sob prototype is not false.; sent16 & int8 -> int9: the decor is not saxicolous and not a Wouk.; int9 -> int10: the decor is not saxicolous.; int10 -> int11: the decor is non-saxicolous or it does not carbonate Mammea or both.; int6 & int11 -> int12: the decor does not carbonate Mammea.; int5 & int12 -> int13: the fact that the decor does dwell and carbonates Auvergne is wrong.; int4 & int13 -> int14: the decor does not sob fragment.; int3 & int14 -> int15: either the decor does carbonate Psittacus or it does flank or both.; int15 & sent19 & sent13 -> int16: the mirage is surficial.; sent2 & int16 -> int17: the forger is a inchoative.; sent12 & int17 -> int18: the fact that the fellatio does not carbonate forger and is non-three-dimensional is not correct.; sent7 & int18 -> int19: the fact that the fragment is not three-dimensional hold.; sent10 & int19 -> int20: the fact that the northland sobs Caravaggio but it does not stickle is wrong.; sent8 & int20 -> int21: the pennon is Continental.; sent15 & int21 -> int22: the vigilante is a bitumen.; int22 -> int23: something is a bitumen.;"
] | 19 | 2 | 2 | 19 | 0 | 19 | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the hyaline is a burdened that drinks staggerbush. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not carbonate Mammea the fact that it dwells and it carbonates Auvergne is incorrect. sent2: if the mirage is surficial then the forger is a inchoative. sent3: the hyaline is riparian. sent4: if that something dwells and it carbonates Auvergne is false it does not sob fragment. sent5: either something carbonates Psittacus or it is a kind of a flank or both if it does not sob fragment. sent6: the linendraper is not non-riparian. sent7: the fragment is not three-dimensional if the fact that the fellatio does not carbonate forger and it is not three-dimensional is incorrect. sent8: the pennon is Continental if the fact that that the northland sobs Caravaggio but it does not stickle is not true is correct. sent9: if the sowbelly is not riparian the cuckooflower does drink staggerbush and it does burden. sent10: the fact that the northland does sob Caravaggio and does not stickle is not correct if the fragment is not three-dimensional. sent11: if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a Linum and does sob prototype is wrong the Tongan does not sob prototype. sent12: if the forger is a inchoative then the fact that the fellatio does not carbonate forger and it is not three-dimensional is not correct. sent13: the fact that that the mirage is not surficial is right is incorrect if the decor is a flank. sent14: something does not carbonate Mammea if it is not saxicolous or it does not carbonate Mammea or both. sent15: if the pennon is Continental the vigilante is a bitumen. sent16: the decor is non-saxicolous thing that is not a Wouk if the Tongan does not sob prototype. sent17: if the hyaline is riparian then it burdens. sent18: the hyaline is anticancer. sent19: the mirage is surficial if the decor carbonates Psittacus. sent20: that the fothergilla is a Linum and sobs prototype is incorrect. sent21: if the sowbelly is not riparian then that the hyaline is a burdened and it does drink staggerbush does not hold. sent22: everything drinks staggerbush. ; $proof$ = | sent22 -> int1: the hyaline does drink staggerbush.; sent17 & sent3 -> int2: the hyaline is a burdened.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the acanthocyte files. | {A}{a} | sent1: that something is both not a Zoroastrian and a fleapit does not hold if it does not carbonate titania. sent2: if the entoproct plans then the accumulation does not drink wardrobe and is a kind of a bilabial. sent3: the entoproct carbonates sterility if the fact that it is a kind of non-Zoroastrian thing that is a fleapit does not hold. sent4: something files if it is a kind of a planned. sent5: everything does not carbonate titania. sent6: the fact that that something is not an alveolar but it is a planned does not hold if it is a file is not incorrect. sent7: the accumulation is a bilabial. sent8: a romantic thing files. sent9: if that the entoproct is a planned is correct the accumulation is a kind of a bilabial. sent10: that the fact that the accumulation is a romantic and/or it does carbonate sterility is not incorrect is not right if that the entoproct is not a taximeter is not incorrect. sent11: the entoproct does drink wardrobe. sent12: the entoproct is a planned. sent13: if the footing is interfacial then the titania does not carbonate titania and is a Zoroastrian. sent14: if the DC is interfacial but not a nondriver that the footing is interfacial is not false. sent15: the DC is interfacial and is not a kind of a nondriver. sent16: the entoproct is not a fleapit if there exists something such that it is a Zoroastrian. sent17: something is not a kind of a taximeter if it is not a kind of a fleapit. sent18: if the entoproct does carbonate sterility that the acanthocyte is not a kind of a romantic and it is not a taximeter is not true. sent19: if that the acanthocyte does file is true then that the fact that the accumulation does not drink wardrobe but it is a kind of a bilabial hold is incorrect. | sent1: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬(¬{G}x & {F}x) sent2: {B}{c} -> (¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent3: ¬(¬{G}{c} & {F}{c}) -> {D}{c} sent4: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent5: (x): ¬{H}x sent6: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{HK}x & {B}x) sent7: {AB}{b} sent8: (x): {C}x -> {A}x sent9: {B}{c} -> {AB}{b} sent10: ¬{E}{c} -> ¬({C}{b} v {D}{b}) sent11: {AA}{c} sent12: {B}{c} sent13: {I}{e} -> (¬{H}{d} & {G}{d}) sent14: ({I}{f} & ¬{K}{f}) -> {I}{e} sent15: ({I}{f} & ¬{K}{f}) sent16: (x): {G}x -> ¬{F}{c} sent17: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬{E}x sent18: {D}{c} -> ¬(¬{C}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) sent19: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the acanthocyte is a file is not wrong.; sent19 & assump1 -> int1: that the accumulation does not drink wardrobe but it is a bilabial is not true.; sent2 & sent12 -> int2: the accumulation does not drink wardrobe and is bilabial.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"void -> assump1: {A}{a}; sent19 & assump1 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}); sent2 & sent12 -> int2: (¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}); int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | the acanthocyte is a file. | {A}{a} | [
"sent4 -> int4: the acanthocyte is a file if that it plans hold.; sent17 -> int5: the entoproct is not a taximeter if the fact that it is not a fleapit hold.; sent14 & sent15 -> int6: the footing is interfacial.; sent13 & int6 -> int7: the titania does not carbonate titania but it is Zoroastrian.; int7 -> int8: the titania is a Zoroastrian.; int8 -> int9: there exists something such that that it is a Zoroastrian is right.; int9 & sent16 -> int10: the entoproct is not a kind of a fleapit.; int5 & int10 -> int11: the entoproct is not a taximeter.; sent10 & int11 -> int12: the fact that the accumulation is a romantic and/or it carbonates sterility does not hold.; int12 -> int13: there is something such that the fact that either it is a romantic or it carbonates sterility or both does not hold.;"
] | 10 | 3 | 3 | 16 | 0 | 16 | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the acanthocyte files. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is both not a Zoroastrian and a fleapit does not hold if it does not carbonate titania. sent2: if the entoproct plans then the accumulation does not drink wardrobe and is a kind of a bilabial. sent3: the entoproct carbonates sterility if the fact that it is a kind of non-Zoroastrian thing that is a fleapit does not hold. sent4: something files if it is a kind of a planned. sent5: everything does not carbonate titania. sent6: the fact that that something is not an alveolar but it is a planned does not hold if it is a file is not incorrect. sent7: the accumulation is a bilabial. sent8: a romantic thing files. sent9: if that the entoproct is a planned is correct the accumulation is a kind of a bilabial. sent10: that the fact that the accumulation is a romantic and/or it does carbonate sterility is not incorrect is not right if that the entoproct is not a taximeter is not incorrect. sent11: the entoproct does drink wardrobe. sent12: the entoproct is a planned. sent13: if the footing is interfacial then the titania does not carbonate titania and is a Zoroastrian. sent14: if the DC is interfacial but not a nondriver that the footing is interfacial is not false. sent15: the DC is interfacial and is not a kind of a nondriver. sent16: the entoproct is not a fleapit if there exists something such that it is a Zoroastrian. sent17: something is not a kind of a taximeter if it is not a kind of a fleapit. sent18: if the entoproct does carbonate sterility that the acanthocyte is not a kind of a romantic and it is not a taximeter is not true. sent19: if that the acanthocyte does file is true then that the fact that the accumulation does not drink wardrobe but it is a kind of a bilabial hold is incorrect. ; $proof$ = | void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the acanthocyte is a file is not wrong.; sent19 & assump1 -> int1: that the accumulation does not drink wardrobe but it is a bilabial is not true.; sent2 & sent12 -> int2: the accumulation does not drink wardrobe and is bilabial.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the convolution is not subtropical. | ¬{C}{a} | sent1: the nullah does drink kirk and does not sob Lagostomus if it does not drink roughage. sent2: if the obverse is not a Scaramouch it does not drink scalper. sent3: something is not impure if it is not complex. sent4: the convolution is a penult. sent5: that something is a Scaramouch and not a penult is incorrect if it sobs Lagostomus. sent6: the convolution is a kind of a penult but it is not a kind of a Scaramouch. sent7: something is not subtropical if it is not a kind of a Scaramouch. sent8: the scalper is not subtropical. sent9: if the convolution sobs Lagostomus then it is a Scaramouch and is not subtropical. sent10: the kirk is not a Scaramouch. sent11: if the nullah drinks kirk but it does not sob Lagostomus then the convolution sob Lagostomus. sent12: if that the convolution is not bodily hold it is not a Scaramouch. | sent1: ¬{E}{b} -> ({F}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent2: ¬{B}{hh} -> ¬{IR}{hh} sent3: (x): ¬{DH}x -> ¬{BI}x sent4: {A}{a} sent5: (x): {D}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{A}x) sent6: ({A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent7: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{C}x sent8: ¬{C}{ig} sent9: {D}{a} -> ({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent10: ¬{B}{ar} sent11: ({F}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) -> {D}{a} sent12: ¬{BQ}{a} -> ¬{B}{a} | [
"sent6 -> int1: the convolution is not a Scaramouch.; sent7 -> int2: the convolution is not subtropical if it is not a Scaramouch.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent6 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; sent7 -> int2: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬{C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | the convolution is subtropical. | {C}{a} | [
"sent5 -> int3: if the convolution sobs Lagostomus that it is a Scaramouch and is not a penult is false.;"
] | 4 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 0 | 10 | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the convolution is not subtropical. ; $context$ = sent1: the nullah does drink kirk and does not sob Lagostomus if it does not drink roughage. sent2: if the obverse is not a Scaramouch it does not drink scalper. sent3: something is not impure if it is not complex. sent4: the convolution is a penult. sent5: that something is a Scaramouch and not a penult is incorrect if it sobs Lagostomus. sent6: the convolution is a kind of a penult but it is not a kind of a Scaramouch. sent7: something is not subtropical if it is not a kind of a Scaramouch. sent8: the scalper is not subtropical. sent9: if the convolution sobs Lagostomus then it is a Scaramouch and is not subtropical. sent10: the kirk is not a Scaramouch. sent11: if the nullah drinks kirk but it does not sob Lagostomus then the convolution sob Lagostomus. sent12: if that the convolution is not bodily hold it is not a Scaramouch. ; $proof$ = | sent6 -> int1: the convolution is not a Scaramouch.; sent7 -> int2: the convolution is not subtropical if it is not a Scaramouch.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the fact that there is something such that if the fact that it is not non-obstetric and it is not lacrimal is false then it is a mutant is not right. | ¬((Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x) | sent1: if that something is obstetric but not lacrimal is false it is a mutant. sent2: the cerivastatin is a kind of a plunge if that it is both not non-macrobiotic and long does not hold. sent3: there is something such that if the fact that it is obstetric and it is not lacrimal hold that it is mutant is not wrong. sent4: there exists something such that if it is not obstetric then it is mutant. sent5: something does transmit ohm if that it is powerful and is not a maxwell is not correct. sent6: something is incoherent if that it is obstetric and does not disapprove does not hold. | sent1: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent2: ¬({FQ}{f} & {G}{f}) -> {DL}{f} sent3: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent4: (Ex): ¬{AA}x -> {B}x sent5: (x): ¬({IK}x & ¬{HF}x) -> {BD}x sent6: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{HM}x) -> {IF}x | [
"sent1 -> int1: the Elastoplast is a mutant if that that it is both obstetric and not lacrimal is correct is false.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent1 -> int1: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | if the fact that the padding is obstetric and does not disapprove is incorrect then it is incoherent. | ¬({AA}{df} & ¬{HM}{df}) -> {IF}{df} | [
"sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 5 | DISPROVED | PROVED | DISPROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if the fact that it is not non-obstetric and it is not lacrimal is false then it is a mutant is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something is obstetric but not lacrimal is false it is a mutant. sent2: the cerivastatin is a kind of a plunge if that it is both not non-macrobiotic and long does not hold. sent3: there is something such that if the fact that it is obstetric and it is not lacrimal hold that it is mutant is not wrong. sent4: there exists something such that if it is not obstetric then it is mutant. sent5: something does transmit ohm if that it is powerful and is not a maxwell is not correct. sent6: something is incoherent if that it is obstetric and does not disapprove does not hold. ; $proof$ = | sent1 -> int1: the Elastoplast is a mutant if that that it is both obstetric and not lacrimal is correct is false.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the fact that the sobbing Balistidae does not occur and the photoemissiveness does not occur is not correct. | ¬(¬{D} & ¬{C}) | sent1: that the non-particulateness and the non-welcomingness occurs is triggered by that the sobbing swimmeret happens. sent2: if the sobbing swimmeret occurs that the sobbing Balistidae does not occur and the photoemissiveness does not occur does not hold. sent3: the Anguillan does not occur if that the transmitting nuance does not occur hold. sent4: the sobbing swimmeret does not occur. sent5: the sobbing throat happens if the fact that both the phoneticsness and the non-tensileness happens does not hold. sent6: the discriminateness but not the lapping happens if the phosphorescence happens. sent7: the non-photoemissiveness is caused by the sobbing Balistidae and/or that the non-photoemissive does not occur. sent8: that the sobbing Anomia happens is prevented by that the conquerableness does not occur and the elbowing does not occur. sent9: the fact that the Mesoamericanness does not occur hold if the fact that the deviltry does not occur but the busywork occurs is false. sent10: if the sobbing throat happens the conquerableness does not occur and the elbowing does not occur. sent11: if the lap does not occur then that the phoneticsness and the non-tensileness happens is not correct. sent12: that not the deviltry but the busywork happens does not hold if the sobbing swimmeret does not occur. sent13: that the sobbing Balistidae does not occur and the photoemissiveness does not occur is brought about by the non-Mesoamericanness. sent14: both the non-Mesoamericanness and the sobbing swimmeret happens if the sobbing Anomia does not occur. | sent1: {A} -> (¬{DB} & ¬{AJ}) sent2: {A} -> ¬(¬{D} & ¬{C}) sent3: ¬{AG} -> ¬{ER} sent4: ¬{A} sent5: ¬({I} & ¬{J}) -> {H} sent6: {M} -> ({L} & ¬{K}) sent7: ({D} v ¬{C}) -> ¬{C} sent8: (¬{F} & ¬{G}) -> ¬{E} sent9: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent10: {H} -> (¬{F} & ¬{G}) sent11: ¬{K} -> ¬({I} & ¬{J}) sent12: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}) sent13: ¬{B} -> (¬{D} & ¬{C}) sent14: ¬{E} -> (¬{B} & {A}) | [
"sent12 & sent4 -> int1: that the deviltry does not occur and the busywork occurs does not hold.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the Mesoamericanness does not occur.; int2 & sent13 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent12 & sent4 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA} & {AB}); int1 & sent9 -> int2: ¬{B}; int2 & sent13 -> hypothesis;"
] | that the sobbing Balistidae does not occur and the photoemissiveness does not occur is not correct. | ¬(¬{D} & ¬{C}) | [] | 12 | 3 | 3 | 10 | 0 | 10 | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the sobbing Balistidae does not occur and the photoemissiveness does not occur is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: that the non-particulateness and the non-welcomingness occurs is triggered by that the sobbing swimmeret happens. sent2: if the sobbing swimmeret occurs that the sobbing Balistidae does not occur and the photoemissiveness does not occur does not hold. sent3: the Anguillan does not occur if that the transmitting nuance does not occur hold. sent4: the sobbing swimmeret does not occur. sent5: the sobbing throat happens if the fact that both the phoneticsness and the non-tensileness happens does not hold. sent6: the discriminateness but not the lapping happens if the phosphorescence happens. sent7: the non-photoemissiveness is caused by the sobbing Balistidae and/or that the non-photoemissive does not occur. sent8: that the sobbing Anomia happens is prevented by that the conquerableness does not occur and the elbowing does not occur. sent9: the fact that the Mesoamericanness does not occur hold if the fact that the deviltry does not occur but the busywork occurs is false. sent10: if the sobbing throat happens the conquerableness does not occur and the elbowing does not occur. sent11: if the lap does not occur then that the phoneticsness and the non-tensileness happens is not correct. sent12: that not the deviltry but the busywork happens does not hold if the sobbing swimmeret does not occur. sent13: that the sobbing Balistidae does not occur and the photoemissiveness does not occur is brought about by the non-Mesoamericanness. sent14: both the non-Mesoamericanness and the sobbing swimmeret happens if the sobbing Anomia does not occur. ; $proof$ = | sent12 & sent4 -> int1: that the deviltry does not occur and the busywork occurs does not hold.; int1 & sent9 -> int2: the Mesoamericanness does not occur.; int2 & sent13 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a oilrig and is not choleraic does not hold that it is not a irreversibility is not false. | (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x | sent1: the fact that there exists something such that if it is not oneiric and it does not carbonate Scottie it is not constitutional is not false. | sent1: (Ex): (¬{CA}x & ¬{GR}x) -> ¬{EE}x | [] | [] | null | null | [] | null | 2 | null | 1 | 0 | 1 | UNKNOWN | null | UNKNOWN | null | $hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a oilrig and is not choleraic does not hold that it is not a irreversibility is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that there exists something such that if it is not oneiric and it does not carbonate Scottie it is not constitutional is not false. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | the ideologist sobs snowbank. | {C}{c} | sent1: the bareboat sobs snowbank. sent2: if the fact that that the diskette is a Zanthoxylum and it is a kind of a escapology is right is false the headrace is not spinal. sent3: if the headrace does not drink Oswald then the sternwheeler is a vacationing and does not sob nautilus. sent4: the fact that if there exists something such that it sobs ell the fact that the bareboat is imperceptible and is not a kind of a Norwegian is true is true. sent5: the ell does vacation if the sternwheeler is a vacation that does not sob nautilus. sent6: there exists nothing that is a kind of a Zanthoxylum that is a kind of a escapology. sent7: if the ell vacations then it sobs ell. sent8: something lauds and it does sob snowbank if it is not a actinomycin. sent9: the lieutenant is a kind of a Clio and/or is a kind of a mug. sent10: if the bareboat is a actinomycin that the ideologist is a actinomycin and does not sob snowbank hold. sent11: the lieutenant is not a kind of a Clio and/or is a mug. sent12: the bareboat is a actinomycin if the lieutenant is not a Clio or it is a mug or both. sent13: something does not drink Oswald if it is not a spinal. sent14: if there exists something such that it is imperceptible and it is non-Norwegian then the lieutenant is a kind of a actinomycin. | sent1: {C}{b} sent2: ¬({K}{g} & {L}{g}) -> ¬{J}{f} sent3: ¬{I}{f} -> ({G}{e} & ¬{H}{e}) sent4: (x): {F}x -> ({D}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) sent5: ({G}{e} & ¬{H}{e}) -> {G}{d} sent6: (x): ¬({K}x & {L}x) sent7: {G}{d} -> {F}{d} sent8: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({A}x & {C}x) sent9: ({AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent10: {B}{b} -> ({B}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) sent11: (¬{AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent12: (¬{AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent13: (x): ¬{J}x -> ¬{I}x sent14: (x): ({D}x & ¬{E}x) -> {B}{a} | [
"sent12 & sent11 -> int1: the bareboat is a actinomycin.; sent10 & int1 -> int2: the ideologist is a kind of a actinomycin but it does not sob snowbank.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent12 & sent11 -> int1: {B}{b}; sent10 & int1 -> int2: ({B}{c} & ¬{C}{c}); int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | the ideologist does sob snowbank. | {C}{c} | [
"sent13 -> int3: if the headrace is not a kind of a spinal it does not drink Oswald.; sent6 -> int4: the fact that the diskette is a Zanthoxylum and a escapology is not true.; sent2 & int4 -> int5: the headrace is not a spinal.; int3 & int5 -> int6: the headrace does not drink Oswald.; sent3 & int6 -> int7: the sternwheeler does vacation but it does not sob nautilus.; sent5 & int7 -> int8: the ell does vacation.; sent7 & int8 -> int9: the ell sobs ell.; int9 -> int10: there exists something such that it sobs ell.; int10 & sent4 -> int11: the bareboat is both not perceptible and not a Norwegian.; int11 -> int12: there exists something such that it is imperceptible and it is not a kind of a Norwegian.; int12 & sent14 -> int13: the lieutenant is a kind of a actinomycin.; int13 -> int14: something is a actinomycin.;"
] | 13 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 11 | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the ideologist sobs snowbank. ; $context$ = sent1: the bareboat sobs snowbank. sent2: if the fact that that the diskette is a Zanthoxylum and it is a kind of a escapology is right is false the headrace is not spinal. sent3: if the headrace does not drink Oswald then the sternwheeler is a vacationing and does not sob nautilus. sent4: the fact that if there exists something such that it sobs ell the fact that the bareboat is imperceptible and is not a kind of a Norwegian is true is true. sent5: the ell does vacation if the sternwheeler is a vacation that does not sob nautilus. sent6: there exists nothing that is a kind of a Zanthoxylum that is a kind of a escapology. sent7: if the ell vacations then it sobs ell. sent8: something lauds and it does sob snowbank if it is not a actinomycin. sent9: the lieutenant is a kind of a Clio and/or is a kind of a mug. sent10: if the bareboat is a actinomycin that the ideologist is a actinomycin and does not sob snowbank hold. sent11: the lieutenant is not a kind of a Clio and/or is a mug. sent12: the bareboat is a actinomycin if the lieutenant is not a Clio or it is a mug or both. sent13: something does not drink Oswald if it is not a spinal. sent14: if there exists something such that it is imperceptible and it is non-Norwegian then the lieutenant is a kind of a actinomycin. ; $proof$ = | sent12 & sent11 -> int1: the bareboat is a actinomycin.; sent10 & int1 -> int2: the ideologist is a kind of a actinomycin but it does not sob snowbank.; int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the punkie is a beef. | {C}{b} | sent1: the slattern is hydrodynamics. sent2: the fact that something is a kind of a beef that is apicultural is false if it is not hydrodynamics. sent3: the punkie is not non-apicultural. sent4: if that the slattern does drink flamboyant and is not a corkscrew is not correct the fact that it does not drink flamboyant is true. sent5: if the slattern does not drink flamboyant then it is vicarial and it does not transmit hydrazoite. sent6: there exists something such that the fact that it is a beef and is judgmental is not correct. sent7: the punkie does carbonate burled and it is a people. sent8: if the punkie is apicultural the slattern is a beef. sent9: the slattern is hydrodynamics and it is apicultural. sent10: that the slattern is defiant hold. sent11: the arsenide is hydrodynamics if there is something such that that it is a beef and it is not nonjudgmental is incorrect. sent12: something is orthopedics if it is apicultural. sent13: the punkie is hydrodynamics if the slattern is apicultural. sent14: the fact that the punkie is a kind of a beef is not wrong if the slattern is apicultural. sent15: the fact that the punkie is hydrodynamics is not wrong. | sent1: {A}{a} sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({C}x & {B}x) sent3: {B}{b} sent4: ¬({G}{a} & ¬{I}{a}) -> ¬{G}{a} sent5: ¬{G}{a} -> ({E}{a} & ¬{F}{a}) sent6: (Ex): ¬({C}x & ¬{D}x) sent7: ({DN}{b} & {GO}{b}) sent8: {B}{b} -> {C}{a} sent9: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent10: {BB}{a} sent11: (x): ¬({C}x & ¬{D}x) -> {A}{r} sent12: (x): {B}x -> {EK}x sent13: {B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent14: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent15: {A}{b} | [
"sent9 -> int1: the slattern is apicultural.; sent14 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent9 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent14 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | that the arsenide is both hydrodynamics and orthopedics hold. | ({A}{r} & {EK}{r}) | [
"sent6 & sent11 -> int2: that the arsenide is not hydrodynamics does not hold.; sent12 -> int3: if the arsenide is apicultural then the fact that it is orthopedics hold.;"
] | 8 | 2 | 2 | 13 | 0 | 13 | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the punkie is a beef. ; $context$ = sent1: the slattern is hydrodynamics. sent2: the fact that something is a kind of a beef that is apicultural is false if it is not hydrodynamics. sent3: the punkie is not non-apicultural. sent4: if that the slattern does drink flamboyant and is not a corkscrew is not correct the fact that it does not drink flamboyant is true. sent5: if the slattern does not drink flamboyant then it is vicarial and it does not transmit hydrazoite. sent6: there exists something such that the fact that it is a beef and is judgmental is not correct. sent7: the punkie does carbonate burled and it is a people. sent8: if the punkie is apicultural the slattern is a beef. sent9: the slattern is hydrodynamics and it is apicultural. sent10: that the slattern is defiant hold. sent11: the arsenide is hydrodynamics if there is something such that that it is a beef and it is not nonjudgmental is incorrect. sent12: something is orthopedics if it is apicultural. sent13: the punkie is hydrodynamics if the slattern is apicultural. sent14: the fact that the punkie is a kind of a beef is not wrong if the slattern is apicultural. sent15: the fact that the punkie is hydrodynamics is not wrong. ; $proof$ = | sent9 -> int1: the slattern is apicultural.; sent14 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the scandalmonger is not a kind of a hail. | ¬{C}{a} | sent1: everything does not sob unfavorableness and is a neocolonialism. sent2: the parang is an act if the scandalmonger is a demagoguery. sent3: the scandalmonger is a semicentennial and/or is a demagoguery if there are semicentennial things. sent4: if something is not a kind of a wardrobe then it is not neoplastic. sent5: if the scandalmonger is a semicentennial the parang is an act. sent6: the fact that the scandalmonger is not a kind of a wardrobe and/or is not neoplastic is wrong if the needlepoint does not sob unfavorableness. sent7: if something does uglify the fact that it is a syllogism and it is not a IDA is false. sent8: the chow does uglify. sent9: everything is a boards. sent10: the fact that if something is not neoplastic then it is not logistics and it is an adder hold. sent11: the needlepoint is not a kind of a wardrobe but it is a kind of a neocolonialism. sent12: if something does hail and it is an act then it is not a wardrobe. sent13: the inflorescence is not a wardrobe and is a SACLANT. sent14: that the needlepoint either is not a kind of a neocolonialism or is not a hail or both does not hold if the scandalmonger is not neoplastic. sent15: something is semicentennial if that it is a syllogism and it is not a IDA is not right. | sent1: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent2: {E}{a} -> {D}{c} sent3: (x): {F}x -> ({F}{a} v {E}{a}) sent4: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{A}x sent5: {F}{a} -> {D}{c} sent6: ¬{AA}{aa} -> ¬(¬{B}{a} v ¬{A}{a}) sent7: (x): {I}x -> ¬({G}x & ¬{H}x) sent8: {I}{b} sent9: (x): {S}x sent10: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{N}x & {IE}x) sent11: (¬{B}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent12: (x): ({C}x & {D}x) -> ¬{B}x sent13: (¬{B}{if} & {HA}{if}) sent14: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AB}{aa} v ¬{C}{aa}) sent15: (x): ¬({G}x & ¬{H}x) -> {F}x | [
"sent1 -> int1: the needlepoint does not sob unfavorableness but it is a neocolonialism.; int1 -> int2: the needlepoint does not sob unfavorableness.; int2 & sent6 -> int3: the fact that the scandalmonger either is not a wardrobe or is not neoplastic or both is incorrect.;"
] | [
"sent1 -> int1: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int1 -> int2: ¬{AA}{aa}; int2 & sent6 -> int3: ¬(¬{B}{a} v ¬{A}{a});"
] | the parang is non-logistics an adder. | (¬{N}{c} & {IE}{c}) | [
"sent10 -> int4: if that the parang is not neoplastic is not wrong it is not logistics and is a kind of an adder.; sent4 -> int5: that the parang is not neoplastic is not wrong if it is not a wardrobe.; sent12 -> int6: if the fact that the parang is a hail and it is a kind of an act hold then it is not a wardrobe.; sent15 -> int7: the chow is a semicentennial if the fact that it is a kind of a syllogism and it is not a IDA does not hold.; sent7 -> int8: that the chow is a syllogism and is not a IDA does not hold if that it uglifies hold.; int8 & sent8 -> int9: the fact that the chow is a syllogism but it is not a IDA is not right.; int7 & int9 -> int10: the chow is a semicentennial.; int10 -> int11: there exists something such that it is a semicentennial.; int11 & sent3 -> int12: the scandalmonger is a kind of a semicentennial and/or it is a demagoguery.; int12 & sent5 & sent2 -> int13: the parang acts.;"
] | 10 | 4 | null | 13 | 0 | 13 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the scandalmonger is not a kind of a hail. ; $context$ = sent1: everything does not sob unfavorableness and is a neocolonialism. sent2: the parang is an act if the scandalmonger is a demagoguery. sent3: the scandalmonger is a semicentennial and/or is a demagoguery if there are semicentennial things. sent4: if something is not a kind of a wardrobe then it is not neoplastic. sent5: if the scandalmonger is a semicentennial the parang is an act. sent6: the fact that the scandalmonger is not a kind of a wardrobe and/or is not neoplastic is wrong if the needlepoint does not sob unfavorableness. sent7: if something does uglify the fact that it is a syllogism and it is not a IDA is false. sent8: the chow does uglify. sent9: everything is a boards. sent10: the fact that if something is not neoplastic then it is not logistics and it is an adder hold. sent11: the needlepoint is not a kind of a wardrobe but it is a kind of a neocolonialism. sent12: if something does hail and it is an act then it is not a wardrobe. sent13: the inflorescence is not a wardrobe and is a SACLANT. sent14: that the needlepoint either is not a kind of a neocolonialism or is not a hail or both does not hold if the scandalmonger is not neoplastic. sent15: something is semicentennial if that it is a syllogism and it is not a IDA is not right. ; $proof$ = | sent1 -> int1: the needlepoint does not sob unfavorableness but it is a neocolonialism.; int1 -> int2: the needlepoint does not sob unfavorableness.; int2 & sent6 -> int3: the fact that the scandalmonger either is not a wardrobe or is not neoplastic or both is incorrect.; __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | the fact that the sternutator is nonradioactive is not wrong. | {C}{a} | sent1: the sternutator is benthic. sent2: the fact that the sternutator is a dicamptodon is not incorrect if it is benthic. sent3: that something is a Oklahoma and it is not non-antonymous is not right if that it is not a Todus is not false. sent4: if that something is a Oklahoma and it is antonymous is wrong then it is not nonradioactive. sent5: if something is a dicamptodon then it is nonradioactive. | sent1: {A}{a} sent2: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent3: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬({E}x & {D}x) sent4: (x): ¬({E}x & {D}x) -> ¬{C}x sent5: (x): {B}x -> {C}x | [
"sent2 & sent1 -> int1: the sternutator is a dicamptodon.; sent5 -> int2: the sternutator is nonradioactive if it is a dicamptodon.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent2 & sent1 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent5 -> int2: {B}{a} -> {C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | the crossbar is a dicamptodon. | {B}{ia} | [
"sent4 -> int3: if the fact that the crossbar is a Oklahoma and is antonymous is false it is not nonradioactive.; sent3 -> int4: if the crossbar is not a Todus that it is both a Oklahoma and antonymous is not true.;"
] | 5 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the sternutator is nonradioactive is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the sternutator is benthic. sent2: the fact that the sternutator is a dicamptodon is not incorrect if it is benthic. sent3: that something is a Oklahoma and it is not non-antonymous is not right if that it is not a Todus is not false. sent4: if that something is a Oklahoma and it is antonymous is wrong then it is not nonradioactive. sent5: if something is a dicamptodon then it is nonradioactive. ; $proof$ = | sent2 & sent1 -> int1: the sternutator is a dicamptodon.; sent5 -> int2: the sternutator is nonradioactive if it is a dicamptodon.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the trace is Darwinian and is a rendezvous. | ({B}{aa} & {A}{aa}) | sent1: the fact that the soil does not reheat if the fact that the soil does not deform and does not carbonate continuo is not true hold. sent2: if something is not a Muncie and/or is a pirouette then it is a Darwinian. sent3: if something is not Eucharistic but it does carbonate soil it is inviolable. sent4: if the fact that something does attach but it is not agreeable is not correct it does carbonate Chancellor. sent5: that the soil does not deform and it does not carbonate continuo is incorrect. sent6: if something is inviolable then that it does attach and is not agreeable does not hold. sent7: if something does not reheat it is not Eucharistic and it does carbonate soil. sent8: the trace is a kind of a rendezvous. | sent1: ¬(¬{J}{a} & ¬{K}{a}) -> ¬{I}{a} sent2: (x): (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> {B}x sent3: (x): (¬{G}x & {H}x) -> {F}x sent4: (x): ¬({D}x & ¬{E}x) -> {C}x sent5: ¬(¬{J}{a} & ¬{K}{a}) sent6: (x): {F}x -> ¬({D}x & ¬{E}x) sent7: (x): ¬{I}x -> (¬{G}x & {H}x) sent8: {A}{aa} | [
"sent2 -> int1: if the trace is not a kind of a Muncie and/or is a pirouette the fact that it is a kind of a Darwinian is not incorrect.;"
] | [
"sent2 -> int1: (¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa};"
] | the fact that the trace is a Darwinian and it is a rendezvous is not right. | ¬({B}{aa} & {A}{aa}) | [
"sent4 -> int2: if that the fact that that the soil does attach and is not agreeable is true does not hold hold then it does carbonate Chancellor.; sent6 -> int3: the fact that the soil does attach but it is not agreeable is not right if it is inviolable.; sent3 -> int4: if the soil is a kind of non-Eucharistic thing that does carbonate soil then that it is inviolable is not false.; sent7 -> int5: the soil is non-Eucharistic thing that does carbonate soil if it does not reheat.; sent1 & sent5 -> int6: the soil does not reheat.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the soil is not Eucharistic and does carbonate soil.; int4 & int7 -> int8: the soil is inviolable.; int3 & int8 -> int9: the fact that the soil does attach but it is not agreeable does not hold.; int2 & int9 -> int10: the soil carbonates Chancellor.; int10 -> int11: something carbonates Chancellor.;"
] | 7 | 3 | null | 6 | 0 | 6 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the trace is Darwinian and is a rendezvous. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the soil does not reheat if the fact that the soil does not deform and does not carbonate continuo is not true hold. sent2: if something is not a Muncie and/or is a pirouette then it is a Darwinian. sent3: if something is not Eucharistic but it does carbonate soil it is inviolable. sent4: if the fact that something does attach but it is not agreeable is not correct it does carbonate Chancellor. sent5: that the soil does not deform and it does not carbonate continuo is incorrect. sent6: if something is inviolable then that it does attach and is not agreeable does not hold. sent7: if something does not reheat it is not Eucharistic and it does carbonate soil. sent8: the trace is a kind of a rendezvous. ; $proof$ = | sent2 -> int1: if the trace is not a kind of a Muncie and/or is a pirouette the fact that it is a kind of a Darwinian is not incorrect.; __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | that the episiotomy does not occur is not false. | ¬{D} | sent1: the awkwardness occurs if the ACE occurs. sent2: the antemortemness occurs. sent3: the incommodiousness and the Bahainess occurs. sent4: the declaring does not occur. sent5: if the easing does not occur the culmination does not occur. sent6: the tragedy occurs. sent7: both the painting and the signal occurs. sent8: the fact that that the barographicness does not occur but the delinquency happens is false is true if the carbonating pilaster does not occur. sent9: that the episiotomy occurs and the drinking retainer occurs is triggered by that the scleroticness does not occur. sent10: if the carbonating pilaster and the delinquency occurs then the episiotomy does not occur. sent11: the ACE happens if the sled occurs. sent12: the blue-collarness happens. sent13: both the barographicness and the delinquency occurs. sent14: the explanation occurs. sent15: that the exaggeration and the carbonating smilo happens causes that the drinking anther does not occur. sent16: that that the drinking retainer happens results in that the carbonating pilaster occurs is right. sent17: the drinking retainer happens. sent18: the scleroticness does not occur if that the non-awkwardness and/or the ACE happens is incorrect. sent19: both the barographicness and the episiotomy happens if the delinquency does not occur. sent20: the epicness happens and the transmitting propagation occurs. sent21: that the looting occurs and/or that the drinking Siouan happens is brought about by that the culmination does not occur. sent22: the carbonating phencyclidine occurs if that the non-barographicness and the delinquency occurs is not right. sent23: the barographicness occurs. sent24: if the awkwardness happens that both the non-scleroticness and the drinking retainer happens is not right. | sent1: {H} -> {G} sent2: {AT} sent3: ({GH} & {BG}) sent4: ¬{FR} sent5: ¬{L} -> ¬{K} sent6: {CM} sent7: ({JD} & {ID}) sent8: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{A} & {B}) sent9: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) sent10: ({C} & {B}) -> ¬{D} sent11: {CK} -> {H} sent12: {AM} sent13: ({A} & {B}) sent14: {FK} sent15: ({HQ} & {FU}) -> ¬{IO} sent16: {E} -> {C} sent17: {E} sent18: ¬(¬{G} v {H}) -> ¬{F} sent19: ¬{B} -> ({A} & {D}) sent20: ({HS} & {EM}) sent21: ¬{K} -> ({J} v {I}) sent22: ¬(¬{A} & {B}) -> {EB} sent23: {A} sent24: {G} -> ¬(¬{F} & {E}) | [
"sent13 -> int1: the delinquency happens.; sent16 & sent17 -> int2: the carbonating pilaster occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the carbonating pilaster and the delinquency happens.; int3 & sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent13 -> int1: {B}; sent16 & sent17 -> int2: {C}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({C} & {B}); int3 & sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] | the carbonating phencyclidine happens. | {EB} | [] | 9 | 3 | 3 | 20 | 0 | 20 | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = that the episiotomy does not occur is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: the awkwardness occurs if the ACE occurs. sent2: the antemortemness occurs. sent3: the incommodiousness and the Bahainess occurs. sent4: the declaring does not occur. sent5: if the easing does not occur the culmination does not occur. sent6: the tragedy occurs. sent7: both the painting and the signal occurs. sent8: the fact that that the barographicness does not occur but the delinquency happens is false is true if the carbonating pilaster does not occur. sent9: that the episiotomy occurs and the drinking retainer occurs is triggered by that the scleroticness does not occur. sent10: if the carbonating pilaster and the delinquency occurs then the episiotomy does not occur. sent11: the ACE happens if the sled occurs. sent12: the blue-collarness happens. sent13: both the barographicness and the delinquency occurs. sent14: the explanation occurs. sent15: that the exaggeration and the carbonating smilo happens causes that the drinking anther does not occur. sent16: that that the drinking retainer happens results in that the carbonating pilaster occurs is right. sent17: the drinking retainer happens. sent18: the scleroticness does not occur if that the non-awkwardness and/or the ACE happens is incorrect. sent19: both the barographicness and the episiotomy happens if the delinquency does not occur. sent20: the epicness happens and the transmitting propagation occurs. sent21: that the looting occurs and/or that the drinking Siouan happens is brought about by that the culmination does not occur. sent22: the carbonating phencyclidine occurs if that the non-barographicness and the delinquency occurs is not right. sent23: the barographicness occurs. sent24: if the awkwardness happens that both the non-scleroticness and the drinking retainer happens is not right. ; $proof$ = | sent13 -> int1: the delinquency happens.; sent16 & sent17 -> int2: the carbonating pilaster occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: both the carbonating pilaster and the delinquency happens.; int3 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the fact that the nihilist is not isotopic hold. | ¬{E}{c} | sent1: if the splenius is not a kind of a greasiness and does drink Mohican the nihilist is not isotopic. sent2: the drumlin does not drink Mohican. sent3: if something is a kind of a Macrodactylus then it is isotopic. sent4: that the fact that the drumlin is a kind of a cyborg and/or it is not the lamb is incorrect if the fact that the drumlin is a kind of a Elgar hold is true. sent5: the drumlin is not a Macrodactylus and not non-therapeutics. sent6: the splenius does not drink Mohican. sent7: the boxfish is not therapeutics and does not drink rulership. sent8: the mantel is not a viomycin and is a greasiness if there is something such that it is a Macrodactylus. sent9: if the drumlin is not a Macrodactylus then the splenius does not drink Mohican. sent10: there is nothing such that it is non-narcoleptic thing that is a gouger. sent11: something does not drink Mohican if the fact that it is a cyborg and/or is not a lamb is false. sent12: the splenius is not a greasiness if the drumlin is not isotopic and is not a Macrodactylus. sent13: the nihilist is not a Macrodactylus. sent14: if the nihilist does not lamb then it is not a cyborg and does not drink Mohican. sent15: that if something is a kind of therapeutics thing that is not a greasiness then it is a Macrodactylus is true. sent16: something is not a Mus and it is not extinguishable if the fact that it is not a kind of a gouger is right. sent17: if the drumlin is not a Macrodactylus the splenius is not a greasiness and does not drink Mohican. sent18: the nihilist is both not a greasiness and not a crenel. sent19: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a Mus and it is not extinguishable then the drumlin is a kind of a Elgar. sent20: the dubnium does not drink Mohican. sent21: that the nihilist is isotopic hold if that the drumlin is not a kind of a Macrodactylus and is not isotopic does not hold. sent22: if that something is a kind of non-narcoleptic thing that is a gouger is wrong then it is not a kind of a gouger. | sent1: (¬{C}{b} & {D}{b}) -> ¬{E}{c} sent2: ¬{D}{a} sent3: (x): {A}x -> {E}x sent4: {H}{a} -> ¬({F}{a} v ¬{G}{a}) sent5: (¬{A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent6: ¬{D}{b} sent7: (¬{B}{ei} & ¬{IS}{ei}) sent8: (x): {A}x -> (¬{FL}{ec} & {C}{ec}) sent9: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{D}{b} sent10: (x): ¬(¬{M}x & {K}x) sent11: (x): ¬({F}x v ¬{G}x) -> ¬{D}x sent12: (¬{E}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent13: ¬{A}{c} sent14: ¬{G}{c} -> (¬{F}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) sent15: (x): ({B}x & ¬{C}x) -> {A}x sent16: (x): ¬{K}x -> (¬{I}x & ¬{J}x) sent17: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{C}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent18: (¬{C}{c} & ¬{BL}{c}) sent19: (x): (¬{I}x & ¬{J}x) -> {H}{a} sent20: ¬{D}{an} sent21: ¬(¬{A}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) -> {E}{c} sent22: (x): ¬(¬{M}x & {K}x) -> ¬{K}x | [
"sent5 -> int1: the fact that the drumlin is not a Macrodactylus is right.; sent17 & int1 -> int2: the splenius is not a kind of a greasiness and it does not drink Mohican.;"
] | [
"sent5 -> int1: ¬{A}{a}; sent17 & int1 -> int2: (¬{C}{b} & ¬{D}{b});"
] | the mantel is not a viomycin but it is a kind of a greasiness. | (¬{FL}{ec} & {C}{ec}) | [] | 8 | 3 | null | 20 | 0 | 20 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the nihilist is not isotopic hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the splenius is not a kind of a greasiness and does drink Mohican the nihilist is not isotopic. sent2: the drumlin does not drink Mohican. sent3: if something is a kind of a Macrodactylus then it is isotopic. sent4: that the fact that the drumlin is a kind of a cyborg and/or it is not the lamb is incorrect if the fact that the drumlin is a kind of a Elgar hold is true. sent5: the drumlin is not a Macrodactylus and not non-therapeutics. sent6: the splenius does not drink Mohican. sent7: the boxfish is not therapeutics and does not drink rulership. sent8: the mantel is not a viomycin and is a greasiness if there is something such that it is a Macrodactylus. sent9: if the drumlin is not a Macrodactylus then the splenius does not drink Mohican. sent10: there is nothing such that it is non-narcoleptic thing that is a gouger. sent11: something does not drink Mohican if the fact that it is a cyborg and/or is not a lamb is false. sent12: the splenius is not a greasiness if the drumlin is not isotopic and is not a Macrodactylus. sent13: the nihilist is not a Macrodactylus. sent14: if the nihilist does not lamb then it is not a cyborg and does not drink Mohican. sent15: that if something is a kind of therapeutics thing that is not a greasiness then it is a Macrodactylus is true. sent16: something is not a Mus and it is not extinguishable if the fact that it is not a kind of a gouger is right. sent17: if the drumlin is not a Macrodactylus the splenius is not a greasiness and does not drink Mohican. sent18: the nihilist is both not a greasiness and not a crenel. sent19: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a Mus and it is not extinguishable then the drumlin is a kind of a Elgar. sent20: the dubnium does not drink Mohican. sent21: that the nihilist is isotopic hold if that the drumlin is not a kind of a Macrodactylus and is not isotopic does not hold. sent22: if that something is a kind of non-narcoleptic thing that is a gouger is wrong then it is not a kind of a gouger. ; $proof$ = | sent5 -> int1: the fact that the drumlin is not a Macrodactylus is right.; sent17 & int1 -> int2: the splenius is not a kind of a greasiness and it does not drink Mohican.; __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | that the plenum does tincture and is a nombril is false. | ¬({A}{b} & {B}{b}) | sent1: the plenum does drink fizz if that the cowgirl sobs Macrodactylus and is not a nombril does not hold. sent2: if the fact that the plenum does not sob Macrodactylus and is not a tincture is not true then it is a tincture. sent3: the plenum is a nombril if the fact that the fact that the cowgirl does drink fizz but it is not a kind of an importer is not true is not false. sent4: that the cowgirl does drink fizz and is not an importer does not hold. sent5: the fact that the plenum does not sob Macrodactylus and it is not a tincture does not hold. sent6: the fact that the fizz is not a demonstrative hold if it is nonlinguistic. | sent1: ¬({C}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> {AA}{b} sent2: ¬(¬{C}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) -> {A}{b} sent3: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent4: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent5: ¬(¬{C}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent6: {E}{c} -> ¬{D}{c} | [
"sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the plenum is a nombril.; sent2 & sent5 -> int2: the plenum does tincture.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent3 & sent4 -> int1: {B}{b}; sent2 & sent5 -> int2: {A}{b}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | that the plenum tinctures and it is a nombril does not hold. | ¬({A}{b} & {B}{b}) | [] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = that the plenum does tincture and is a nombril is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the plenum does drink fizz if that the cowgirl sobs Macrodactylus and is not a nombril does not hold. sent2: if the fact that the plenum does not sob Macrodactylus and is not a tincture is not true then it is a tincture. sent3: the plenum is a nombril if the fact that the fact that the cowgirl does drink fizz but it is not a kind of an importer is not true is not false. sent4: that the cowgirl does drink fizz and is not an importer does not hold. sent5: the fact that the plenum does not sob Macrodactylus and it is not a tincture does not hold. sent6: the fact that the fizz is not a demonstrative hold if it is nonlinguistic. ; $proof$ = | sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the plenum is a nombril.; sent2 & sent5 -> int2: the plenum does tincture.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | that there exists something such that if it is a kind of a Young and it is not a purr then that it is not regional is not incorrect is false. | ¬((Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x) | sent1: the plenum is not regional if it is a Young and not a purr. sent2: something does not drink hairstreak if it is gestational and is not a kind of a fundamentalist. | sent1: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent2: (x): ({GO}x & ¬{HK}x) -> ¬{FS}x | [
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | there exists something such that if it is gestational and it is not a fundamentalist then it does not drink hairstreak. | (Ex): ({GO}x & ¬{HK}x) -> ¬{FS}x | [
"sent2 -> int1: if the sabicu is not non-gestational and not a fundamentalist then it does not drink hairstreak.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | DISPROVED | PROVED | DISPROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if it is a kind of a Young and it is not a purr then that it is not regional is not incorrect is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the plenum is not regional if it is a Young and not a purr. sent2: something does not drink hairstreak if it is gestational and is not a kind of a fundamentalist. ; $proof$ = | sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the photoelectricness does not occur. | ¬{A} | sent1: the atomicness occurs. sent2: if the fact that the carbonating uxoricide occurs is right then the truncation does not occur. sent3: that the carbonating barrier does not occur does not hold. sent4: the anagogicness occurs. sent5: the transmitting anticoagulation happens. sent6: the denudation happens. sent7: if the turkey does not occur not the denudation but the photoelectricness happens. sent8: the foreignness occurs. sent9: if the photoelectricness occurs the denudation does not occur. sent10: the Oktoberfest does not occur if the fact that both the accessibleness and the Oktoberfest happens is false. sent11: the Oktoberfest does not occur. sent12: that the unsatisfactoriness does not occur is triggered by that the inconstantness happens. sent13: the inaccessibleness does not occur. sent14: the bettering happens. sent15: that the turkey does not occur results in that the photoelectricness happens and the denudation happens. sent16: the aposiopeticness does not occur. sent17: the transmitting prognathism happens. sent18: the anastigmaticness does not occur if the DC occurs. | sent1: {CK} sent2: {IO} -> ¬{FM} sent3: {HO} sent4: {GU} sent5: {FU} sent6: {B} sent7: ¬{C} -> (¬{B} & {A}) sent8: {GG} sent9: {A} -> ¬{B} sent10: ¬(¬{G} & {E}) -> ¬{E} sent11: ¬{E} sent12: {AL} -> ¬{HB} sent13: ¬{G} sent14: {DC} sent15: ¬{C} -> ({A} & {B}) sent16: ¬{AM} sent17: {AD} sent18: {BR} -> ¬{AI} | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the photoelectricness occurs.; sent9 & assump1 -> int1: the denudation does not occur.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"void -> assump1: {A}; sent9 & assump1 -> int1: ¬{B}; int1 & sent6 -> int2: #F#; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | the photoelectricness occurs. | {A} | [] | 7 | 3 | 3 | 16 | 0 | 16 | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the photoelectricness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the atomicness occurs. sent2: if the fact that the carbonating uxoricide occurs is right then the truncation does not occur. sent3: that the carbonating barrier does not occur does not hold. sent4: the anagogicness occurs. sent5: the transmitting anticoagulation happens. sent6: the denudation happens. sent7: if the turkey does not occur not the denudation but the photoelectricness happens. sent8: the foreignness occurs. sent9: if the photoelectricness occurs the denudation does not occur. sent10: the Oktoberfest does not occur if the fact that both the accessibleness and the Oktoberfest happens is false. sent11: the Oktoberfest does not occur. sent12: that the unsatisfactoriness does not occur is triggered by that the inconstantness happens. sent13: the inaccessibleness does not occur. sent14: the bettering happens. sent15: that the turkey does not occur results in that the photoelectricness happens and the denudation happens. sent16: the aposiopeticness does not occur. sent17: the transmitting prognathism happens. sent18: the anastigmaticness does not occur if the DC occurs. ; $proof$ = | void -> assump1: Let's assume that the photoelectricness occurs.; sent9 & assump1 -> int1: the denudation does not occur.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | there exists something such that if that it is not bronchiolar and it is not a kind of a Hipsurus does not hold it does not sob soldiery. | (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x | sent1: the lugworm does sob soldiery if that it is not bronchiolar and is not a Hipsurus is false. sent2: if the fact that the hairnet does not carbonate Chancellor and is not micaceous does not hold then it is anthropological. sent3: the lugworm does not drink piolet if it is not a nominator and it is not a Hipsurus. sent4: there exists something such that if it is myotonic then it is not a prolapse. sent5: if the fizz is bronchiolar then it is not a nondriver. sent6: there is something such that if that it is a kind of non-bronchiolar thing that is not a kind of a Hipsurus is incorrect then it does sob soldiery. sent7: if that the lugworm is non-bronchiolar thing that is not a kind of a Hipsurus does not hold the fact that it does not sob soldiery hold. sent8: the lugworm is not illegitimate if it is unshaven. sent9: if the fact that the fizz is not a Hipsurus and is not long-distance is not right then it is not a kind of an inroad. sent10: the lugworm does not sob soldiery if it is a Hipsurus. sent11: there is something such that if that the fact that it is not a lull and it does not hear is not wrong does not hold it is not a kind of a crossbencher. sent12: there exists something such that if it is bronchiolar then it does not sob soldiery. sent13: the lugworm is not a subduer if the fact that it is not an inroad and it sobs Ndebele does not hold. sent14: the catalufa is a Muharram if that the fact that it is not bronchiolar and it is not polyphonic hold is incorrect. | sent1: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent2: ¬(¬{HI}{hl} & ¬{FL}{hl}) -> {GO}{hl} sent3: (¬{IO}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{HH}{aa} sent4: (Ex): {BL}x -> ¬{JA}x sent5: {AA}{ej} -> ¬{AE}{ej} sent6: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent7: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent8: {CR}{aa} -> ¬{HU}{aa} sent9: ¬(¬{AB}{ej} & ¬{FN}{ej}) -> ¬{FP}{ej} sent10: {AB}{aa} -> ¬{B}{aa} sent11: (Ex): ¬(¬{DH}x & ¬{AU}x) -> ¬{AR}x sent12: (Ex): {AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent13: ¬(¬{FP}{aa} & {FF}{aa}) -> ¬{DP}{aa} sent14: ¬(¬{AA}{gu} & ¬{GI}{gu}) -> {AK}{gu} | [
"sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null | [] | null | 1 | 1 | 13 | 0 | 13 | PROVED | null | PROVED | null | $hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if that it is not bronchiolar and it is not a kind of a Hipsurus does not hold it does not sob soldiery. ; $context$ = sent1: the lugworm does sob soldiery if that it is not bronchiolar and is not a Hipsurus is false. sent2: if the fact that the hairnet does not carbonate Chancellor and is not micaceous does not hold then it is anthropological. sent3: the lugworm does not drink piolet if it is not a nominator and it is not a Hipsurus. sent4: there exists something such that if it is myotonic then it is not a prolapse. sent5: if the fizz is bronchiolar then it is not a nondriver. sent6: there is something such that if that it is a kind of non-bronchiolar thing that is not a kind of a Hipsurus is incorrect then it does sob soldiery. sent7: if that the lugworm is non-bronchiolar thing that is not a kind of a Hipsurus does not hold the fact that it does not sob soldiery hold. sent8: the lugworm is not illegitimate if it is unshaven. sent9: if the fact that the fizz is not a Hipsurus and is not long-distance is not right then it is not a kind of an inroad. sent10: the lugworm does not sob soldiery if it is a Hipsurus. sent11: there is something such that if that the fact that it is not a lull and it does not hear is not wrong does not hold it is not a kind of a crossbencher. sent12: there exists something such that if it is bronchiolar then it does not sob soldiery. sent13: the lugworm is not a subduer if the fact that it is not an inroad and it sobs Ndebele does not hold. sent14: the catalufa is a Muharram if that the fact that it is not bronchiolar and it is not polyphonic hold is incorrect. ; $proof$ = | sent7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | there is something such that if it does not sob vulgarian then the fact that it drinks Sabal and is not a lovingness is not correct. | (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) | sent1: if the neuropil does not sob vulgarian that it does sight and does not drink Gerbera does not hold. sent2: there exists something such that if it is a rugged then that the fact that it does sob respecter and does not carbonate thymol is correct is not right. sent3: there is something such that if it does not carbonate symphony then that it is a kind of a gone and it volatilizes is not true. sent4: there is something such that if it does not sob vulgarian then the fact that it drinks Sabal and is a kind of a lovingness is not correct. sent5: there exists something such that if it does not sob vulgarian then it drinks Sabal and is not a lovingness. sent6: there is something such that if that it sobs vulgarian is true then that it drinks Sabal and is not a lovingness does not hold. sent7: if the neuropil does not sob vulgarian it drinks Sabal and it is not a lovingness. sent8: that that something is a kind of a ritual but it does not drink phencyclidine hold is wrong if it does not sob vulgarian. sent9: if the neuropil is not sustainable then the fact that it is a kind of a volcanology that is not psychopharmacological does not hold. sent10: if the neuropil does not sob vulgarian the fact that it does drink Sabal and it is not a kind of a lovingness does not hold. sent11: that something does drink Gerbera and does not transmit headrace does not hold if the fact that it does not carbonate Lubeck hold. sent12: if the neuropil sobs vulgarian then the fact that it drinks Sabal and is not a lovingness is not right. sent13: if the neuropil does not sob vulgarian then the fact that the fact that it does drink Sabal and is a lovingness hold is not correct. sent14: the fact that the neuropil acuminates and is a Jacksonville is not true if it does not carbonate Clive. sent15: there is something such that if it does not sob radicalism it does transmit moiety and it does not transmit headrace. | sent1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({IB}{aa} & ¬{GC}{aa}) sent2: (Ex): {DN}x -> ¬({AP}x & ¬{DQ}x) sent3: (Ex): ¬{EJ}x -> ¬({GA}x & {AM}x) sent4: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent5: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent6: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent7: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent8: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({DL}x & ¬{K}x) sent9: ¬{ER}{aa} -> ¬({JB}{aa} & ¬{BD}{aa}) sent10: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent11: (x): ¬{DS}x -> ¬({GC}x & ¬{EF}x) sent12: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent13: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent14: ¬{J}{aa} -> ¬({DE}{aa} & {FJ}{aa}) sent15: (Ex): ¬{BC}x -> ({D}x & ¬{EF}x) | [
"sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] | that there is something such that if it does not carbonate Lubeck then that it does drink Gerbera and does not transmit headrace does not hold is not false. | (Ex): ¬{DS}x -> ¬({GC}x & ¬{EF}x) | [
"sent11 -> int1: if the AFP does not carbonate Lubeck the fact that it drinks Gerbera and it does not transmit headrace is not true.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 14 | 0 | 14 | PROVED | PROVED | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it does not sob vulgarian then the fact that it drinks Sabal and is not a lovingness is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the neuropil does not sob vulgarian that it does sight and does not drink Gerbera does not hold. sent2: there exists something such that if it is a rugged then that the fact that it does sob respecter and does not carbonate thymol is correct is not right. sent3: there is something such that if it does not carbonate symphony then that it is a kind of a gone and it volatilizes is not true. sent4: there is something such that if it does not sob vulgarian then the fact that it drinks Sabal and is a kind of a lovingness is not correct. sent5: there exists something such that if it does not sob vulgarian then it drinks Sabal and is not a lovingness. sent6: there is something such that if that it sobs vulgarian is true then that it drinks Sabal and is not a lovingness does not hold. sent7: if the neuropil does not sob vulgarian it drinks Sabal and it is not a lovingness. sent8: that that something is a kind of a ritual but it does not drink phencyclidine hold is wrong if it does not sob vulgarian. sent9: if the neuropil is not sustainable then the fact that it is a kind of a volcanology that is not psychopharmacological does not hold. sent10: if the neuropil does not sob vulgarian the fact that it does drink Sabal and it is not a kind of a lovingness does not hold. sent11: that something does drink Gerbera and does not transmit headrace does not hold if the fact that it does not carbonate Lubeck hold. sent12: if the neuropil sobs vulgarian then the fact that it drinks Sabal and is not a lovingness is not right. sent13: if the neuropil does not sob vulgarian then the fact that the fact that it does drink Sabal and is a lovingness hold is not correct. sent14: the fact that the neuropil acuminates and is a Jacksonville is not true if it does not carbonate Clive. sent15: there is something such that if it does not sob radicalism it does transmit moiety and it does not transmit headrace. ; $proof$ = | sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the ditch does not sob Ctenizidae. | ¬{C}{a} | sent1: if a resolute thing is apothecial then it does not sob Ctenizidae. sent2: if there exists something such that it is not epicurean or it does not sob masthead or both the ovolo is not epicurean. sent3: the moll is not a manufacturer if that the ovolo is not a manufacturer and it is not a kind of a Vidua is wrong. sent4: the moll is resolute. sent5: if something is both apothecial and irresolute it does sob Ctenizidae. sent6: that something is not a manufacturer and it is not a kind of a Vidua is incorrect if it is not a morosoph. sent7: the moll is apothecial. sent8: if the fact that the ovolo is not epicurean hold then it is not a kind of a morosoph. sent9: the ditch is not favorable and is not a taper. sent10: the moll is a kind of a humming and it does sob Plataleidae if something is a kind of a faction. sent11: if something is not a henry that it is apothecial but not resolute is correct. sent12: if the ditch is unfavorable thing that is not a taper then it is apothecial. sent13: there is something such that it is a kind of a faction. sent14: there is something such that it is not epicurean or it does not sob masthead or both. | sent1: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}x sent2: (x): (¬{I}x v ¬{K}x) -> ¬{I}{c} sent3: ¬(¬{F}{c} & ¬{H}{c}) -> ¬{F}{b} sent4: {A}{b} sent5: (x): ({B}x & ¬{A}x) -> {C}x sent6: (x): ¬{G}x -> ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{H}x) sent7: {B}{b} sent8: ¬{I}{c} -> ¬{G}{c} sent9: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent10: (x): {L}x -> ({E}{b} & {J}{b}) sent11: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({B}x & ¬{A}x) sent12: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent13: (Ex): {L}x sent14: (Ex): (¬{I}x v ¬{K}x) | [
"sent12 & sent9 -> int1: the fact that the ditch is apothecial is not wrong.; sent1 -> int2: the ditch does not sob Ctenizidae if it is resolute and is apothecial.;"
] | [
"sent12 & sent9 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent1 -> int2: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{a};"
] | the ditch sobs Ctenizidae. | {C}{a} | [
"sent5 -> int3: if the ditch is apothecial but it is not resolute it sobs Ctenizidae.; sent11 -> int4: the ditch is apothecial and is not resolute if it is not a henry.; sent13 & sent10 -> int5: the moll does hum and it sobs Plataleidae.; int5 -> int6: the moll hums.; sent6 -> int7: the fact that the ovolo is not a kind of a manufacturer and is not a Vidua is incorrect if it is not a kind of a morosoph.; sent14 & sent2 -> int8: the ovolo is not epicurean.; sent8 & int8 -> int9: the fact that the ovolo is not a morosoph is correct.; int7 & int9 -> int10: that the ovolo is both not a manufacturer and not a Vidua is not correct.; sent3 & int10 -> int11: the moll is not a kind of a manufacturer.; int6 & int11 -> int12: the moll hums and is not a manufacturer.; int12 -> int13: that something does hum but it is not a manufacturer hold.;"
] | 9 | 3 | null | 10 | 0 | 10 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the ditch does not sob Ctenizidae. ; $context$ = sent1: if a resolute thing is apothecial then it does not sob Ctenizidae. sent2: if there exists something such that it is not epicurean or it does not sob masthead or both the ovolo is not epicurean. sent3: the moll is not a manufacturer if that the ovolo is not a manufacturer and it is not a kind of a Vidua is wrong. sent4: the moll is resolute. sent5: if something is both apothecial and irresolute it does sob Ctenizidae. sent6: that something is not a manufacturer and it is not a kind of a Vidua is incorrect if it is not a morosoph. sent7: the moll is apothecial. sent8: if the fact that the ovolo is not epicurean hold then it is not a kind of a morosoph. sent9: the ditch is not favorable and is not a taper. sent10: the moll is a kind of a humming and it does sob Plataleidae if something is a kind of a faction. sent11: if something is not a henry that it is apothecial but not resolute is correct. sent12: if the ditch is unfavorable thing that is not a taper then it is apothecial. sent13: there is something such that it is a kind of a faction. sent14: there is something such that it is not epicurean or it does not sob masthead or both. ; $proof$ = | sent12 & sent9 -> int1: the fact that the ditch is apothecial is not wrong.; sent1 -> int2: the ditch does not sob Ctenizidae if it is resolute and is apothecial.; __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | that that there exists something such that if that it is not a helicon and it is not a warhorse is not true then it is a tragacanth is right is wrong. | ¬((Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x) | sent1: the engorgement is a tragacanth if the fact that it is not a helicon and it is not a kind of a warhorse is not true. sent2: if the fact that the fact that the engorgement is not a mythologist and transmits ohm is not correct is true it is a kind of a borosilicate. sent3: the engorgement is a kind of a warhorse if the fact that it is not a jacks and is empiric is not right. | sent1: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent2: ¬(¬{ET}{aa} & {JJ}{aa}) -> {DK}{aa} sent3: ¬(¬{IS}{aa} & {HC}{aa}) -> {AB}{aa} | [
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null | [] | null | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | DISPROVED | null | DISPROVED | null | $hypothesis$ = that that there exists something such that if that it is not a helicon and it is not a warhorse is not true then it is a tragacanth is right is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the engorgement is a tragacanth if the fact that it is not a helicon and it is not a kind of a warhorse is not true. sent2: if the fact that the fact that the engorgement is not a mythologist and transmits ohm is not correct is true it is a kind of a borosilicate. sent3: the engorgement is a kind of a warhorse if the fact that it is not a jacks and is empiric is not right. ; $proof$ = | sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the acoustic does not carbonate call-back. | ¬{B}{b} | sent1: there is something such that the fact that it is not a lampshade and is cyclopean is not wrong. sent2: there is something such that it is both a lampshade and not cyclopean. sent3: there exists something such that it is not cyclopean. sent4: there is something such that it is not inglorious. sent5: the weld is inglorious. sent6: the borax is inglorious. sent7: the fact that if that the terreplein is not a kind of a Paraguayan but it is a kind of the Bergen is not right the fact that the terreplein is not a kind of a Bergen is not wrong is not incorrect. sent8: if the fact that something does not carbonate call-back and does not sob hailstorm is incorrect it carbonate call-back. sent9: the borax is not a kind of a lampshade if there are non-cyclopean and glorious things. sent10: if something is not a kind of a lampshade and it is not cyclopean the acoustic does not carbonate call-back. sent11: if the acoustic is not inglorious the fact that it does not carbonate call-back and does not sob hailstorm is not true. sent12: the borax is not cyclopean if it is inglorious. sent13: the acoustic carbonates call-back if the borax is non-inglorious thing that does not carbonates call-back. sent14: something does carbonate terreplein and/or it is Neapolitan if it is not secretory. sent15: if the terreplein is not a Bergen then that it is both a Burundi and secretory is not true. sent16: that the terreplein is a kind of non-Paraguayan thing that is a kind of a Bergen is not correct. sent17: there is something such that it is not a lampshade. | sent1: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent2: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent3: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent4: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent5: {A}{ih} sent6: {A}{a} sent7: ¬(¬{I}{e} & {H}{e}) -> ¬{H}{e} sent8: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) -> {B}x sent9: (x): (¬{AB}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{AA}{a} sent10: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}{b} sent11: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬(¬{B}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent12: {A}{a} -> ¬{AB}{a} sent13: (¬{A}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent14: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({D}x v {E}x) sent15: ¬{H}{e} -> ¬({G}{e} & {F}{e}) sent16: ¬(¬{I}{e} & {H}{e}) sent17: (Ex): ¬{AA}x | [] | [] | the acoustic carbonates call-back. | {B}{b} | [
"sent8 -> int1: if that the acoustic does not carbonate call-back and it does not sob hailstorm is not true it does carbonate call-back.;"
] | 5 | 3 | null | 15 | 0 | 15 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the acoustic does not carbonate call-back. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that the fact that it is not a lampshade and is cyclopean is not wrong. sent2: there is something such that it is both a lampshade and not cyclopean. sent3: there exists something such that it is not cyclopean. sent4: there is something such that it is not inglorious. sent5: the weld is inglorious. sent6: the borax is inglorious. sent7: the fact that if that the terreplein is not a kind of a Paraguayan but it is a kind of the Bergen is not right the fact that the terreplein is not a kind of a Bergen is not wrong is not incorrect. sent8: if the fact that something does not carbonate call-back and does not sob hailstorm is incorrect it carbonate call-back. sent9: the borax is not a kind of a lampshade if there are non-cyclopean and glorious things. sent10: if something is not a kind of a lampshade and it is not cyclopean the acoustic does not carbonate call-back. sent11: if the acoustic is not inglorious the fact that it does not carbonate call-back and does not sob hailstorm is not true. sent12: the borax is not cyclopean if it is inglorious. sent13: the acoustic carbonates call-back if the borax is non-inglorious thing that does not carbonates call-back. sent14: something does carbonate terreplein and/or it is Neapolitan if it is not secretory. sent15: if the terreplein is not a Bergen then that it is both a Burundi and secretory is not true. sent16: that the terreplein is a kind of non-Paraguayan thing that is a kind of a Bergen is not correct. sent17: there is something such that it is not a lampshade. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | there is something such that if the fact that it does deflect and it is a indisposition hold it does not sob Chancellor. | (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x | sent1: if something is a Nilotic and does deflect it is not a startle. sent2: the wheelwright is not a maleficence if it is a kind of a branchlet and sobs titania. sent3: there is something such that if it is an umpire and is a Hart the fact that it does not drink Antilocapridae is not false. sent4: the wheelwright does not deflect if it is both chiasmal and not non-Jain. sent5: there is something such that if it is gladiatorial and a peepshow then it is not equivocal. sent6: if something that sobs Chancellor is truthful the fact that it is not pyknotic is correct. sent7: if the eburnation is a kind of a self-criticism that drinks causality the fact that it is not a escapology is right. sent8: if the wheelwright drinks Kodiak and it is not diplomatic then the fact that it does not deflect is right. sent9: the wheelwright sobs Chancellor if it deflects and it is a indisposition. sent10: there is something such that if it does deflect and is a indisposition then it does sob Chancellor. sent11: the Stoker is pyknotic if it is menopausal thing that sobs Chancellor. sent12: if the wheelwright does deflect and it is a indisposition then it does not sob Chancellor. sent13: if the fact that the pinger is a kind of a indisposition that is irreducible hold then it is not a kind of a physique. sent14: if the wheelwright is a vacationer and carbonates cadet it is not a indisposition. sent15: the Siouan is not geriatrics if it does deflect and is a bier. | sent1: (x): ({CF}x & {AA}x) -> ¬{JJ}x sent2: ({BE}{aa} & {CK}{aa}) -> ¬{FM}{aa} sent3: (Ex): ({K}x & {N}x) -> ¬{FB}x sent4: ({L}{aa} & {EM}{aa}) -> ¬{AA}{aa} sent5: (Ex): ({DF}x & {HK}x) -> ¬{IM}x sent6: (x): ({B}x & {HD}x) -> ¬{DM}x sent7: ({DJ}{an} & {GL}{an}) -> ¬{HQ}{an} sent8: ({IA}{aa} & {AF}{aa}) -> ¬{AA}{aa} sent9: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent10: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent11: ({FO}{i} & {B}{i}) -> {DM}{i} sent12: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent13: ({AB}{eh} & {FC}{eh}) -> ¬{DQ}{eh} sent14: ({JG}{aa} & {EN}{aa}) -> ¬{AB}{aa} sent15: ({AA}{ae} & {CI}{ae}) -> ¬{FL}{ae} | [
"sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] | the sternutator is not a startle if it is not non-Nilotic and it deflects. | ({CF}{fs} & {AA}{fs}) -> ¬{JJ}{fs} | [
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 14 | 0 | 14 | PROVED | PROVED | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = there is something such that if the fact that it does deflect and it is a indisposition hold it does not sob Chancellor. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a Nilotic and does deflect it is not a startle. sent2: the wheelwright is not a maleficence if it is a kind of a branchlet and sobs titania. sent3: there is something such that if it is an umpire and is a Hart the fact that it does not drink Antilocapridae is not false. sent4: the wheelwright does not deflect if it is both chiasmal and not non-Jain. sent5: there is something such that if it is gladiatorial and a peepshow then it is not equivocal. sent6: if something that sobs Chancellor is truthful the fact that it is not pyknotic is correct. sent7: if the eburnation is a kind of a self-criticism that drinks causality the fact that it is not a escapology is right. sent8: if the wheelwright drinks Kodiak and it is not diplomatic then the fact that it does not deflect is right. sent9: the wheelwright sobs Chancellor if it deflects and it is a indisposition. sent10: there is something such that if it does deflect and is a indisposition then it does sob Chancellor. sent11: the Stoker is pyknotic if it is menopausal thing that sobs Chancellor. sent12: if the wheelwright does deflect and it is a indisposition then it does not sob Chancellor. sent13: if the fact that the pinger is a kind of a indisposition that is irreducible hold then it is not a kind of a physique. sent14: if the wheelwright is a vacationer and carbonates cadet it is not a indisposition. sent15: the Siouan is not geriatrics if it does deflect and is a bier. ; $proof$ = | sent12 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | there is something such that if it is geopolitical and does carbonate slant then it is not Algonquian. | (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x | sent1: there is something such that if it is geopolitical and it carbonates slant then it is a kind of a Algonquian. sent2: if something does carbonate bruise and it is a Fructidor it is not a kind of a permanganate. sent3: the hen is alar if it does carbonate slant and it is a kind of a vagueness. sent4: if the entoproct does sob entoproct and it is staccato it is a Algonquian. sent5: if the hen is a kind of geopolitical thing that does sob cenotaph then it is not a travel. sent6: if the marlite does carbonate Kuiper and is geopolitical it is not a kind of a shade. sent7: if that the hen does sob hen and it is a kind of a Benton is true it does not carbonate ballistocardiograph. sent8: something is not a kind of a Pizarro if it does carbonate predicator and is an intimidation. sent9: if the hen is both not non-unneurotic and not non-altitudinal it is not a xenon. sent10: if something is a kind of a implicitness and is a kind of a Malaysian it is not beneficent. sent11: if something that is a unguiculate does drink Chateaubriand then it is not a discrimination. sent12: if the restaurant is a kind of avuncular a Clupeidae then that it is geopolitical is not false. sent13: the hen is Algonquian if it is a kind of geopolitical thing that carbonates slant. sent14: if the Forester is a cowrie and is a rig then it is not a conquistador. sent15: there is something such that if it does profess and invests it is not a arcsine. sent16: if something that is geopolitical carbonates slant it is Algonquian. sent17: something does transmit contentment if it does drink Champollion and is syntactic. sent18: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a Navaho and it is gaseous then it is not a welding. sent19: if something is geopolitical and it does carbonate slant it is not a Algonquian. sent20: if something is a kind of a aragonite and it does carbonate predicator it invests. sent21: there exists something such that if it is avuncular thing that is epizoan then it drinks Chateaubriand. | sent1: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent2: (x): ({JG}x & {HE}x) -> ¬{FQ}x sent3: ({AB}{aa} & {AU}{aa}) -> {JF}{aa} sent4: ({JJ}{gb} & {CI}{gb}) -> {B}{gb} sent5: ({AA}{aa} & {N}{aa}) -> ¬{DH}{aa} sent6: ({BC}{ic} & {AA}{ic}) -> ¬{BR}{ic} sent7: ({DP}{aa} & {HI}{aa}) -> ¬{AM}{aa} sent8: (x): ({DA}x & {GJ}x) -> ¬{CG}x sent9: ({EF}{aa} & {M}{aa}) -> ¬{CQ}{aa} sent10: (x): ({FR}x & {AF}x) -> ¬{H}x sent11: (x): ({HF}x & {EN}x) -> ¬{II}x sent12: ({CK}{go} & {DN}{go}) -> {AA}{go} sent13: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent14: ({GU}{cc} & {K}{cc}) -> ¬{FJ}{cc} sent15: (Ex): ({BU}x & {CC}x) -> ¬{FK}x sent16: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent17: (x): ({AJ}x & {HD}x) -> {O}x sent18: (Ex): ({GC}x & {BB}x) -> ¬{EL}x sent19: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent20: (x): ({CM}x & {DA}x) -> {CC}x sent21: (Ex): ({CK}x & {CP}x) -> {EN}x | [
"sent19 -> int1: if the hen is geopolitical and it carbonates slant then it is not a Algonquian.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent19 -> int1: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | there is something such that if it carbonates predicator and it is an intimidation it is not a Pizarro. | (Ex): ({DA}x & {GJ}x) -> ¬{CG}x | [
"sent8 -> int2: if the Chateaubriand does carbonate predicator and is an intimidation then it is not a Pizarro.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 2 | 2 | 20 | 0 | 20 | PROVED | PROVED | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is geopolitical and does carbonate slant then it is not Algonquian. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is geopolitical and it carbonates slant then it is a kind of a Algonquian. sent2: if something does carbonate bruise and it is a Fructidor it is not a kind of a permanganate. sent3: the hen is alar if it does carbonate slant and it is a kind of a vagueness. sent4: if the entoproct does sob entoproct and it is staccato it is a Algonquian. sent5: if the hen is a kind of geopolitical thing that does sob cenotaph then it is not a travel. sent6: if the marlite does carbonate Kuiper and is geopolitical it is not a kind of a shade. sent7: if that the hen does sob hen and it is a kind of a Benton is true it does not carbonate ballistocardiograph. sent8: something is not a kind of a Pizarro if it does carbonate predicator and is an intimidation. sent9: if the hen is both not non-unneurotic and not non-altitudinal it is not a xenon. sent10: if something is a kind of a implicitness and is a kind of a Malaysian it is not beneficent. sent11: if something that is a unguiculate does drink Chateaubriand then it is not a discrimination. sent12: if the restaurant is a kind of avuncular a Clupeidae then that it is geopolitical is not false. sent13: the hen is Algonquian if it is a kind of geopolitical thing that carbonates slant. sent14: if the Forester is a cowrie and is a rig then it is not a conquistador. sent15: there is something such that if it does profess and invests it is not a arcsine. sent16: if something that is geopolitical carbonates slant it is Algonquian. sent17: something does transmit contentment if it does drink Champollion and is syntactic. sent18: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a Navaho and it is gaseous then it is not a welding. sent19: if something is geopolitical and it does carbonate slant it is not a Algonquian. sent20: if something is a kind of a aragonite and it does carbonate predicator it invests. sent21: there exists something such that if it is avuncular thing that is epizoan then it drinks Chateaubriand. ; $proof$ = | sent19 -> int1: if the hen is geopolitical and it carbonates slant then it is not a Algonquian.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the salter is not a flutter and is not a Shinto. | (¬{E}{c} & ¬{D}{c}) | sent1: if that the Scot is a trot is not false then the salter does drink metalworking. sent2: an abnormality is non-Shinto thing that is not a kind of a trot. sent3: that something is not a flutter and it is not a kind of a Shinto is true if it does drink metalworking. sent4: if the fact that the salter drinks metalworking is not wrong it does not flutter. sent5: the fact that the salter does flutter is wrong. sent6: the fact that something is both not a flutter and not a trot is not wrong if it is an abnormality. sent7: the salter drinks metalworking if the Scot is a kind of an abnormality. sent8: something that does drink metalworking is not a flutter. sent9: the fact that the Scot is a trot and/or it is a kind of an abnormality is true. | sent1: {A}{a} -> {C}{c} sent2: (x): {B}x -> (¬{D}x & ¬{A}x) sent3: (x): {C}x -> (¬{E}x & ¬{D}x) sent4: {C}{c} -> ¬{E}{c} sent5: ¬{E}{c} sent6: (x): {B}x -> (¬{E}x & ¬{A}x) sent7: {B}{a} -> {C}{c} sent8: (x): {C}x -> ¬{E}x sent9: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}) | [
"sent9 & sent1 & sent7 -> int1: that the salter drinks metalworking is not false.; sent3 -> int2: the salter is both not a flutter and not a Shinto if the fact that it drinks metalworking is not wrong.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent9 & sent1 & sent7 -> int1: {C}{c}; sent3 -> int2: {C}{c} -> (¬{E}{c} & ¬{D}{c}); int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null | [] | null | 2 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 5 | PROVED | null | PROVED | null | $hypothesis$ = the salter is not a flutter and is not a Shinto. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the Scot is a trot is not false then the salter does drink metalworking. sent2: an abnormality is non-Shinto thing that is not a kind of a trot. sent3: that something is not a flutter and it is not a kind of a Shinto is true if it does drink metalworking. sent4: if the fact that the salter drinks metalworking is not wrong it does not flutter. sent5: the fact that the salter does flutter is wrong. sent6: the fact that something is both not a flutter and not a trot is not wrong if it is an abnormality. sent7: the salter drinks metalworking if the Scot is a kind of an abnormality. sent8: something that does drink metalworking is not a flutter. sent9: the fact that the Scot is a trot and/or it is a kind of an abnormality is true. ; $proof$ = | sent9 & sent1 & sent7 -> int1: that the salter drinks metalworking is not false.; sent3 -> int2: the salter is both not a flutter and not a Shinto if the fact that it drinks metalworking is not wrong.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the fact that the paranasalness does not occur and the carbonating Dorian does not occur is not right. | ¬(¬{E} & ¬{D}) | sent1: the fact that the paranasalness does not occur and the carbonating Dorian does not occur does not hold if the unevenness does not occur. sent2: that the abiogeneticness and the sobbing frankness happens prevents the unevenness. sent3: the sobbing frankness happens. sent4: the abiogeneticness occurs. | sent1: ¬{C} -> ¬(¬{E} & ¬{D}) sent2: ({A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent3: {B} sent4: {A} | [
"sent4 & sent3 -> int1: both the abiogeneticness and the sobbing frankness happens.; sent2 & int1 -> int2: that the unevenness happens does not hold.; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent4 & sent3 -> int1: ({A} & {B}); sent2 & int1 -> int2: ¬{C}; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null | [] | null | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | PROVED | null | PROVED | null | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the paranasalness does not occur and the carbonating Dorian does not occur is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the paranasalness does not occur and the carbonating Dorian does not occur does not hold if the unevenness does not occur. sent2: that the abiogeneticness and the sobbing frankness happens prevents the unevenness. sent3: the sobbing frankness happens. sent4: the abiogeneticness occurs. ; $proof$ = | sent4 & sent3 -> int1: both the abiogeneticness and the sobbing frankness happens.; sent2 & int1 -> int2: that the unevenness happens does not hold.; sent1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the hairnet is a moneran and/or is a booster. | ({B}{b} v {C}{b}) | sent1: The Clive sobs wallop. sent2: if the wallop does sob Clive then the fact that the hairnet does not sob Champlain and does carbonate contusion is wrong. sent3: the wallop sobs Clive. | sent1: {AC}{aa} sent2: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b}) sent3: {A}{a} | [
"sent2 & sent3 -> int1: that the hairnet does not sob Champlain and does carbonate contusion does not hold.;"
] | [
"sent2 & sent3 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{b} & {AB}{b});"
] | null | null | [] | null | 3 | null | 1 | 0 | 1 | UNKNOWN | null | UNKNOWN | null | $hypothesis$ = the hairnet is a moneran and/or is a booster. ; $context$ = sent1: The Clive sobs wallop. sent2: if the wallop does sob Clive then the fact that the hairnet does not sob Champlain and does carbonate contusion is wrong. sent3: the wallop sobs Clive. ; $proof$ = | sent2 & sent3 -> int1: that the hairnet does not sob Champlain and does carbonate contusion does not hold.; __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | the omnidirectionalness does not occur. | ¬{A} | sent1: if the carbonating bruise does not occur then the shank does not occur and/or the duralness does not occur. sent2: that the carbonating Heshvan does not occur hold. sent3: the shanking does not occur if the duralness does not occur. sent4: the Marianness happens. sent5: the appreciation does not occur. sent6: the conceptualisticness happens. sent7: if that the experientialness happens hold the carbonating flamboyant happens. sent8: the torturing does not occur. sent9: the artfulness does not occur. sent10: the profoundness does not occur. sent11: the carbonating oligodactyly does not occur. sent12: the Linnaeanness does not occur. sent13: that the omnidirectionalness happens results in the shanking. | sent1: ¬{D} -> (¬{B} v ¬{C}) sent2: ¬{FE} sent3: ¬{C} -> ¬{B} sent4: {FL} sent5: ¬{EA} sent6: {HJ} sent7: {DH} -> {GC} sent8: ¬{IR} sent9: ¬{DQ} sent10: ¬{CF} sent11: ¬{DJ} sent12: ¬{AO} sent13: {A} -> {B} | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the omnidirectionalness happens.; sent13 & assump1 -> int1: the shanking happens.;"
] | [
"void -> assump1: {A}; sent13 & assump1 -> int1: {B};"
] | the omnidirectionalness happens. | {A} | [] | 6 | 3 | null | 11 | 0 | 11 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the omnidirectionalness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the carbonating bruise does not occur then the shank does not occur and/or the duralness does not occur. sent2: that the carbonating Heshvan does not occur hold. sent3: the shanking does not occur if the duralness does not occur. sent4: the Marianness happens. sent5: the appreciation does not occur. sent6: the conceptualisticness happens. sent7: if that the experientialness happens hold the carbonating flamboyant happens. sent8: the torturing does not occur. sent9: the artfulness does not occur. sent10: the profoundness does not occur. sent11: the carbonating oligodactyly does not occur. sent12: the Linnaeanness does not occur. sent13: that the omnidirectionalness happens results in the shanking. ; $proof$ = | void -> assump1: Let's assume that the omnidirectionalness happens.; sent13 & assump1 -> int1: the shanking happens.; __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | the homer is not a Tashkent. | ¬{C}{b} | sent1: if the fact that either the fluorite does not adolesce or it is a kind of a Tashkent or both is incorrect then that the reedbird is not a Tashkent is not false. sent2: if the herbivore is not unlawful the fluorite is a kind of a Tashkent that adolesces. sent3: the fluorite is not a Tashkent if the homer is unlawful and does adolesce. sent4: if something does carbonate Labanotation then the fact that it is a Pseudoryx and it is not unlawful is not right. sent5: if the homer is unlawful and is a Tashkent the fact that the fluorite does not adolesce is correct. sent6: the herbivore is not unlawful if the fact that it does not carbonate Labanotation is not wrong. sent7: the homer does drink moment. sent8: the fluorite does adolesce. sent9: everything does carbonate Labanotation. sent10: the polyurethane is not unlawful. sent11: the homer is oceanic and laryngeal. sent12: the fluorite is a Tashkent. sent13: if there is something such that the fact that it is a Pseudoryx and not unlawful is not true the herbivore is unlawful. sent14: if the fluorite adolesces and is unlawful the homer is not a Tashkent. sent15: the orchestrator is unlawful. | sent1: ¬(¬{A}{a} v {C}{a}) -> ¬{C}{fl} sent2: ¬{B}{c} -> ({C}{a} & {A}{a}) sent3: ({B}{b} & {A}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent4: (x): {D}x -> ¬({E}x & ¬{B}x) sent5: ({B}{b} & {C}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent6: ¬{D}{c} -> ¬{B}{c} sent7: {HH}{b} sent8: {A}{a} sent9: (x): {D}x sent10: ¬{B}{hg} sent11: ({CI}{b} & {AR}{b}) sent12: {C}{a} sent13: (x): ¬({E}x & ¬{B}x) -> {B}{c} sent14: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent15: {B}{bt} | [] | [] | the reedbird is not a Tashkent. | ¬{C}{fl} | [] | 5 | 2 | null | 13 | 0 | 13 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the homer is not a Tashkent. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that either the fluorite does not adolesce or it is a kind of a Tashkent or both is incorrect then that the reedbird is not a Tashkent is not false. sent2: if the herbivore is not unlawful the fluorite is a kind of a Tashkent that adolesces. sent3: the fluorite is not a Tashkent if the homer is unlawful and does adolesce. sent4: if something does carbonate Labanotation then the fact that it is a Pseudoryx and it is not unlawful is not right. sent5: if the homer is unlawful and is a Tashkent the fact that the fluorite does not adolesce is correct. sent6: the herbivore is not unlawful if the fact that it does not carbonate Labanotation is not wrong. sent7: the homer does drink moment. sent8: the fluorite does adolesce. sent9: everything does carbonate Labanotation. sent10: the polyurethane is not unlawful. sent11: the homer is oceanic and laryngeal. sent12: the fluorite is a Tashkent. sent13: if there is something such that the fact that it is a Pseudoryx and not unlawful is not true the herbivore is unlawful. sent14: if the fluorite adolesces and is unlawful the homer is not a Tashkent. sent15: the orchestrator is unlawful. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | the dishonoring explication happens. | {F} | sent1: if the rimming happens then the fact that the expatriating happens hold. sent2: the anticoagulation happens. sent3: the cumulus does not occur if the dishonoring Sinbad happens. sent4: the apheticness happens and the Semiteness does not occur. sent5: that the roughness occurs and the dressage does not occur leads to that the illuminating occurs. sent6: the stay does not occur. sent7: the prestidigitation happens if the fact that the artfulness occurs hold. sent8: the treasurership does not occur if the expatriating happens. sent9: the dishonoring paltriness happens. sent10: that the expatriating does not occur is prevented by that the bicentennialness occurs. sent11: either the rim or the bicentennial or both happens. | sent1: {A} -> {C} sent2: {E} sent3: {FA} -> ¬{EF} sent4: ({FQ} & ¬{FN}) sent5: ({FD} & ¬{CO}) -> {GS} sent6: ¬{AT} sent7: {T} -> {BN} sent8: {C} -> ¬{D} sent9: {DK} sent10: {B} -> {C} sent11: ({A} v {B}) | [
"sent11 & sent1 & sent10 -> int1: the expatriating happens.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the treasurership does not occur.; int2 & sent2 -> int3: the anticoagulation occurs and the treasurership does not occur.;"
] | [
"sent11 & sent1 & sent10 -> int1: {C}; int1 & sent8 -> int2: ¬{D}; int2 & sent2 -> int3: ({E} & ¬{D});"
] | null | null | [] | null | 4 | null | 6 | 0 | 6 | UNKNOWN | null | UNKNOWN | null | $hypothesis$ = the dishonoring explication happens. ; $context$ = sent1: if the rimming happens then the fact that the expatriating happens hold. sent2: the anticoagulation happens. sent3: the cumulus does not occur if the dishonoring Sinbad happens. sent4: the apheticness happens and the Semiteness does not occur. sent5: that the roughness occurs and the dressage does not occur leads to that the illuminating occurs. sent6: the stay does not occur. sent7: the prestidigitation happens if the fact that the artfulness occurs hold. sent8: the treasurership does not occur if the expatriating happens. sent9: the dishonoring paltriness happens. sent10: that the expatriating does not occur is prevented by that the bicentennialness occurs. sent11: either the rim or the bicentennial or both happens. ; $proof$ = | sent11 & sent1 & sent10 -> int1: the expatriating happens.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the treasurership does not occur.; int2 & sent2 -> int3: the anticoagulation occurs and the treasurership does not occur.; __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | the anorexic recoups Platonism. | {A}{c} | sent1: the grass is not a kind of a nerves if the pinite does not recoup constitutionalist and it is not a furnace. sent2: that the grass is hospitable but it is not a antipode is not right. sent3: the grass is a nerves if the fact that it is hospitable and is not a antipode is false. | sent1: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent2: ¬({D}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent3: ¬({D}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> {B}{b} | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the pinite does not recoup constitutionalist and is not a furnace.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the grass is not a kind of a nerves.; sent3 & sent2 -> int2: the fact that the grass is not a nerves does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: that the pinite does not recoup constitutionalist and it is not a furnace is incorrect.;"
] | [
"void -> assump1: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); sent1 & assump1 -> int1: ¬{B}{b}; sent3 & sent2 -> int2: {B}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a});"
] | null | null | [] | null | 4 | null | 0 | 0 | 0 | UNKNOWN | null | UNKNOWN | null | $hypothesis$ = the anorexic recoups Platonism. ; $context$ = sent1: the grass is not a kind of a nerves if the pinite does not recoup constitutionalist and it is not a furnace. sent2: that the grass is hospitable but it is not a antipode is not right. sent3: the grass is a nerves if the fact that it is hospitable and is not a antipode is false. ; $proof$ = | void -> assump1: Let's assume that the pinite does not recoup constitutionalist and is not a furnace.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the grass is not a kind of a nerves.; sent3 & sent2 -> int2: the fact that the grass is not a nerves does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: that the pinite does not recoup constitutionalist and it is not a furnace is incorrect.; __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | the Mantle is not a kind of a rogue. | ¬{D}{b} | sent1: the Mantle is not a rogue if that either the surrey is not a phenomenology or it is not a knobble or both is wrong. sent2: if something is a tool and/or it is a kind of a fluorochrome it is not a knobble. sent3: there exists something such that that it does recoup Glengarry is true. sent4: if the parsonage is not a knobble the tatou dishonors Natal and is a phenomenology. sent5: the Mantle dishonors Natal and it is a rogue if there is something such that that it is not a phenomenology hold. sent6: the surrey is a phenomenology. sent7: the Mantle is not a rogue if the fact that the surrey is a phenomenology or is not a knobble or both is incorrect. sent8: the surrey is a phenomenology if there exists something such that it does dishonor Natal. sent9: the surrey is not a kind of a rogue if that the Mantle is not a knobble or it is not a phenomenology or both is incorrect. sent10: if that the surrey does not dishonor Natal or is a phenomenology or both is false the Mantle is a kind of a rogue. sent11: there exists something such that it dishonors Natal. sent12: that something is a phenomenology that is not a knobble is wrong if it does not tool. sent13: that either the cheeseboard does not pumice or it is not a Martian or both does not hold. sent14: that the Mantle is not a legatee or not extroversive or both is not true. sent15: that the surrey is not a phenomenology or it is not a knobble or both is not true if something dishonors Natal. sent16: there exists something such that it is a kind of a rogue. | sent1: ¬(¬{B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent2: (x): ({E}x v {F}x) -> ¬{C}x sent3: (Ex): {EM}x sent4: ¬{C}{d} -> ({A}{c} & {B}{c}) sent5: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({A}{b} & {D}{b}) sent6: {B}{a} sent7: ¬({B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent8: (x): {A}x -> {B}{a} sent9: ¬(¬{C}{b} v ¬{B}{b}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent10: ¬(¬{A}{a} v {B}{a}) -> {D}{b} sent11: (Ex): {A}x sent12: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x) sent13: ¬(¬{ER}{jf} v ¬{GG}{jf}) sent14: ¬(¬{ID}{b} v ¬{CS}{b}) sent15: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}) sent16: (Ex): {D}x | [
"sent11 & sent15 -> int1: that the surrey is not a phenomenology and/or it is not a knobble is wrong.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent11 & sent15 -> int1: ¬(¬{B}{a} v ¬{C}{a}); sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | the Mantle is a rogue. | {D}{b} | [
"sent2 -> int2: if the parsonage tools and/or it is a fluorochrome it is not a kind of a knobble.;"
] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 13 | 0 | 13 | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the Mantle is not a kind of a rogue. ; $context$ = sent1: the Mantle is not a rogue if that either the surrey is not a phenomenology or it is not a knobble or both is wrong. sent2: if something is a tool and/or it is a kind of a fluorochrome it is not a knobble. sent3: there exists something such that that it does recoup Glengarry is true. sent4: if the parsonage is not a knobble the tatou dishonors Natal and is a phenomenology. sent5: the Mantle dishonors Natal and it is a rogue if there is something such that that it is not a phenomenology hold. sent6: the surrey is a phenomenology. sent7: the Mantle is not a rogue if the fact that the surrey is a phenomenology or is not a knobble or both is incorrect. sent8: the surrey is a phenomenology if there exists something such that it does dishonor Natal. sent9: the surrey is not a kind of a rogue if that the Mantle is not a knobble or it is not a phenomenology or both is incorrect. sent10: if that the surrey does not dishonor Natal or is a phenomenology or both is false the Mantle is a kind of a rogue. sent11: there exists something such that it dishonors Natal. sent12: that something is a phenomenology that is not a knobble is wrong if it does not tool. sent13: that either the cheeseboard does not pumice or it is not a Martian or both does not hold. sent14: that the Mantle is not a legatee or not extroversive or both is not true. sent15: that the surrey is not a phenomenology or it is not a knobble or both is not true if something dishonors Natal. sent16: there exists something such that it is a kind of a rogue. ; $proof$ = | sent11 & sent15 -> int1: that the surrey is not a phenomenology and/or it is not a knobble is wrong.; sent1 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the Amontillado is not a Papuan. | ¬{C}{c} | sent1: if the abuser is not a Papuan the biotin is a kind of a Becket that does not cane garnishee. sent2: if something is not a kind of a Rhus then that it is both a Papuan and incommensurate is not right. sent3: if the abuser is not non-Uniate but it is not boric the linsey-woolsey does cane garnishee. sent4: the Amontillado is not a Papuan if the linsey-woolsey does cane garnishee and it is a Becket. sent5: the abuser is Uniate and is not boric. sent6: the linsey-woolsey is not a labial if there exists something such that it is not a gradual. sent7: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a gradual. sent8: something is not a Rhus and does recoup blindfold if it is not a labial. sent9: the abuser is not non-Uniate. | sent1: ¬{C}{a} -> ({A}{if} & ¬{B}{if}) sent2: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬({C}x & {D}x) sent3: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent4: ({B}{b} & {A}{b}) -> ¬{C}{c} sent5: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent6: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬{G}{b} sent7: (Ex): ¬{H}x sent8: (x): ¬{G}x -> (¬{E}x & {F}x) sent9: {AA}{a} | [
"sent3 & sent5 -> int1: the linsey-woolsey does cane garnishee.;"
] | [
"sent3 & sent5 -> int1: {B}{b};"
] | the biotin does not cane garnishee. | ¬{B}{if} | [
"sent2 -> int2: if the linsey-woolsey is not a Rhus then the fact that it is both Papuan and incommensurate is not correct.; sent8 -> int3: the linsey-woolsey is not a Rhus and does recoup blindfold if it is not a labial.; sent7 & sent6 -> int4: the linsey-woolsey is not a kind of a labial.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the linsey-woolsey is not a Rhus and does recoup blindfold.; int5 -> int6: the linsey-woolsey is not a Rhus.; int2 & int6 -> int7: that the linsey-woolsey is a Papuan that is incommensurate does not hold.; int7 -> int8: there is something such that that it is Papuan and incommensurate is incorrect.;"
] | 8 | 3 | null | 6 | 0 | 6 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the Amontillado is not a Papuan. ; $context$ = sent1: if the abuser is not a Papuan the biotin is a kind of a Becket that does not cane garnishee. sent2: if something is not a kind of a Rhus then that it is both a Papuan and incommensurate is not right. sent3: if the abuser is not non-Uniate but it is not boric the linsey-woolsey does cane garnishee. sent4: the Amontillado is not a Papuan if the linsey-woolsey does cane garnishee and it is a Becket. sent5: the abuser is Uniate and is not boric. sent6: the linsey-woolsey is not a labial if there exists something such that it is not a gradual. sent7: there exists something such that it is not a kind of a gradual. sent8: something is not a Rhus and does recoup blindfold if it is not a labial. sent9: the abuser is not non-Uniate. ; $proof$ = | sent3 & sent5 -> int1: the linsey-woolsey does cane garnishee.; __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | the fact that the recouping Pinnotheridae does not occur but the rumination happens is false. | ¬(¬{C} & {B}) | sent1: if the building happens the fact that the dishonoring ichthyolatry happens but the pentathlon does not occur is incorrect. sent2: the avionicsness occurs. sent3: the rumination occurs if the fact that the dishonoring ichthyolatry happens and the pentathlon does not occur is false. sent4: the whirling does not occur. sent5: the caning dessiatine occurs. sent6: that the mercantileness but not the regression occurs is not correct. sent7: not the grounds but the caning tocainide happens. sent8: the caning micrometeorite occurs. sent9: not the wanton but the repercussion happens. sent10: if the commensalness occurs then that the vasectomy and the non-stereoscopicness happens is not correct. sent11: that the pain and the non-Fijianness happens is not correct if the temperateness happens. sent12: that the custom occurs is right. sent13: if the building does not occur that the fact that the recouping Pinnotheridae does not occur and the rumination occurs does not hold is true. sent14: if the fact that the recouping Pinnotheridae but not the rip occurs is not right then the fact that the recouping Pinnotheridae occurs is not right. sent15: the building occurs. sent16: if that the macrobioticness does not occur is false that the involution occurs but the reshipment does not occur is wrong. sent17: the paining does not occur. sent18: if the caning dessiatine does not occur the fact that the rip occurs and the building occurs is false. sent19: the chauffeur occurs. sent20: if the caning dessiatine occurs the fact that the recouping Pinnotheridae but not the ripping happens is wrong. | sent1: {A} -> ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent2: {EF} sent3: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent4: ¬{FS} sent5: {E} sent6: ¬({AE} & ¬{CU}) sent7: (¬{GT} & {GL}) sent8: {BK} sent9: (¬{HK} & {IH}) sent10: {BD} -> ¬({AP} & ¬{GK}) sent11: {JB} -> ¬({CD} & ¬{GP}) sent12: {CH} sent13: ¬{A} -> ¬(¬{C} & {B}) sent14: ¬({C} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{C} sent15: {A} sent16: {JF} -> ¬({AU} & ¬{BC}) sent17: ¬{CD} sent18: ¬{E} -> ¬({D} & {A}) sent19: {Q} sent20: {E} -> ¬({C} & ¬{D}) | [
"sent1 & sent15 -> int1: that the dishonoring ichthyolatry but not the pentathlon happens is false.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the rumination happens.; sent20 & sent5 -> int3: that the recouping Pinnotheridae but not the rip happens is false.; sent14 & int3 -> int4: the recouping Pinnotheridae does not occur.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent1 & sent15 -> int1: ¬({AA} & ¬{AB}); int1 & sent3 -> int2: {B}; sent20 & sent5 -> int3: ¬({C} & ¬{D}); sent14 & int3 -> int4: ¬{C}; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | the fact that the recouping Pinnotheridae does not occur but the rumination occurs is wrong. | ¬(¬{C} & {B}) | [] | 7 | 3 | 3 | 14 | 0 | 14 | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the recouping Pinnotheridae does not occur but the rumination happens is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if the building happens the fact that the dishonoring ichthyolatry happens but the pentathlon does not occur is incorrect. sent2: the avionicsness occurs. sent3: the rumination occurs if the fact that the dishonoring ichthyolatry happens and the pentathlon does not occur is false. sent4: the whirling does not occur. sent5: the caning dessiatine occurs. sent6: that the mercantileness but not the regression occurs is not correct. sent7: not the grounds but the caning tocainide happens. sent8: the caning micrometeorite occurs. sent9: not the wanton but the repercussion happens. sent10: if the commensalness occurs then that the vasectomy and the non-stereoscopicness happens is not correct. sent11: that the pain and the non-Fijianness happens is not correct if the temperateness happens. sent12: that the custom occurs is right. sent13: if the building does not occur that the fact that the recouping Pinnotheridae does not occur and the rumination occurs does not hold is true. sent14: if the fact that the recouping Pinnotheridae but not the rip occurs is not right then the fact that the recouping Pinnotheridae occurs is not right. sent15: the building occurs. sent16: if that the macrobioticness does not occur is false that the involution occurs but the reshipment does not occur is wrong. sent17: the paining does not occur. sent18: if the caning dessiatine does not occur the fact that the rip occurs and the building occurs is false. sent19: the chauffeur occurs. sent20: if the caning dessiatine occurs the fact that the recouping Pinnotheridae but not the ripping happens is wrong. ; $proof$ = | sent1 & sent15 -> int1: that the dishonoring ichthyolatry but not the pentathlon happens is false.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the rumination happens.; sent20 & sent5 -> int3: that the recouping Pinnotheridae but not the rip happens is false.; sent14 & int3 -> int4: the recouping Pinnotheridae does not occur.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | both the rasp and the bailment happens. | ({B} & {C}) | sent1: if that the flooding does not occur is not incorrect the bailment happens and the blog happens. sent2: if the geographicness occurs then the rasp occurs. sent3: the causing happens. sent4: the flooding does not occur. sent5: the outburst happens or the triumph happens or both. sent6: the blogging occurs. sent7: the dishonoring hollygrape happens. sent8: that the geographicness occurs and/or the paling happens is brought about by that the dishonoring L does not occur. sent9: the seeping happens. sent10: the consummating occurs. sent11: the supporting happens if the clericalness happens. sent12: the fact that the dishonoring L does not occur is not false. sent13: both the recouping fatigue and the palling happens. sent14: the blogging happens if the flooding does not occur. | sent1: ¬{E} -> ({C} & {D}) sent2: {AA} -> {B} sent3: {DM} sent4: ¬{E} sent5: ({GO} v {FG}) sent6: {D} sent7: {AU} sent8: ¬{A} -> ({AA} v {AB}) sent9: {AT} sent10: {GD} sent11: {EE} -> {DP} sent12: ¬{A} sent13: ({BA} & {IA}) sent14: ¬{E} -> {D} | [
"sent8 & sent12 -> int1: the geographicness occurs and/or the paling occurs.; sent1 & sent4 -> int2: both the bailment and the blogging occurs.; int2 -> int3: the bailment occurs.;"
] | [
"sent8 & sent12 -> int1: ({AA} v {AB}); sent1 & sent4 -> int2: ({C} & {D}); int2 -> int3: {C};"
] | that both the rasping and the bailment happens is not correct. | ¬({B} & {C}) | [
" -> hypothesis;"
] | 0 | 3 | null | 9 | 0 | 9 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = both the rasp and the bailment happens. ; $context$ = sent1: if that the flooding does not occur is not incorrect the bailment happens and the blog happens. sent2: if the geographicness occurs then the rasp occurs. sent3: the causing happens. sent4: the flooding does not occur. sent5: the outburst happens or the triumph happens or both. sent6: the blogging occurs. sent7: the dishonoring hollygrape happens. sent8: that the geographicness occurs and/or the paling happens is brought about by that the dishonoring L does not occur. sent9: the seeping happens. sent10: the consummating occurs. sent11: the supporting happens if the clericalness happens. sent12: the fact that the dishonoring L does not occur is not false. sent13: both the recouping fatigue and the palling happens. sent14: the blogging happens if the flooding does not occur. ; $proof$ = | sent8 & sent12 -> int1: the geographicness occurs and/or the paling occurs.; sent1 & sent4 -> int2: both the bailment and the blogging occurs.; int2 -> int3: the bailment occurs.; __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | the pike is not a genoise. | ¬{C}{c} | sent1: if something is a clientele then it is not a force and not a reign. sent2: there is nothing such that it is not a kind of a genoise and it is sulcate. sent3: that the die contemplates but it is not biosystematic does not hold. sent4: the pike is a kind of a genoise if the differentiator is nonsectarian. sent5: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a force and it is not a reign the differentiator is not sulcate. sent6: if the rice does dishonor Riesman then the fact that the differentiator canes nosebag and is not a kind of a rush-grass hold. sent7: if something does not dishonor Riesman it is a Rhus and it is not a rush-grass. sent8: the differentiator is not a rush-grass if the rice dishonors Riesman. sent9: if there is something such that the fact that it is not a genoise but sulcate is not true then that the rice is a kind of a genoise is not incorrect. sent10: The Riesman does dishonor rice. sent11: if the fact that the die contemplates but it is not biosystematic does not hold then it is a clientele. sent12: the rice does dishonor Riesman. sent13: the differentiator is nonsectarian if it canes nosebag and it is not a kind of a rush-grass. | sent1: (x): {G}x -> (¬{F}x & ¬{E}x) sent2: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & {D}x) sent3: ¬({I}{d} & ¬{H}{d}) sent4: {B}{b} -> {C}{c} sent5: (x): (¬{F}x & ¬{E}x) -> ¬{D}{b} sent6: {A}{a} -> ({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({O}x & ¬{AB}x) sent8: {A}{a} -> ¬{AB}{b} sent9: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & {D}x) -> {C}{a} sent10: {AC}{aa} sent11: ¬({I}{d} & ¬{H}{d}) -> {G}{d} sent12: {A}{a} sent13: ({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) -> {B}{b} | [
"sent6 & sent12 -> int1: the differentiator canes nosebag but it is not a rush-grass.; int1 & sent13 -> int2: the differentiator is nonsectarian.; int2 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent6 & sent12 -> int1: ({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}); int1 & sent13 -> int2: {B}{b}; int2 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | the pike is not a kind of a genoise. | ¬{C}{c} | [
"sent1 -> int3: the die is not a kind of a force and it does not reign if it is a clientele.; sent11 & sent3 -> int4: the die is a clientele.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the die does not force and it is not a reign.; int5 -> int6: something is not a force and it is not a reign.; int6 & sent5 -> int7: that the differentiator is not sulcate is not false.; int7 -> int8: there exists something such that it is not sulcate.;"
] | 8 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 0 | 9 | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the pike is not a genoise. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a clientele then it is not a force and not a reign. sent2: there is nothing such that it is not a kind of a genoise and it is sulcate. sent3: that the die contemplates but it is not biosystematic does not hold. sent4: the pike is a kind of a genoise if the differentiator is nonsectarian. sent5: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a force and it is not a reign the differentiator is not sulcate. sent6: if the rice does dishonor Riesman then the fact that the differentiator canes nosebag and is not a kind of a rush-grass hold. sent7: if something does not dishonor Riesman it is a Rhus and it is not a rush-grass. sent8: the differentiator is not a rush-grass if the rice dishonors Riesman. sent9: if there is something such that the fact that it is not a genoise but sulcate is not true then that the rice is a kind of a genoise is not incorrect. sent10: The Riesman does dishonor rice. sent11: if the fact that the die contemplates but it is not biosystematic does not hold then it is a clientele. sent12: the rice does dishonor Riesman. sent13: the differentiator is nonsectarian if it canes nosebag and it is not a kind of a rush-grass. ; $proof$ = | sent6 & sent12 -> int1: the differentiator canes nosebag but it is not a rush-grass.; int1 & sent13 -> int2: the differentiator is nonsectarian.; int2 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | that there is something such that if it canes chloroquine the fact that it is a kind of non-polymorphous thing that is a kind of a plum-yew does not hold is incorrect. | ¬((Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x)) | sent1: if something does cane chloroquine the fact that it is a kind of non-polymorphous a plum-yew does not hold. sent2: the serge is a kind of non-polymorphous a plum-yew if it canes chloroquine. sent3: something is not a kind of a Barbadian but it is a Ionian if it does impinge cracker. | sent1: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent2: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent3: (x): {HI}x -> (¬{AT}x & {BP}x) | [
"sent1 -> int1: that the serge is not polymorphous but it is a kind of a plum-yew is not true if it canes chloroquine.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent1 -> int1: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null | [] | null | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | DISPROVED | null | DISPROVED | null | $hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if it canes chloroquine the fact that it is a kind of non-polymorphous thing that is a kind of a plum-yew does not hold is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does cane chloroquine the fact that it is a kind of non-polymorphous a plum-yew does not hold. sent2: the serge is a kind of non-polymorphous a plum-yew if it canes chloroquine. sent3: something is not a kind of a Barbadian but it is a Ionian if it does impinge cracker. ; $proof$ = | sent1 -> int1: that the serge is not polymorphous but it is a kind of a plum-yew is not true if it canes chloroquine.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the fact that the isothiocyanate is a kind of a Nyala is not false. | {B}{a} | sent1: if the platen does not dishonor Desmodus then the fact that the fact that the linsey-woolsey is not a Nyala and it is not a mho is not true is not wrong. sent2: if the fact that something is a kind of a Cordylus that does mortar does not hold then it is not a mortar. sent3: if something does not mortar then it is macromolecular and it is a kind of a microbiologist. sent4: the isothiocyanate is a Nyala if the mincer is not ornithological. sent5: the isothiocyanate is not a Nyala if that the linsey-woolsey is both not a Nyala and not a mho is not right. sent6: something is ceramic and does not cane Woodhull if it is a kind of a microbiologist. sent7: that the plank is a Cordylus and it is a kind of a mortar does not hold. sent8: the mincer does not dishonor Desmodus but it is a mho. | sent1: ¬{A}{c} -> ¬(¬{B}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent2: (x): ¬({J}x & {H}x) -> ¬{H}x sent3: (x): ¬{H}x -> ({G}x & {F}x) sent4: ¬{AA}{aa} -> {B}{a} sent5: ¬(¬{B}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent6: (x): {F}x -> ({E}x & ¬{D}x) sent7: ¬({J}{d} & {H}{d}) sent8: (¬{A}{aa} & {C}{aa}) | [
"sent8 -> int1: the mincer does not dishonor Desmodus.;"
] | [
"sent8 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa};"
] | the isothiocyanate is not a Nyala. | ¬{B}{a} | [
"sent6 -> int2: if the plank is a microbiologist it is ceramic and it does not cane Woodhull.; sent3 -> int3: if the plank does not mortar then it is macromolecular and is a kind of a microbiologist.; sent2 -> int4: the plank is not a kind of a mortar if the fact that it is both a Cordylus and a mortar is false.; int4 & sent7 -> int5: the plank does not mortar.; int3 & int5 -> int6: the plank is a kind of macromolecular a microbiologist.; int6 -> int7: the plank is a microbiologist.; int2 & int7 -> int8: the plank is a ceramic and does not cane Woodhull.; int8 -> int9: there is something such that it is a ceramic and it does not cane Woodhull.;"
] | 9 | 4 | null | 6 | 0 | 6 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the isothiocyanate is a kind of a Nyala is not false. ; $context$ = sent1: if the platen does not dishonor Desmodus then the fact that the fact that the linsey-woolsey is not a Nyala and it is not a mho is not true is not wrong. sent2: if the fact that something is a kind of a Cordylus that does mortar does not hold then it is not a mortar. sent3: if something does not mortar then it is macromolecular and it is a kind of a microbiologist. sent4: the isothiocyanate is a Nyala if the mincer is not ornithological. sent5: the isothiocyanate is not a Nyala if that the linsey-woolsey is both not a Nyala and not a mho is not right. sent6: something is ceramic and does not cane Woodhull if it is a kind of a microbiologist. sent7: that the plank is a Cordylus and it is a kind of a mortar does not hold. sent8: the mincer does not dishonor Desmodus but it is a mho. ; $proof$ = | sent8 -> int1: the mincer does not dishonor Desmodus.; __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | that there is something such that if it is not a Daubentoniidae then it is a kind of non-obligatory thing that canes Megadermatidae is not right. | ¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x)) | sent1: there exists something such that if that it is not a Daubentoniidae is true then it is obligatory and does cane Megadermatidae. sent2: there is something such that if it is not a Daubentoniidae then it is not obligatory. sent3: something that is not a kind of a blessedness is not a blinker but a Derain. sent4: if the convector is a kind of a Daubentoniidae it is not obligatory and it canes Megadermatidae. sent5: if the convector is not a Daubentoniidae then it is obligatory and canes Megadermatidae. sent6: if the convector is not a Daubentoniidae then it canes Megadermatidae. sent7: there exists something such that if it does not recoup humbleness it does recognize and it is vigesimal. sent8: the convector is not obligatory and does cane Megadermatidae if it is not a kind of a Daubentoniidae. | sent1: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent2: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬{AA}x sent3: (x): ¬{IC}x -> (¬{AC}x & {DK}x) sent4: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent5: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent6: ¬{A}{aa} -> {AB}{aa} sent7: (Ex): ¬{EK}x -> ({AS}x & {FU}x) sent8: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) | [
"sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] | there exists something such that if it is not a blessedness it does not blinker and is a Derain. | (Ex): ¬{IC}x -> (¬{AC}x & {DK}x) | [
"sent3 -> int1: if the efferent is not a blessedness then it does not blinker and is a kind of a Derain.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 7 | DISPROVED | PROVED | DISPROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if it is not a Daubentoniidae then it is a kind of non-obligatory thing that canes Megadermatidae is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if that it is not a Daubentoniidae is true then it is obligatory and does cane Megadermatidae. sent2: there is something such that if it is not a Daubentoniidae then it is not obligatory. sent3: something that is not a kind of a blessedness is not a blinker but a Derain. sent4: if the convector is a kind of a Daubentoniidae it is not obligatory and it canes Megadermatidae. sent5: if the convector is not a Daubentoniidae then it is obligatory and canes Megadermatidae. sent6: if the convector is not a Daubentoniidae then it canes Megadermatidae. sent7: there exists something such that if it does not recoup humbleness it does recognize and it is vigesimal. sent8: the convector is not obligatory and does cane Megadermatidae if it is not a kind of a Daubentoniidae. ; $proof$ = | sent8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the fact that the Curl does not cane abrader and is not a sketcher does not hold. | ¬(¬{C}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) | sent1: everything canes ICAO or it is inconspicuous or both. sent2: the fact that something is a Palestinian that does not cane abrader if it dishonors born is not incorrect. sent3: there is something such that that it does not deviate and it is sacramental is false. sent4: if there exists something such that that it is not a sketcher hold then the Curl is not a Palestinian and does not cane abrader. sent5: if there exists something such that that it does not deviate and is sacramental does not hold the surpriser is not Palestinian. sent6: the pull-in does excrete. sent7: that the juxtaposition is not a color is not false if the Sioux canes hogshead and is not color. sent8: something bereaves but it does not dishonor unexpectedness if it impinges Spassky. sent9: if something is Palestinian and does not cane abrader then the nitrochloromethane is not a sketcher. sent10: the Curl impinges Spassky if there exists something such that that it is not a harlequin and it is not reptilian is incorrect. sent11: the trout canes trout if the comforter is inconspicuous. sent12: the Spark does not cane trout if the trout does cane trout and is an infliction. sent13: the Curl does not cane abrader and is not a sketcher if there is something such that it is not a kind of a Palestinian. sent14: that the juxtaposition is not a harlequin and not reptilian is not correct if it does not color. sent15: if the comforter does cane ICAO the trout canes trout. sent16: if the Spark does not cane trout the Sioux does cane hogshead and is not a color. sent17: if the pull-in excretes then the trout is an infliction. | sent1: (x): ({P}x v {O}x) sent2: (x): {D}x -> ({A}x & ¬{C}x) sent3: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent4: (x): ¬{B}x -> (¬{A}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent5: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent6: {M}{g} sent7: ({K}{d} & ¬{J}{d}) -> ¬{J}{c} sent8: (x): {G}x -> ({E}x & ¬{F}x) sent9: (x): ({A}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{B}{db} sent10: (x): ¬(¬{H}x & ¬{I}x) -> {G}{b} sent11: {O}{h} -> {L}{f} sent12: ({L}{f} & {N}{f}) -> ¬{L}{e} sent13: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{C}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent14: ¬{J}{c} -> ¬(¬{H}{c} & ¬{I}{c}) sent15: {P}{h} -> {L}{f} sent16: ¬{L}{e} -> ({K}{d} & ¬{J}{d}) sent17: {M}{g} -> {N}{f} | [
"sent3 & sent5 -> int1: the surpriser is not a Palestinian.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that it is not a Palestinian.; int2 & sent13 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent3 & sent5 -> int1: ¬{A}{a}; int1 -> int2: (Ex): ¬{A}x; int2 & sent13 -> hypothesis;"
] | the nitrochloromethane is not a sketcher. | ¬{B}{db} | [
"sent2 -> int3: if the surpriser dishonors born then it is Palestinian thing that does not cane abrader.; sent8 -> int4: the Curl does bereave but it does not dishonor unexpectedness if it impinges Spassky.; sent1 -> int5: the comforter does cane ICAO and/or it is inconspicuous.; int5 & sent15 & sent11 -> int6: the trout canes trout.; sent17 & sent6 -> int7: the trout is a kind of an infliction.; int6 & int7 -> int8: the trout canes trout and it is an infliction.; sent12 & int8 -> int9: the Spark does not cane trout.; sent16 & int9 -> int10: the Sioux canes hogshead and is not a color.; sent7 & int10 -> int11: the juxtaposition is not a color.; sent14 & int11 -> int12: the fact that the juxtaposition is both not a harlequin and not reptilian is false.; int12 -> int13: there exists something such that that it is not a harlequin and it is not reptilian is wrong.; int13 & sent10 -> int14: the Curl does impinge Spassky.; int4 & int14 -> int15: the Curl bereaves and does not dishonor unexpectedness.; int15 -> int16: something does bereave but it does not dishonor unexpectedness.;"
] | 15 | 3 | 3 | 14 | 0 | 14 | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the Curl does not cane abrader and is not a sketcher does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: everything canes ICAO or it is inconspicuous or both. sent2: the fact that something is a Palestinian that does not cane abrader if it dishonors born is not incorrect. sent3: there is something such that that it does not deviate and it is sacramental is false. sent4: if there exists something such that that it is not a sketcher hold then the Curl is not a Palestinian and does not cane abrader. sent5: if there exists something such that that it does not deviate and is sacramental does not hold the surpriser is not Palestinian. sent6: the pull-in does excrete. sent7: that the juxtaposition is not a color is not false if the Sioux canes hogshead and is not color. sent8: something bereaves but it does not dishonor unexpectedness if it impinges Spassky. sent9: if something is Palestinian and does not cane abrader then the nitrochloromethane is not a sketcher. sent10: the Curl impinges Spassky if there exists something such that that it is not a harlequin and it is not reptilian is incorrect. sent11: the trout canes trout if the comforter is inconspicuous. sent12: the Spark does not cane trout if the trout does cane trout and is an infliction. sent13: the Curl does not cane abrader and is not a sketcher if there is something such that it is not a kind of a Palestinian. sent14: that the juxtaposition is not a harlequin and not reptilian is not correct if it does not color. sent15: if the comforter does cane ICAO the trout canes trout. sent16: if the Spark does not cane trout the Sioux does cane hogshead and is not a color. sent17: if the pull-in excretes then the trout is an infliction. ; $proof$ = | sent3 & sent5 -> int1: the surpriser is not a Palestinian.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that it is not a Palestinian.; int2 & sent13 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the recouping balanced does not occur. | ¬{A} | sent1: the kind occurs. sent2: the caning anthozoan does not occur. sent3: the twilight occurs. sent4: if the fact that both the caning ectoproct and the remonstrating occurs does not hold then the remonstrating does not occur. sent5: that the recouping balanced occurs is triggered by that the hem does not occur but the regicide occurs. sent6: the providence occurs. sent7: the Waterloo happens. sent8: the imperceptibleness does not occur. sent9: that the picketing does not occur and the Indonesian happens is triggered by that the remonstrating does not occur. sent10: the irradiation does not occur. sent11: that the mishap does not occur is not wrong. sent12: the recouping balanced prevents that the regicide does not occur. sent13: that both the caning ectoproct and the remonstrating happens does not hold if the dishonoring Maxostoma does not occur. sent14: the caning Sawan happens if the imperceptibleness does not occur. sent15: that the jihadiness happens if that the contour happens hold hold. sent16: that the hem occurs and the caning Sawan occurs is caused by that the imperceptibleness does not occur. sent17: the babel does not occur. sent18: the pronouncing and the courteousness happens. sent19: the caning Sawan happens. sent20: the caning Sawan occurs and the imperceptibleness occurs if the picket does not occur. sent21: that the impinging usufruct is brought about by that the caning Sinbad does not occur is not incorrect. sent22: that the dishonoring Maxostoma happens is prevented by that the caning L happens or the dehiscence or both. | sent1: {BA} sent2: ¬{DJ} sent3: {FM} sent4: ¬({J} & {H}) -> ¬{H} sent5: (¬{C} & {B}) -> {A} sent6: {DI} sent7: {AQ} sent8: ¬{E} sent9: ¬{H} -> (¬{F} & {G}) sent10: ¬{FD} sent11: ¬{AB} sent12: {A} -> {B} sent13: ¬{I} -> ¬({J} & {H}) sent14: ¬{E} -> {D} sent15: {GM} -> {HE} sent16: ¬{E} -> ({C} & {D}) sent17: ¬{AJ} sent18: ({IT} & {AP}) sent19: {D} sent20: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) sent21: ¬{IN} -> {EE} sent22: ({L} v {K}) -> ¬{I} | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the recouping balanced occurs.; sent12 & assump1 -> int1: that the regicide occurs is not wrong.; sent16 & sent8 -> int2: the hemming happens and the caning Sawan happens.; int2 -> int3: the fact that the hemming does not occur is not true.;"
] | [
"void -> assump1: {A}; sent12 & assump1 -> int1: {B}; sent16 & sent8 -> int2: ({C} & {D}); int2 -> int3: {C};"
] | the recouping balanced occurs. | {A} | [] | 11 | 4 | null | 19 | 0 | 19 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the recouping balanced does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the kind occurs. sent2: the caning anthozoan does not occur. sent3: the twilight occurs. sent4: if the fact that both the caning ectoproct and the remonstrating occurs does not hold then the remonstrating does not occur. sent5: that the recouping balanced occurs is triggered by that the hem does not occur but the regicide occurs. sent6: the providence occurs. sent7: the Waterloo happens. sent8: the imperceptibleness does not occur. sent9: that the picketing does not occur and the Indonesian happens is triggered by that the remonstrating does not occur. sent10: the irradiation does not occur. sent11: that the mishap does not occur is not wrong. sent12: the recouping balanced prevents that the regicide does not occur. sent13: that both the caning ectoproct and the remonstrating happens does not hold if the dishonoring Maxostoma does not occur. sent14: the caning Sawan happens if the imperceptibleness does not occur. sent15: that the jihadiness happens if that the contour happens hold hold. sent16: that the hem occurs and the caning Sawan occurs is caused by that the imperceptibleness does not occur. sent17: the babel does not occur. sent18: the pronouncing and the courteousness happens. sent19: the caning Sawan happens. sent20: the caning Sawan occurs and the imperceptibleness occurs if the picket does not occur. sent21: that the impinging usufruct is brought about by that the caning Sinbad does not occur is not incorrect. sent22: that the dishonoring Maxostoma happens is prevented by that the caning L happens or the dehiscence or both. ; $proof$ = | void -> assump1: Let's assume that the recouping balanced occurs.; sent12 & assump1 -> int1: that the regicide occurs is not wrong.; sent16 & sent8 -> int2: the hemming happens and the caning Sawan happens.; int2 -> int3: the fact that the hemming does not occur is not true.; __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | there is something such that if it does not snivel then it does dishonor Juggernaut and/or does not cane Punjabi. | (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) | sent1: the saucer is voluntary and/or does not recoup refrigerator if it is not uncousinly. sent2: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a snivel is right it does dishonor Juggernaut or it does cane Punjabi or both. sent3: if the saucer is a snivel it does dishonor Juggernaut and/or does not cane Punjabi. sent4: the Punjabi is a kind of a fiefdom and/or it is not offing if it does not dishonor Juggernaut. sent5: the saucer dishonors Juggernaut and/or it does not cane Punjabi if it does not snivel. sent6: there exists something such that if it does snivel either it does dishonor Juggernaut or it does not cane Punjabi or both. sent7: there exists something such that if it does not recoup refrigerator then it does cane zap or is not undomestic or both. sent8: there is something such that if the fact that it does not dishonor vegetarianism is not incorrect it knots or it does not dishonor Oxandra or both. sent9: something dishonors microeconomist and/or is not a kind of a arsenical if it does not dishonor mallee. sent10: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a adrenarche then it does cane curved and/or it is not alchemic. sent11: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a uppercut it is a fitting or does not cane legislation or both. sent12: the saucer does dishonor Juggernaut or it canes Punjabi or both if it is not a kind of a snivel. sent13: there is something such that if it is not a sigmoidectomy the fact that it is a kind of a controllership and/or is not remediable is not wrong. | sent1: ¬{II}{aa} -> ({AM}{aa} v ¬{DJ}{aa}) sent2: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x v {AB}x) sent3: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent4: ¬{AA}{ar} -> ({IB}{ar} v ¬{GM}{ar}) sent5: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent6: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent7: (Ex): ¬{DJ}x -> ({AT}x v ¬{BO}x) sent8: (Ex): ¬{AR}x -> ({EP}x v ¬{U}x) sent9: (x): ¬{BF}x -> ({DK}x v ¬{EO}x) sent10: (Ex): ¬{BS}x -> ({FF}x v ¬{EN}x) sent11: (Ex): ¬{FR}x -> ({FD}x v ¬{GB}x) sent12: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent13: (Ex): ¬{CF}x -> ({IJ}x v ¬{H}x) | [
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | there is something such that if it does not dishonor mallee it dishonors microeconomist or it is not arsenical or both. | (Ex): ¬{BF}x -> ({DK}x v ¬{EO}x) | [
"sent9 -> int1: the ermine either dishonors microeconomist or is not a arsenical or both if it does not dishonor mallee.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 0 | 12 | PROVED | PROVED | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it does not snivel then it does dishonor Juggernaut and/or does not cane Punjabi. ; $context$ = sent1: the saucer is voluntary and/or does not recoup refrigerator if it is not uncousinly. sent2: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a snivel is right it does dishonor Juggernaut or it does cane Punjabi or both. sent3: if the saucer is a snivel it does dishonor Juggernaut and/or does not cane Punjabi. sent4: the Punjabi is a kind of a fiefdom and/or it is not offing if it does not dishonor Juggernaut. sent5: the saucer dishonors Juggernaut and/or it does not cane Punjabi if it does not snivel. sent6: there exists something such that if it does snivel either it does dishonor Juggernaut or it does not cane Punjabi or both. sent7: there exists something such that if it does not recoup refrigerator then it does cane zap or is not undomestic or both. sent8: there is something such that if the fact that it does not dishonor vegetarianism is not incorrect it knots or it does not dishonor Oxandra or both. sent9: something dishonors microeconomist and/or is not a kind of a arsenical if it does not dishonor mallee. sent10: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a adrenarche then it does cane curved and/or it is not alchemic. sent11: there is something such that if it is not a kind of a uppercut it is a fitting or does not cane legislation or both. sent12: the saucer does dishonor Juggernaut or it canes Punjabi or both if it is not a kind of a snivel. sent13: there is something such that if it is not a sigmoidectomy the fact that it is a kind of a controllership and/or is not remediable is not wrong. ; $proof$ = | sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | there is something such that if it is not a naturalization the fact that it is a piping and a strophanthus is not correct. | (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) | sent1: the fact that something is Galilean a naturalization does not hold if it is not a frequency. sent2: if something is not a kind of a naturalization then it is a piping and it is a strophanthus. | sent1: (x): ¬{T}x -> ¬({FU}x & {A}x) sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) | [] | [] | if the blizzard is not a frequency that it is Galilean and is a kind of a naturalization is not right. | ¬{T}{aa} -> ¬({FU}{aa} & {A}{aa}) | [
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 2 | null | 2 | 0 | 2 | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is not a naturalization the fact that it is a piping and a strophanthus is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is Galilean a naturalization does not hold if it is not a frequency. sent2: if something is not a kind of a naturalization then it is a piping and it is a strophanthus. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | the repulsion mistakes. | {C}{a} | sent1: if something dishonors accountantship it haunts. sent2: the repulsion is not stearic if it is not aphaeretic and not unidentifiable. sent3: that something does dishonor accountantship is not incorrect if it does dishonor straddle. sent4: if the sandboy is pietistic then the rig is stearic. sent5: the pip mistakes. sent6: the repulsion does mistake but it is not a haunted if that it is not stearic is not incorrect. sent7: something is pietistic if that it does cane ichthyolatry is correct. sent8: the rig dishonors straddle and is not Uzbekistani if the Harpy is an announcer. sent9: if the rig is stearic and is a kind of a haunted then the repulsion is not a mistake. sent10: if the repulsion is non-stearic thing that is not a haunted then the fact that the flashflood is not unidentifiable is not incorrect. sent11: the cheerleader is not a decile. sent12: the repulsion is non-aphaeretic thing that is not unidentifiable. sent13: the sandboy canes ichthyolatry and it does stampede if the filibuster does not dishonor slingback. sent14: if the cheerleader is not a decile then the filibuster does not dishonor slingback. | sent1: (x): {D}x -> {A}x sent2: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent3: (x): {G}x -> {D}x sent4: {E}{c} -> {B}{b} sent5: {C}{ji} sent6: ¬{B}{a} -> ({C}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent7: (x): {F}x -> {E}x sent8: {K}{e} -> ({G}{b} & ¬{I}{b}) sent9: ({B}{b} & {A}{b}) -> ¬{C}{a} sent10: (¬{B}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) -> ¬{AB}{gu} sent11: ¬{L}{f} sent12: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent13: ¬{J}{d} -> ({F}{c} & {H}{c}) sent14: ¬{L}{f} -> ¬{J}{d} | [
"sent2 & sent12 -> int1: the repulsion is not stearic.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the repulsion is a mistake but it is not a haunted.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent2 & sent12 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; int1 & sent6 -> int2: ({C}{a} & ¬{A}{a}); int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | the fact that the repulsion is not a mistake is true. | ¬{C}{a} | [
"sent7 -> int3: the sandboy is pietistic if it canes ichthyolatry.; sent14 & sent11 -> int4: the filibuster does not dishonor slingback.; sent13 & int4 -> int5: the sandboy does cane ichthyolatry and it is a kind of a stampede.; int5 -> int6: the sandboy does cane ichthyolatry.; int3 & int6 -> int7: the sandboy is pietistic.; sent4 & int7 -> int8: the rig is stearic.; sent1 -> int9: if the rig does dishonor accountantship then it is a haunted.; sent3 -> int10: if the rig dishonors straddle that it does dishonor accountantship is right.;"
] | 7 | 3 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 11 | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the repulsion mistakes. ; $context$ = sent1: if something dishonors accountantship it haunts. sent2: the repulsion is not stearic if it is not aphaeretic and not unidentifiable. sent3: that something does dishonor accountantship is not incorrect if it does dishonor straddle. sent4: if the sandboy is pietistic then the rig is stearic. sent5: the pip mistakes. sent6: the repulsion does mistake but it is not a haunted if that it is not stearic is not incorrect. sent7: something is pietistic if that it does cane ichthyolatry is correct. sent8: the rig dishonors straddle and is not Uzbekistani if the Harpy is an announcer. sent9: if the rig is stearic and is a kind of a haunted then the repulsion is not a mistake. sent10: if the repulsion is non-stearic thing that is not a haunted then the fact that the flashflood is not unidentifiable is not incorrect. sent11: the cheerleader is not a decile. sent12: the repulsion is non-aphaeretic thing that is not unidentifiable. sent13: the sandboy canes ichthyolatry and it does stampede if the filibuster does not dishonor slingback. sent14: if the cheerleader is not a decile then the filibuster does not dishonor slingback. ; $proof$ = | sent2 & sent12 -> int1: the repulsion is not stearic.; int1 & sent6 -> int2: the repulsion is a mistake but it is not a haunted.; int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the skivvy is not a mudskipper but it is a kind of a variable. | (¬{A}{b} & {D}{b}) | sent1: the clumber does dishonor Westernization. sent2: the skivvy is not a kind of a mudskipper but it is a variable if the clumber is not a mudskipper. sent3: the skivvy is a homosexual. sent4: the bowfin is not a kind of a mudskipper. sent5: the diaphoretic is not a mudskipper. sent6: the clumber does dishonor diaphoretic if it is a kind of a mudskipper. sent7: the skivvy does not dishonor diaphoretic if the clumber is a seriema. sent8: the clumber is a kind of a variable. sent9: the clumber is not a variable if the skivvy is not a variable. sent10: that the blackberry does not dishonor diaphoretic is correct. sent11: the chloroform is a seriema. sent12: the skivvy does vroom. sent13: that the skivvy does not dishonor diaphoretic hold. sent14: the skivvy is not a ergotamine. sent15: the clumber is both anamorphic and not a coo. | sent1: {DJ}{a} sent2: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{A}{b} & {D}{b}) sent3: {BS}{b} sent4: ¬{A}{co} sent5: ¬{A}{em} sent6: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent7: {C}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent8: {D}{a} sent9: ¬{D}{b} -> ¬{D}{a} sent10: ¬{B}{ck} sent11: {C}{ac} sent12: {BF}{b} sent13: ¬{B}{b} sent14: ¬{IH}{b} sent15: ({HP}{a} & ¬{JD}{a}) | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the clumber is a mudskipper.; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: the clumber dishonors diaphoretic.;"
] | [
"void -> assump1: {A}{a}; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: {B}{a};"
] | the fact that the skivvy is both not a mudskipper and not invariable is false. | ¬(¬{A}{b} & {D}{b}) | [] | 4 | 4 | null | 13 | 0 | 13 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the skivvy is not a mudskipper but it is a kind of a variable. ; $context$ = sent1: the clumber does dishonor Westernization. sent2: the skivvy is not a kind of a mudskipper but it is a variable if the clumber is not a mudskipper. sent3: the skivvy is a homosexual. sent4: the bowfin is not a kind of a mudskipper. sent5: the diaphoretic is not a mudskipper. sent6: the clumber does dishonor diaphoretic if it is a kind of a mudskipper. sent7: the skivvy does not dishonor diaphoretic if the clumber is a seriema. sent8: the clumber is a kind of a variable. sent9: the clumber is not a variable if the skivvy is not a variable. sent10: that the blackberry does not dishonor diaphoretic is correct. sent11: the chloroform is a seriema. sent12: the skivvy does vroom. sent13: that the skivvy does not dishonor diaphoretic hold. sent14: the skivvy is not a ergotamine. sent15: the clumber is both anamorphic and not a coo. ; $proof$ = | void -> assump1: Let's assume that the clumber is a mudskipper.; sent6 & assump1 -> int1: the clumber dishonors diaphoretic.; __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | there is something such that if it does not cane fine then the fact that it is extroversive and does pullulate is not true. | (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) | sent1: that the doe is extroversive and it does pullulate is not true if it does cane fine. sent2: something dishonors jammer and it is a headrest if that it is not a kind of a Service hold. sent3: there is something such that if that it dishonors anopheline is not incorrect that it is a kind of a gantry and it is shy is incorrect. sent4: if something does not cane fine it is extroversive and it does pullulate. sent5: that something is extroversive and it does pullulate is incorrect if it canes fine. sent6: there exists something such that if it does cane fine the fact that it is extroversive and it does pullulate is not true. | sent1: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent2: (x): ¬{BG}x -> ({AD}x & {GK}x) sent3: (Ex): {CS}x -> ¬({DL}x & {HA}x) sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent5: (x): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent6: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) | [] | [] | null | null | [] | null | 2 | null | 6 | 0 | 6 | UNKNOWN | null | UNKNOWN | null | $hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it does not cane fine then the fact that it is extroversive and does pullulate is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: that the doe is extroversive and it does pullulate is not true if it does cane fine. sent2: something dishonors jammer and it is a headrest if that it is not a kind of a Service hold. sent3: there is something such that if that it dishonors anopheline is not incorrect that it is a kind of a gantry and it is shy is incorrect. sent4: if something does not cane fine it is extroversive and it does pullulate. sent5: that something is extroversive and it does pullulate is incorrect if it canes fine. sent6: there exists something such that if it does cane fine the fact that it is extroversive and it does pullulate is not true. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | there exists something such that it is not a Yazoo but a Clemenceau. | (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) | sent1: the tunaburger is not a Clemenceau and is a gruel. sent2: if something is bibbed then that it is a kind of a Slovenian that is a inoculator does not hold. sent3: the relaxant is not a Clemenceau but it is a Yazoo if the alder is not a inoculator. sent4: there is something such that it does cane gyrostabilizer. sent5: there exists something such that it is bumpy. sent6: the relaxant is not a inoculator. sent7: there is something such that it is a inoculator. sent8: the alder is a kind of a Clemenceau. sent9: the alder is a inoculator if the relaxant is not a Yazoo. sent10: the relaxant is not a Yazoo. sent11: something is not a kind of a inoculator if the fact that it is a kind of a Slovenian and it is a kind of a inoculator does not hold. sent12: there exists something such that it is a kind of a Yazoo that is a Clemenceau. sent13: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a Yazoo is right. | sent1: (¬{AB}{ic} & {AF}{ic}) sent2: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({B}x & {A}x) sent3: ¬{A}{b} -> (¬{AB}{a} & {AA}{a}) sent4: (Ex): {GA}x sent5: (Ex): {GF}x sent6: ¬{A}{a} sent7: (Ex): {A}x sent8: {AB}{b} sent9: ¬{AA}{a} -> {A}{b} sent10: ¬{AA}{a} sent11: (x): ¬({B}x & {A}x) -> ¬{A}x sent12: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent13: (Ex): ¬{AA}x | [] | [] | the fohn is not a inoculator. | ¬{A}{da} | [
"sent11 -> int1: the fohn is not a inoculator if that the fact that it is a kind of Slovenian thing that is a inoculator is not false is false.; sent2 -> int2: that the fohn is a Slovenian and it is a inoculator is not true if it is not bibless.;"
] | 5 | 2 | null | 12 | 0 | 12 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = there exists something such that it is not a Yazoo but a Clemenceau. ; $context$ = sent1: the tunaburger is not a Clemenceau and is a gruel. sent2: if something is bibbed then that it is a kind of a Slovenian that is a inoculator does not hold. sent3: the relaxant is not a Clemenceau but it is a Yazoo if the alder is not a inoculator. sent4: there is something such that it does cane gyrostabilizer. sent5: there exists something such that it is bumpy. sent6: the relaxant is not a inoculator. sent7: there is something such that it is a inoculator. sent8: the alder is a kind of a Clemenceau. sent9: the alder is a inoculator if the relaxant is not a Yazoo. sent10: the relaxant is not a Yazoo. sent11: something is not a kind of a inoculator if the fact that it is a kind of a Slovenian and it is a kind of a inoculator does not hold. sent12: there exists something such that it is a kind of a Yazoo that is a Clemenceau. sent13: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a Yazoo is right. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | that the lanternfish is not a lamedh but it recoups yellowcake is not true. | ¬(¬{A}{aa} & {C}{aa}) | sent1: if that something does not recoup HUD but it does slight is not true it does not dishonor tryst. sent2: there exists something such that it does not slight. sent3: if something does not slight that the lanternfish does not recoup HUD and slight is false. sent4: if something either dishonors tryst or is a kind of a lamedh or both then it is not anthracitic. sent5: something recoups yellowcake if it does not dishonor tryst. sent6: something is not a lamedh and recoups yellowcake if it does not dishonor tryst. sent7: there exists something such that it slights. sent8: the Loafer does not recoup yellowcake if it is a bruin. | sent1: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent2: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent3: (x): ¬{AB}x -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent4: (x): ({B}x v {A}x) -> ¬{HE}x sent5: (x): ¬{B}x -> {C}x sent6: (x): ¬{B}x -> (¬{A}x & {C}x) sent7: (Ex): {AB}x sent8: {BH}{im} -> ¬{C}{im} | [
"sent1 -> int1: the lanternfish does not dishonor tryst if that it does not recoup HUD and it does slight is false.; sent2 & sent3 -> int2: the fact that the lanternfish does not recoup HUD but it slights does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the lanternfish does not dishonor tryst.; sent6 -> int4: if that the lanternfish does not dishonor tryst is not incorrect it is not a lamedh and does recoup yellowcake.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent1 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; sent2 & sent3 -> int2: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬{B}{aa}; sent6 -> int4: ¬{B}{aa} -> (¬{A}{aa} & {C}{aa}); int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | that the matting is not anthracitic is right. | ¬{HE}{f} | [
"sent4 -> int5: if the matting does dishonor tryst and/or it is a lamedh then it is not anthracitic.;"
] | 5 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 4 | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = that the lanternfish is not a lamedh but it recoups yellowcake is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something does not recoup HUD but it does slight is not true it does not dishonor tryst. sent2: there exists something such that it does not slight. sent3: if something does not slight that the lanternfish does not recoup HUD and slight is false. sent4: if something either dishonors tryst or is a kind of a lamedh or both then it is not anthracitic. sent5: something recoups yellowcake if it does not dishonor tryst. sent6: something is not a lamedh and recoups yellowcake if it does not dishonor tryst. sent7: there exists something such that it slights. sent8: the Loafer does not recoup yellowcake if it is a bruin. ; $proof$ = | sent1 -> int1: the lanternfish does not dishonor tryst if that it does not recoup HUD and it does slight is false.; sent2 & sent3 -> int2: the fact that the lanternfish does not recoup HUD but it slights does not hold.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the lanternfish does not dishonor tryst.; sent6 -> int4: if that the lanternfish does not dishonor tryst is not incorrect it is not a lamedh and does recoup yellowcake.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | that that the punctuation does not occur or the impinging cheeseboard occurs or both does not hold hold. | ¬(¬{AA} v {AB}) | sent1: if the cover does not occur then the chap occurs and the caning gloom occurs. sent2: that the caning gloom happens is prevented by that the punctuation does not occur. sent3: the punctuation happens. sent4: either the punctuation occurs or the impinging cheeseboard occurs or both. sent5: if the fact that both the informalness and the crocheting occurs is not false the covering does not occur. sent6: that the chap does not occur and/or that the caning gloom happens results in that the dishonoring gloom does not occur. sent7: that the caning gloom occurs and the chap happens is not wrong. sent8: that the punctuation does not occur and/or the impinging cheeseboard prevents that the caning gloom happens. sent9: the impinging groundhog does not occur. | sent1: ¬{C} -> ({A} & {B}) sent2: ¬{AA} -> ¬{B} sent3: {AA} sent4: ({AA} v {AB}) sent5: ({D} & {E}) -> ¬{C} sent6: (¬{A} v {B}) -> ¬{DU} sent7: ({B} & {A}) sent8: (¬{AA} v {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent9: ¬{HE} | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the punctuation does not occur or the impinging cheeseboard happens or both.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: the caning gloom does not occur.; sent7 -> int2: the caning gloom occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"void -> assump1: (¬{AA} v {AB}); sent8 & assump1 -> int1: ¬{B}; sent7 -> int2: {B}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | the punctuation does not occur or the impinging cheeseboard happens or both. | (¬{AA} v {AB}) | [] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 7 | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = that that the punctuation does not occur or the impinging cheeseboard occurs or both does not hold hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the cover does not occur then the chap occurs and the caning gloom occurs. sent2: that the caning gloom happens is prevented by that the punctuation does not occur. sent3: the punctuation happens. sent4: either the punctuation occurs or the impinging cheeseboard occurs or both. sent5: if the fact that both the informalness and the crocheting occurs is not false the covering does not occur. sent6: that the chap does not occur and/or that the caning gloom happens results in that the dishonoring gloom does not occur. sent7: that the caning gloom occurs and the chap happens is not wrong. sent8: that the punctuation does not occur and/or the impinging cheeseboard prevents that the caning gloom happens. sent9: the impinging groundhog does not occur. ; $proof$ = | void -> assump1: Let's assume that the punctuation does not occur or the impinging cheeseboard happens or both.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: the caning gloom does not occur.; sent7 -> int2: the caning gloom occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the Thai does not occur. | ¬{D} | sent1: the seeping happens and the caravanning occurs. sent2: the fact that not the caning gearshift but the caravanning occurs hold if the seeping does not occur. sent3: that both the Thainess and the caning chimera occurs is brought about by that the caning gearshift does not occur. sent4: if the categorialness does not occur then the misappropriation but not the bombardment occurs. sent5: the boast occurs. sent6: the signal does not occur if the conditioner does not occur but the titration occurs. sent7: the catheterization brings about that the tattooing does not occur and the cockneiness does not occur. sent8: the catheterization occurs if the fact that the catheterization does not occur and the vestiariness does not occur is not true. sent9: both the caning Cuzco and the saddle happens. sent10: if both the tattoo and the resistiveness occurs then the geocentricness does not occur. sent11: both the caning chimera and the caning gearshift happens. sent12: both the basilicanness and the homestretch happens. sent13: that both the igneousness and the anthropologicalness occurs brings about that the reconcilableness does not occur. sent14: the non-categorialness is caused by that the tattoo does not occur and the cockney does not occur. sent15: the fact that the seeping occurs and the caning sustainability does not occur is not true if the disciplinariness happens. sent16: that both the creedalness and the disciplinariness occurs is caused by that the signal does not occur. sent17: if the fact that the seeping but not the caning sustainability happens is false the seeping does not occur. sent18: the one-and-one happens. sent19: the seeping occurs. sent20: the non-Thainess is triggered by that the caning chimera and the caravanning occurs. sent21: if the misappropriation occurs then not the conditioner but the titration occurs. sent22: the thoughtlessness does not occur. | sent1: ({E} & {C}) sent2: ¬{E} -> (¬{B} & {C}) sent3: ¬{B} -> ({D} & {A}) sent4: ¬{N} -> ({L} & ¬{M}) sent5: {DH} sent6: (¬{K} & {J}) -> ¬{I} sent7: {Q} -> (¬{P} & ¬{O}) sent8: ¬(¬{Q} & ¬{S}) -> {Q} sent9: ({AA} & {CQ}) sent10: ({P} & {BF}) -> ¬{FL} sent11: ({A} & {B}) sent12: ({IQ} & {GT}) sent13: ({CE} & {HS}) -> ¬{AP} sent14: (¬{P} & ¬{O}) -> ¬{N} sent15: {G} -> ¬({E} & ¬{F}) sent16: ¬{I} -> ({H} & {G}) sent17: ¬({E} & ¬{F}) -> ¬{E} sent18: {CD} sent19: {E} sent20: ({A} & {C}) -> ¬{D} sent21: {L} -> (¬{K} & {J}) sent22: ¬{GO} | [
"sent11 -> int1: the caning chimera happens.; sent1 -> int2: the caravanning happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the caning chimera and the caravanning occurs.; int3 & sent20 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent11 -> int1: {A}; sent1 -> int2: {C}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({A} & {C}); int3 & sent20 -> hypothesis;"
] | the Thai happens. | {D} | [] | 16 | 3 | 3 | 19 | 0 | 19 | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the Thai does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the seeping happens and the caravanning occurs. sent2: the fact that not the caning gearshift but the caravanning occurs hold if the seeping does not occur. sent3: that both the Thainess and the caning chimera occurs is brought about by that the caning gearshift does not occur. sent4: if the categorialness does not occur then the misappropriation but not the bombardment occurs. sent5: the boast occurs. sent6: the signal does not occur if the conditioner does not occur but the titration occurs. sent7: the catheterization brings about that the tattooing does not occur and the cockneiness does not occur. sent8: the catheterization occurs if the fact that the catheterization does not occur and the vestiariness does not occur is not true. sent9: both the caning Cuzco and the saddle happens. sent10: if both the tattoo and the resistiveness occurs then the geocentricness does not occur. sent11: both the caning chimera and the caning gearshift happens. sent12: both the basilicanness and the homestretch happens. sent13: that both the igneousness and the anthropologicalness occurs brings about that the reconcilableness does not occur. sent14: the non-categorialness is caused by that the tattoo does not occur and the cockney does not occur. sent15: the fact that the seeping occurs and the caning sustainability does not occur is not true if the disciplinariness happens. sent16: that both the creedalness and the disciplinariness occurs is caused by that the signal does not occur. sent17: if the fact that the seeping but not the caning sustainability happens is false the seeping does not occur. sent18: the one-and-one happens. sent19: the seeping occurs. sent20: the non-Thainess is triggered by that the caning chimera and the caravanning occurs. sent21: if the misappropriation occurs then not the conditioner but the titration occurs. sent22: the thoughtlessness does not occur. ; $proof$ = | sent11 -> int1: the caning chimera happens.; sent1 -> int2: the caravanning happens.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the caning chimera and the caravanning occurs.; int3 & sent20 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the fact that there is something such that if it does not cane Marrakesh and is not a transliteration then it does not recoup self-accusation is not correct. | ¬((Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x) | sent1: if something that does not cane Marrakesh is not a transliteration then it does not recoup self-accusation. | sent1: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x | [
"sent1 -> int1: the moa does not recoup self-accusation if it does not cane Marrakesh and is not a kind of a transliteration.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent1 -> int1: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null | [] | null | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | DISPROVED | null | DISPROVED | null | $hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if it does not cane Marrakesh and is not a transliteration then it does not recoup self-accusation is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if something that does not cane Marrakesh is not a transliteration then it does not recoup self-accusation. ; $proof$ = | sent1 -> int1: the moa does not recoup self-accusation if it does not cane Marrakesh and is not a kind of a transliteration.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the fact that the hindquarter is non-Boeotian thing that does cane authority does not hold. | ¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) | sent1: something does not cane authority. sent2: if there is something such that it does not iterate the fact that the gluon does not cane authority and is Boeotian is not correct. sent3: the hindquarter is not a salicylate. sent4: something that does not iterate is non-Boeotian thing that canes authority. sent5: there exists something such that it is not Rabelaisian. sent6: that the gluon does not cane authority and iterates is not right. sent7: the fact that the scribe is non-Dickensian but it iterates is not right. sent8: the fact that the gluon does not impinge nursing and canes authority does not hold. sent9: the fact that there are non-diaphyseal things is not incorrect. sent10: if there is something such that it does not iterate then the fact that the hindquarter is Boeotian and it canes authority does not hold. sent11: there is something such that it does iterate. sent12: that the hindquarter is a kind of Boeotian thing that does cane authority is false. sent13: if there is something such that it does not cane authority that the gluon is non-Boeotian thing that does iterate is not true. sent14: the fact that that the hindquarter is not Boeotian and does cane authority is incorrect if there exists something such that it does not iterate is not false. sent15: the alder does not recoup crosscheck. sent16: that the hindquarter does not iterate and is Boeotian is not right. | sent1: (Ex): ¬{C}x sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{C}{aa} & {B}{aa}) sent3: ¬{FE}{a} sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{B}x & {C}x) sent5: (Ex): ¬{DL}x sent6: ¬(¬{C}{aa} & {A}{aa}) sent7: ¬(¬{CM}{cf} & {A}{cf}) sent8: ¬(¬{AE}{aa} & {C}{aa}) sent9: (Ex): ¬{AR}x sent10: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent11: (Ex): {A}x sent12: ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent13: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{B}{aa} & {A}{aa}) sent14: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent15: ¬{GT}{ba} sent16: ¬(¬{A}{a} & {B}{a}) | [] | [] | the hindquarter is a kind of non-Boeotian thing that does cane authority. | (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) | [
"sent4 -> int1: if the hindquarter does not iterate it is not Boeotian and it canes authority.;"
] | 5 | 2 | null | 15 | 0 | 15 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the hindquarter is non-Boeotian thing that does cane authority does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: something does not cane authority. sent2: if there is something such that it does not iterate the fact that the gluon does not cane authority and is Boeotian is not correct. sent3: the hindquarter is not a salicylate. sent4: something that does not iterate is non-Boeotian thing that canes authority. sent5: there exists something such that it is not Rabelaisian. sent6: that the gluon does not cane authority and iterates is not right. sent7: the fact that the scribe is non-Dickensian but it iterates is not right. sent8: the fact that the gluon does not impinge nursing and canes authority does not hold. sent9: the fact that there are non-diaphyseal things is not incorrect. sent10: if there is something such that it does not iterate then the fact that the hindquarter is Boeotian and it canes authority does not hold. sent11: there is something such that it does iterate. sent12: that the hindquarter is a kind of Boeotian thing that does cane authority is false. sent13: if there is something such that it does not cane authority that the gluon is non-Boeotian thing that does iterate is not true. sent14: the fact that that the hindquarter is not Boeotian and does cane authority is incorrect if there exists something such that it does not iterate is not false. sent15: the alder does not recoup crosscheck. sent16: that the hindquarter does not iterate and is Boeotian is not right. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | the shadow is both not a murdered and not a nonequivalence. | (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) | sent1: the shadow does not recoup Qing. sent2: that if something does shriek then it is not a nonequivalence hold. sent3: the dribble does shriek and it is a kind of a suspect. sent4: the shadow is not Boolean and it does not dishonor Opisthobranchia. sent5: if something is a zap it is not an oreo. sent6: if the telpher is not neuromuscular then it is not critical and it is adaxial. sent7: if the shadow shrieks then it is not a nonequivalence. sent8: the fact that the scut dishonors abattoir hold. sent9: that something does dishonor abattoir and does not impinge cheroot does not hold if it is not adaxial. sent10: the scorpionfish shrieks and it murders if the exfoliation does not dishonor abattoir. sent11: the fact that the shadow is not faucal is right. sent12: the pilewort does dishonor abattoir and it is a kind of a Malacanthidae. sent13: the matriculate does murder. sent14: the shadow dishonors abattoir. sent15: the telpher is not neuromuscular. sent16: if the fact that the telpher is not critical but it is adaxial is not wrong then the wort is not adaxial. sent17: the shadow shrieks and dishonors abattoir. | sent1: ¬{FE}{aa} sent2: (x): {A}x -> ¬{AB}x sent3: ({A}{gi} & {BI}{gi}) sent4: (¬{DQ}{aa} & ¬{FJ}{aa}) sent5: (x): {CF}x -> ¬{GN}x sent6: ¬{F}{d} -> (¬{E}{d} & {C}{d}) sent7: {A}{aa} -> ¬{AB}{aa} sent8: {B}{s} sent9: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{D}x) sent10: ¬{B}{b} -> ({A}{a} & {AA}{a}) sent11: ¬{GA}{aa} sent12: ({B}{is} & {HF}{is}) sent13: {AA}{fr} sent14: {B}{aa} sent15: ¬{F}{d} sent16: (¬{E}{d} & {C}{d}) -> ¬{C}{c} sent17: ({A}{aa} & {B}{aa}) | [
"sent17 -> int1: the shadow does shriek.;"
] | [
"sent17 -> int1: {A}{aa};"
] | that that the shadow is not a murdered and is not a nonequivalence is not right is not wrong. | ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) | [
"sent9 -> int2: if the wort is non-adaxial then the fact that it does dishonor abattoir and does not impinge cheroot is wrong.; sent6 & sent15 -> int3: the telpher is not critical but it is adaxial.; sent16 & int3 -> int4: that the wort is not adaxial is correct.; int2 & int4 -> int5: that the wort dishonors abattoir and does not impinge cheroot does not hold.; int5 -> int6: there is something such that that it dishonors abattoir and it does not impinge cheroot is not true.;"
] | 9 | 2 | null | 16 | 0 | 16 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the shadow is both not a murdered and not a nonequivalence. ; $context$ = sent1: the shadow does not recoup Qing. sent2: that if something does shriek then it is not a nonequivalence hold. sent3: the dribble does shriek and it is a kind of a suspect. sent4: the shadow is not Boolean and it does not dishonor Opisthobranchia. sent5: if something is a zap it is not an oreo. sent6: if the telpher is not neuromuscular then it is not critical and it is adaxial. sent7: if the shadow shrieks then it is not a nonequivalence. sent8: the fact that the scut dishonors abattoir hold. sent9: that something does dishonor abattoir and does not impinge cheroot does not hold if it is not adaxial. sent10: the scorpionfish shrieks and it murders if the exfoliation does not dishonor abattoir. sent11: the fact that the shadow is not faucal is right. sent12: the pilewort does dishonor abattoir and it is a kind of a Malacanthidae. sent13: the matriculate does murder. sent14: the shadow dishonors abattoir. sent15: the telpher is not neuromuscular. sent16: if the fact that the telpher is not critical but it is adaxial is not wrong then the wort is not adaxial. sent17: the shadow shrieks and dishonors abattoir. ; $proof$ = | sent17 -> int1: the shadow does shriek.; __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | the biochemicalness does not occur. | ¬{C} | sent1: the atheroscleroticness triggers that the conversion does not occur. sent2: if either the palliation occurs or the caning hurrying does not occur or both then the biochemicalness does not occur. sent3: if the conversion does not occur then the biochemicalness happens and the TPN occurs. sent4: the biochemicalness does not occur if the caning hurrying does not occur. sent5: that the ecarte happens is prevented by that the fault occurs and/or the entertaining does not occur. sent6: the biochemicalness and the palliation occurs if the caning hurrying does not occur. sent7: the friendly happens. sent8: either the palliation happens or the caning hurrying happens or both. sent9: if that the recouping enlargement happens but the atheroscleroticness does not occur is wrong the conversion does not occur. sent10: the fact that the palliation does not occur and the caning hurrying does not occur does not hold if the biochemicalness occurs. sent11: that the caning hurrying does not occur and the TPN does not occur is triggered by that the conversion does not occur. sent12: the endergonicness does not occur if the fact that that the palliation does not occur and the caning hurrying does not occur is wrong hold. | sent1: {F} -> ¬{E} sent2: ({A} v ¬{B}) -> ¬{C} sent3: ¬{E} -> ({C} & {D}) sent4: ¬{B} -> ¬{C} sent5: ({BG} v ¬{DS}) -> ¬{AM} sent6: ¬{B} -> ({C} & {A}) sent7: {DU} sent8: ({A} v {B}) sent9: ¬({G} & ¬{F}) -> ¬{E} sent10: {C} -> ¬(¬{A} & ¬{B}) sent11: ¬{E} -> (¬{B} & ¬{D}) sent12: ¬(¬{A} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{DI} | [] | [] | the biochemicalness happens. | {C} | [] | 8 | 2 | null | 11 | 0 | 11 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the biochemicalness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the atheroscleroticness triggers that the conversion does not occur. sent2: if either the palliation occurs or the caning hurrying does not occur or both then the biochemicalness does not occur. sent3: if the conversion does not occur then the biochemicalness happens and the TPN occurs. sent4: the biochemicalness does not occur if the caning hurrying does not occur. sent5: that the ecarte happens is prevented by that the fault occurs and/or the entertaining does not occur. sent6: the biochemicalness and the palliation occurs if the caning hurrying does not occur. sent7: the friendly happens. sent8: either the palliation happens or the caning hurrying happens or both. sent9: if that the recouping enlargement happens but the atheroscleroticness does not occur is wrong the conversion does not occur. sent10: the fact that the palliation does not occur and the caning hurrying does not occur does not hold if the biochemicalness occurs. sent11: that the caning hurrying does not occur and the TPN does not occur is triggered by that the conversion does not occur. sent12: the endergonicness does not occur if the fact that that the palliation does not occur and the caning hurrying does not occur is wrong hold. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | that the impinging pediatrician happens and/or the recouping holly happens is not right. | ¬({B} v {A}) | sent1: that the curettage does not occur is prevented by that the sleepover happens. sent2: the impinging pediatrician occurs if that the equestrianness does not occur and the vaulting does not occur is false. sent3: that the equestrianness does not occur and the vaulting does not occur is not right. sent4: the woodiness or the ingraining or both happens. sent5: the fact that the mercantileness but not the gyration occurs is incorrect. sent6: if the dishonoring rightist does not occur the fact that either the impinging pediatrician happens or the recouping holly happens or both does not hold. sent7: the fact that the lying but not the proconsularness occurs does not hold. sent8: the implosion happens or the nonsuppurativeness happens or both. sent9: that the recouping headrest happens and the decantation does not occur is wrong. sent10: the fact that the caning disorder does not occur and the adjourning does not occur is not right. sent11: the decimalization occurs. sent12: that the gyration does not occur and the saltating does not occur is not correct. sent13: the five-hitter occurs if the fact that the emulousness happens hold. | sent1: {IP} -> {EL} sent2: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent3: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent4: ({CG} v {IJ}) sent5: ¬({HD} & ¬{BU}) sent6: ¬{C} -> ¬({B} v {A}) sent7: ¬({IU} & ¬{BA}) sent8: ({GM} v {DT}) sent9: ¬({AS} & ¬{JK}) sent10: ¬(¬{BD} & ¬{EH}) sent11: {BL} sent12: ¬(¬{BU} & ¬{FE}) sent13: {HM} -> {FI} | [
"sent2 & sent3 -> int1: the impinging pediatrician happens.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent2 & sent3 -> int1: {B}; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | the fact that either the impinging pediatrician or the recouping holly or both happens does not hold. | ¬({B} v {A}) | [] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 11 | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = that the impinging pediatrician happens and/or the recouping holly happens is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: that the curettage does not occur is prevented by that the sleepover happens. sent2: the impinging pediatrician occurs if that the equestrianness does not occur and the vaulting does not occur is false. sent3: that the equestrianness does not occur and the vaulting does not occur is not right. sent4: the woodiness or the ingraining or both happens. sent5: the fact that the mercantileness but not the gyration occurs is incorrect. sent6: if the dishonoring rightist does not occur the fact that either the impinging pediatrician happens or the recouping holly happens or both does not hold. sent7: the fact that the lying but not the proconsularness occurs does not hold. sent8: the implosion happens or the nonsuppurativeness happens or both. sent9: that the recouping headrest happens and the decantation does not occur is wrong. sent10: the fact that the caning disorder does not occur and the adjourning does not occur is not right. sent11: the decimalization occurs. sent12: that the gyration does not occur and the saltating does not occur is not correct. sent13: the five-hitter occurs if the fact that the emulousness happens hold. ; $proof$ = | sent2 & sent3 -> int1: the impinging pediatrician happens.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the representation does recoup Crawford and it does recoup Spinoza. | ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) | sent1: the fact that the salvinorin is not non-forceful but scalic does not hold. sent2: the stew is not scalic if that the propman is not unintelligible and is scalic is wrong. sent3: if something is a Ruritanian then the fact that the representation does not wreathe is true. sent4: something is not a Ruritanian if the fact that it canes tiptop and it is a mound does not hold. sent5: the representation is not scalic if there is something such that the fact that it is not non-forceful and not scalic is not true. sent6: if the simoom does not recoup rear but it does wreathe the midgrass does not wreathe. sent7: something does recoup Spinoza if it does not wreathe and it is a kind of a Naomi. sent8: something is a Ruritanian if it recoups rear. sent9: there exists something such that that it is a Naomi and is not a kind of a Ruritanian is not correct. sent10: the propman is forceful if the leukocyte does slat. sent11: the fact that something does recoup Crawford and does recoup Spinoza is false if it does not wreathe. sent12: the representation does not wreathe if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a Naomi and it is not a Ruritanian is not correct. sent13: that the simoom does cane tiptop and is a mound does not hold if the fact that the stew is non-scalic hold. sent14: that something does recoup Crawford is true if the fact that it does cane tiptop and it does not mound is false. sent15: everything is a fornix and it is a slat. sent16: something does not wreathe and is a Naomi if it is a Ruritanian. sent17: the fact that the salvinorin is both a hausmannite and not a adrenergic is not true if the Sinanthropus does not wreathe. sent18: if the niche does not wreathe the Sinanthropus does not wreathe. sent19: that the representation does cane tiptop and is not a mound is wrong if it is not scalic. sent20: the niche is not a Naomi or it does not wreathe or both if there is something such that it does not wreathe. sent21: if something is forceful that it is not unintelligible and it is scalic is not correct. sent22: if the niche is not a Naomi the Sinanthropus does not wreathe. | sent1: ¬({H}{a} & {G}{a}) sent2: ¬(¬{I}{g} & {G}{g}) -> ¬{G}{f} sent3: (x): {C}x -> ¬{A}{aa} sent4: (x): ¬({E}x & {F}x) -> ¬{C}x sent5: (x): ¬({H}x & {G}x) -> ¬{G}{aa} sent6: (¬{D}{e} & {A}{e}) -> ¬{A}{d} sent7: (x): (¬{A}x & {B}x) -> {AB}x sent8: (x): {D}x -> {C}x sent9: (Ex): ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x) sent10: {J}{h} -> {H}{g} sent11: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent12: (x): ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent13: ¬{G}{f} -> ¬({E}{e} & {F}{e}) sent14: (x): ¬({E}x & ¬{F}x) -> {AA}x sent15: (x): ({K}x & {J}x) sent16: (x): {C}x -> (¬{A}x & {B}x) sent17: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬({O}{a} & ¬{DB}{a}) sent18: ¬{A}{c} -> ¬{A}{b} sent19: ¬{G}{aa} -> ¬({E}{aa} & ¬{F}{aa}) sent20: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{B}{c} v ¬{A}{c}) sent21: (x): {H}x -> ¬(¬{I}x & {G}x) sent22: ¬{B}{c} -> ¬{A}{b} | [
"sent11 -> int1: that the representation recoups Crawford and does recoup Spinoza is not correct if the fact that it does not wreathe is true.; sent9 & sent12 -> int2: that the representation wreathes is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent11 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); sent9 & sent12 -> int2: ¬{A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | there is something such that that it is a kind of a hausmannite and it is not adrenergic is false. | (Ex): ¬({O}x & ¬{DB}x) | [
"sent4 -> int3: if that the simoom does cane tiptop and is a mound is not true then it is not a Ruritanian.; sent21 -> int4: if the propman is forceful that it is a kind of non-unintelligible thing that is scalic is not right.; sent15 -> int5: the leukocyte is both a fornix and a slat.; int5 -> int6: the leukocyte is a slat.; sent10 & int6 -> int7: the propman is forceful.; int4 & int7 -> int8: that the propman is not unintelligible but it is scalic does not hold.; sent2 & int8 -> int9: the stew is not scalic.; sent13 & int9 -> int10: that the simoom canes tiptop and it mounds is wrong.; int3 & int10 -> int11: the simoom is not Ruritanian.;"
] | 14 | 2 | 2 | 19 | 0 | 19 | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the representation does recoup Crawford and it does recoup Spinoza. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the salvinorin is not non-forceful but scalic does not hold. sent2: the stew is not scalic if that the propman is not unintelligible and is scalic is wrong. sent3: if something is a Ruritanian then the fact that the representation does not wreathe is true. sent4: something is not a Ruritanian if the fact that it canes tiptop and it is a mound does not hold. sent5: the representation is not scalic if there is something such that the fact that it is not non-forceful and not scalic is not true. sent6: if the simoom does not recoup rear but it does wreathe the midgrass does not wreathe. sent7: something does recoup Spinoza if it does not wreathe and it is a kind of a Naomi. sent8: something is a Ruritanian if it recoups rear. sent9: there exists something such that that it is a Naomi and is not a kind of a Ruritanian is not correct. sent10: the propman is forceful if the leukocyte does slat. sent11: the fact that something does recoup Crawford and does recoup Spinoza is false if it does not wreathe. sent12: the representation does not wreathe if there exists something such that that it is a kind of a Naomi and it is not a Ruritanian is not correct. sent13: that the simoom does cane tiptop and is a mound does not hold if the fact that the stew is non-scalic hold. sent14: that something does recoup Crawford is true if the fact that it does cane tiptop and it does not mound is false. sent15: everything is a fornix and it is a slat. sent16: something does not wreathe and is a Naomi if it is a Ruritanian. sent17: the fact that the salvinorin is both a hausmannite and not a adrenergic is not true if the Sinanthropus does not wreathe. sent18: if the niche does not wreathe the Sinanthropus does not wreathe. sent19: that the representation does cane tiptop and is not a mound is wrong if it is not scalic. sent20: the niche is not a Naomi or it does not wreathe or both if there is something such that it does not wreathe. sent21: if something is forceful that it is not unintelligible and it is scalic is not correct. sent22: if the niche is not a Naomi the Sinanthropus does not wreathe. ; $proof$ = | sent11 -> int1: that the representation recoups Crawford and does recoup Spinoza is not correct if the fact that it does not wreathe is true.; sent9 & sent12 -> int2: that the representation wreathes is incorrect.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the fact that there exists something such that if it is a kind of a millinery then that it does not dishonor acreage and it impinges eightpence is false is not correct. | ¬((Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x)) | sent1: that the thigh does dishonor acreage and impinges eightpence does not hold if the fact that it is a millinery is not wrong. sent2: there exists something such that if it is a millinery then that it dishonors acreage and it impinges eightpence is not true. sent3: if the thigh is a millinery that the fact that it does not dishonor acreage and does impinge eightpence is right is not correct. sent4: if something is a kind of a virology that it is not a condition and it is bellyless does not hold. sent5: there is something such that if it is a millinery then it does not dishonor acreage and it does impinge eightpence. sent6: there exists something such that if the fact that it is minors hold then that it does not bowl and it is a kind of a polyfoam does not hold. sent7: there exists something such that if it canes holly then that it does not cane sandbur and it is a cine-camera is not correct. sent8: there exists something such that if it is Eucharistic that it is not a caddis-fly but denominational does not hold. sent9: the fact that the thigh is not a scolion but it does dishonor acreage is not right if the fact that it is impractical is right. sent10: if the sandbur is not wary the fact that it does not dishonor acreage and is a laureled is false. sent11: there exists something such that if it is ignoble that it is not a Clemenceau and it is a newsreader is incorrect. sent12: the thigh does not dishonor acreage and does impinge eightpence if it is a kind of a millinery. | sent1: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent2: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent4: (x): {DQ}x -> ¬(¬{CH}x & {HK}x) sent5: (Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent6: (Ex): {GI}x -> ¬(¬{U}x & {AJ}x) sent7: (Ex): {EE}x -> ¬(¬{FD}x & {BH}x) sent8: (Ex): {CM}x -> ¬(¬{CC}x & {GC}x) sent9: {BI}{aa} -> ¬(¬{JE}{aa} & {AA}{aa}) sent10: {FQ}{bs} -> ¬(¬{AA}{bs} & {F}{bs}) sent11: (Ex): {FB}x -> ¬(¬{HB}x & {HN}x) sent12: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) | [
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | if the thigh is a kind of a virology then the fact that it is not a condition and it is bellyless is not correct. | {DQ}{aa} -> ¬(¬{CH}{aa} & {HK}{aa}) | [
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 11 | DISPROVED | PROVED | DISPROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it is a kind of a millinery then that it does not dishonor acreage and it impinges eightpence is false is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: that the thigh does dishonor acreage and impinges eightpence does not hold if the fact that it is a millinery is not wrong. sent2: there exists something such that if it is a millinery then that it dishonors acreage and it impinges eightpence is not true. sent3: if the thigh is a millinery that the fact that it does not dishonor acreage and does impinge eightpence is right is not correct. sent4: if something is a kind of a virology that it is not a condition and it is bellyless does not hold. sent5: there is something such that if it is a millinery then it does not dishonor acreage and it does impinge eightpence. sent6: there exists something such that if the fact that it is minors hold then that it does not bowl and it is a kind of a polyfoam does not hold. sent7: there exists something such that if it canes holly then that it does not cane sandbur and it is a cine-camera is not correct. sent8: there exists something such that if it is Eucharistic that it is not a caddis-fly but denominational does not hold. sent9: the fact that the thigh is not a scolion but it does dishonor acreage is not right if the fact that it is impractical is right. sent10: if the sandbur is not wary the fact that it does not dishonor acreage and is a laureled is false. sent11: there exists something such that if it is ignoble that it is not a Clemenceau and it is a newsreader is incorrect. sent12: the thigh does not dishonor acreage and does impinge eightpence if it is a kind of a millinery. ; $proof$ = | sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the fact that there exists something such that if it is not urban then it is monistic and it impinges countermeasure is false. | ¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x)) | sent1: something is a kind of numerological thing that is a kind of an expedient if it is not a lighting. sent2: there exists something such that if it is urban then it is monistic and it does impinge countermeasure. sent3: that the semiconductor does impinge countermeasure is true if the fact that it is not urban hold. sent4: if the semiconductor is not urban then it is a kind of monistic thing that does impinge countermeasure. | sent1: (x): ¬{IS}x -> ({S}x & {EK}x) sent2: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: ¬{A}{aa} -> {AB}{aa} sent4: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) | [
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | there is something such that if it is not a kind of a lighting then it is numerological and it is an expedient. | (Ex): ¬{IS}x -> ({S}x & {EK}x) | [
"sent1 -> int1: the emperor is both numerological and an expedient if it is not a kind of a lighting.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3 | DISPROVED | PROVED | DISPROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it is not urban then it is monistic and it impinges countermeasure is false. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a kind of numerological thing that is a kind of an expedient if it is not a lighting. sent2: there exists something such that if it is urban then it is monistic and it does impinge countermeasure. sent3: that the semiconductor does impinge countermeasure is true if the fact that it is not urban hold. sent4: if the semiconductor is not urban then it is a kind of monistic thing that does impinge countermeasure. ; $proof$ = | sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the phonograph is not a kind of a skidder. | ¬{D}{c} | sent1: something does dishonor slumber. sent2: if something does recoup hectoliter then it does not dishonor slumber and it is not a kind of a quadratic. sent3: The slumber does dishonor basset. sent4: the fact that something is not a skidder and it does not dishonor slumber is wrong if that it is not a quadratic is true. sent5: if the blizzard is Sicilian the basset dishonors mayhem. sent6: something does recoup hectoliter and is a kind of a skidder. sent7: the basset does dishonor mayhem if the blizzard is a tare. sent8: everything does not cane pedicel. sent9: the blizzard does not recoup hectoliter if a quadratic thing does dishonor slumber. sent10: the basset is a kind of a quadratic. sent11: that the phonograph does not recoup hectoliter is correct. sent12: if that something does not cane pedicel is not incorrect either it is a tare or it is Sicilian or both. sent13: the phonograph is not a skidder if the blizzard does not recoup hectoliter. sent14: if the basset is not a skidder the phonograph does not dishonor slumber. sent15: there are quadratic things. | sent1: (Ex): {B}x sent2: (x): {C}x -> (¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) sent3: {AA}{aa} sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & ¬{B}x) sent5: {G}{b} -> {E}{a} sent6: (Ex): ({C}x & {D}x) sent7: {F}{b} -> {E}{a} sent8: (x): ¬{H}x sent9: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}{b} sent10: {A}{a} sent11: ¬{C}{c} sent12: (x): ¬{H}x -> ({F}x v {G}x) sent13: ¬{C}{b} -> ¬{D}{c} sent14: ¬{D}{a} -> ¬{B}{c} sent15: (Ex): {A}x | [] | [] | the phonograph is a kind of a skidder. | {D}{c} | [
"sent4 -> int1: the fact that the basset is not a skidder and it does not dishonor slumber is incorrect if it is not a quadratic.; sent8 -> int2: the rig does not cane pedicel.; sent12 -> int3: the rig is a tare and/or it is a Sicilian if it does not cane pedicel.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the rig is a tare and/or it is a kind of a Sicilian.; int4 -> int5: everything is a tare or Sicilian or both.; int5 -> int6: the blizzard is a tare or a Sicilian or both.; sent5 & int6 & sent7 -> int7: the basset dishonors mayhem.;"
] | 9 | 4 | null | 12 | 0 | 12 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the phonograph is not a kind of a skidder. ; $context$ = sent1: something does dishonor slumber. sent2: if something does recoup hectoliter then it does not dishonor slumber and it is not a kind of a quadratic. sent3: The slumber does dishonor basset. sent4: the fact that something is not a skidder and it does not dishonor slumber is wrong if that it is not a quadratic is true. sent5: if the blizzard is Sicilian the basset dishonors mayhem. sent6: something does recoup hectoliter and is a kind of a skidder. sent7: the basset does dishonor mayhem if the blizzard is a tare. sent8: everything does not cane pedicel. sent9: the blizzard does not recoup hectoliter if a quadratic thing does dishonor slumber. sent10: the basset is a kind of a quadratic. sent11: that the phonograph does not recoup hectoliter is correct. sent12: if that something does not cane pedicel is not incorrect either it is a tare or it is Sicilian or both. sent13: the phonograph is not a skidder if the blizzard does not recoup hectoliter. sent14: if the basset is not a skidder the phonograph does not dishonor slumber. sent15: there are quadratic things. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | that the fact that there is something such that if the fact that it is not a homophone and it does not recoup footbath is incorrect it dishonors mayhem is not incorrect is false. | ¬((Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x) | sent1: there exists something such that if the fact that it is both not a bow and not a Weizenbock is incorrect it browses. sent2: there is something such that if that it is not a homophone and it does recoup footbath is not correct then it does dishonor mayhem. sent3: if that something does not recoup footbath and is not a kind of an indicative is incorrect then it is unsurmountable. sent4: if that the fact that the diaphoretic is not a homophone and does not recoup footbath is not true is not incorrect then it does dishonor mayhem. sent5: there is something such that if the fact that it is a kind of a homophone that does not recoup footbath is false then it does dishonor mayhem. sent6: if the fact that something is not enteric and it is not optional does not hold it is unambitious. sent7: there exists something such that if it recoups footbath then it dishonors mayhem. sent8: if the fact that the lacquerware is not uncertain and it does not dishonor mayhem is not right it is trihydroxy. sent9: the diaphoretic does dishonor mayhem if that it is not a homophone and does recoup footbath is incorrect. sent10: if that the diaphoretic is a homophone is true then that it dishonors mayhem hold. sent11: the biomass shortlists if the fact that it does not dishonor Mande and it does not dishonor mayhem is incorrect. sent12: if that the diaphoretic does not dishonor mayhem and it is not a Porto is not true it dishonors fondue. sent13: if that the diaphoretic does not recoup papain and is not a Huntington is not correct it is a semester. sent14: there is something such that if the fact that it does not recoup Precambrian and it does not disband is not correct then it is unrealistic. sent15: there exists something such that if it is a homophone then it does dishonor mayhem. sent16: the diaphoretic canes Champollion if that it is not a kind of an irregularity and does not recoup footbath is not true. sent17: there is something such that if the fact that it is both not a friendlessness and not a Porto is incorrect it is a Machiavellianism. sent18: there is something such that if it is not a homophone and it does not recoup footbath it does dishonor mayhem. sent19: if the diaphoretic is not a homophone and it does not recoup footbath it dishonors mayhem. sent20: the diaphoretic is calcifugous if that it does not recoup footbath and is not a juncture is incorrect. | sent1: (Ex): ¬(¬{AQ}x & ¬{DH}x) -> {BE}x sent2: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent3: (x): ¬(¬{AB}x & ¬{AG}x) -> {AK}x sent4: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent5: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent6: (x): ¬(¬{FA}x & ¬{DG}x) -> {GC}x sent7: (Ex): {AB}x -> {B}x sent8: ¬(¬{FL}{n} & ¬{B}{n}) -> {R}{n} sent9: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent10: {AA}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent11: ¬(¬{IF}{en} & ¬{B}{en}) -> {AH}{en} sent12: ¬(¬{B}{aa} & ¬{BD}{aa}) -> {FR}{aa} sent13: ¬(¬{AD}{aa} & ¬{CD}{aa}) -> {ES}{aa} sent14: (Ex): ¬(¬{GA}x & ¬{GJ}x) -> {ED}x sent15: (Ex): {AA}x -> {B}x sent16: ¬(¬{GM}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {GD}{aa} sent17: (Ex): ¬(¬{BB}x & ¬{BD}x) -> {AU}x sent18: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent19: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent20: ¬(¬{AB}{aa} & ¬{IH}{aa}) -> {FI}{aa} | [
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | there exists something such that if that it is not enteric and it is not optional is incorrect that it is unambitious hold. | (Ex): ¬(¬{FA}x & ¬{DG}x) -> {GC}x | [
"sent6 -> int1: if that the caddisworm is not enteric and not optional is wrong it is unambitious.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 19 | 0 | 19 | DISPROVED | PROVED | DISPROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = that the fact that there is something such that if the fact that it is not a homophone and it does not recoup footbath is incorrect it dishonors mayhem is not incorrect is false. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if the fact that it is both not a bow and not a Weizenbock is incorrect it browses. sent2: there is something such that if that it is not a homophone and it does recoup footbath is not correct then it does dishonor mayhem. sent3: if that something does not recoup footbath and is not a kind of an indicative is incorrect then it is unsurmountable. sent4: if that the fact that the diaphoretic is not a homophone and does not recoup footbath is not true is not incorrect then it does dishonor mayhem. sent5: there is something such that if the fact that it is a kind of a homophone that does not recoup footbath is false then it does dishonor mayhem. sent6: if the fact that something is not enteric and it is not optional does not hold it is unambitious. sent7: there exists something such that if it recoups footbath then it dishonors mayhem. sent8: if the fact that the lacquerware is not uncertain and it does not dishonor mayhem is not right it is trihydroxy. sent9: the diaphoretic does dishonor mayhem if that it is not a homophone and does recoup footbath is incorrect. sent10: if that the diaphoretic is a homophone is true then that it dishonors mayhem hold. sent11: the biomass shortlists if the fact that it does not dishonor Mande and it does not dishonor mayhem is incorrect. sent12: if that the diaphoretic does not dishonor mayhem and it is not a Porto is not true it dishonors fondue. sent13: if that the diaphoretic does not recoup papain and is not a Huntington is not correct it is a semester. sent14: there is something such that if the fact that it does not recoup Precambrian and it does not disband is not correct then it is unrealistic. sent15: there exists something such that if it is a homophone then it does dishonor mayhem. sent16: the diaphoretic canes Champollion if that it is not a kind of an irregularity and does not recoup footbath is not true. sent17: there is something such that if the fact that it is both not a friendlessness and not a Porto is incorrect it is a Machiavellianism. sent18: there is something such that if it is not a homophone and it does not recoup footbath it does dishonor mayhem. sent19: if the diaphoretic is not a homophone and it does not recoup footbath it dishonors mayhem. sent20: the diaphoretic is calcifugous if that it does not recoup footbath and is not a juncture is incorrect. ; $proof$ = | sent4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | that there is something such that if that it is not a unhealthiness or is not a kind of a acetal or both does not hold it is not a cholangiography is not correct. | ¬((Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x) | sent1: there is something such that if either it is not a unhealthiness or it is not a acetal or both then it is not a cholangiography. sent2: the saw is not a cholangiography if the fact that it is not a kind of a unhealthiness or it is a acetal or both does not hold. sent3: there exists something such that if that it is not a kind of a unhealthiness or it is not a kind of a acetal or both is incorrect then that it is a cholangiography hold. sent4: there is something such that if that it is not a kind of a findings or it canes message or both does not hold it does not cane onionskin. sent5: if that the bridecake is not a paranoia or does not dishonor rabbinate or both is not right it is not a cholangiography. sent6: there exists something such that if the fact that it either is a unhealthiness or is not a acetal or both is not true then it is not a cholangiography. sent7: if the fact that the saw is a persona and/or it is not a grogginess does not hold then it does not recoup Woodhull. sent8: the saw is not a cholangiography if the fact that it either is not a kind of a unhealthiness or is not a acetal or both does not hold. | sent1: (Ex): (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent2: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent3: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent4: (Ex): ¬(¬{IS}x v {HR}x) -> ¬{GH}x sent5: ¬(¬{EO}{en} v ¬{HM}{en}) -> ¬{B}{en} sent6: (Ex): ¬({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent7: ¬({DJ}{aa} v ¬{FJ}{aa}) -> ¬{CE}{aa} sent8: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} | [
"sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null | [] | null | 1 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 7 | DISPROVED | null | DISPROVED | null | $hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if that it is not a unhealthiness or is not a kind of a acetal or both does not hold it is not a cholangiography is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if either it is not a unhealthiness or it is not a acetal or both then it is not a cholangiography. sent2: the saw is not a cholangiography if the fact that it is not a kind of a unhealthiness or it is a acetal or both does not hold. sent3: there exists something such that if that it is not a kind of a unhealthiness or it is not a kind of a acetal or both is incorrect then that it is a cholangiography hold. sent4: there is something such that if that it is not a kind of a findings or it canes message or both does not hold it does not cane onionskin. sent5: if that the bridecake is not a paranoia or does not dishonor rabbinate or both is not right it is not a cholangiography. sent6: there exists something such that if the fact that it either is a unhealthiness or is not a acetal or both is not true then it is not a cholangiography. sent7: if the fact that the saw is a persona and/or it is not a grogginess does not hold then it does not recoup Woodhull. sent8: the saw is not a cholangiography if the fact that it either is not a kind of a unhealthiness or is not a acetal or both does not hold. ; $proof$ = | sent8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the grazing is not a kind of a hypobasidium. | ¬{D}{b} | sent1: if there exists something such that that it is Huxleyan and it recoups fishbowl is false then the alphabetizer is not a hypobasidium. sent2: if there is something such that it is not Huxleyan then that the dauber is a drive and does recoup fishbowl does not hold. sent3: the alphabetizer is not Huxleyan. sent4: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a drive then the grazing is not a hypobasidium. sent5: if something is not Huxleyan then it is not feudal. sent6: something is Huxleyan. sent7: something is a kind of a drive that recoups fishbowl. | sent1: (x): ¬({A}x & {C}x) -> ¬{D}{aa} sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent3: ¬{A}{aa} sent4: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{D}{b} sent5: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{HA}x sent6: (Ex): {A}x sent7: (Ex): ({B}x & {C}x) | [
"sent3 -> int1: there is something such that it is not Huxleyan.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: that the fact that the dauber is a kind of a drive and it does recoup fishbowl is not correct hold.; int2 -> int3: there is something such that the fact that it drives and recoups fishbowl is not right.;"
] | [
"sent3 -> int1: (Ex): ¬{A}x; int1 & sent2 -> int2: ¬({B}{a} & {C}{a}); int2 -> int3: (Ex): ¬({B}x & {C}x);"
] | there exists something such that it is not feudal. | (Ex): ¬{HA}x | [
"sent5 -> int4: that the dauber is not feudal is not false if it is not Huxleyan.;"
] | 4 | 4 | null | 5 | 0 | 5 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the grazing is not a kind of a hypobasidium. ; $context$ = sent1: if there exists something such that that it is Huxleyan and it recoups fishbowl is false then the alphabetizer is not a hypobasidium. sent2: if there is something such that it is not Huxleyan then that the dauber is a drive and does recoup fishbowl does not hold. sent3: the alphabetizer is not Huxleyan. sent4: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a drive then the grazing is not a hypobasidium. sent5: if something is not Huxleyan then it is not feudal. sent6: something is Huxleyan. sent7: something is a kind of a drive that recoups fishbowl. ; $proof$ = | sent3 -> int1: there is something such that it is not Huxleyan.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: that the fact that the dauber is a kind of a drive and it does recoup fishbowl is not correct hold.; int2 -> int3: there is something such that the fact that it drives and recoups fishbowl is not right.; __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | there exists something such that if that it is an alert but not an inequality is not correct it does not impinge eryngo. | (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x | sent1: there exists something such that if that it is a kind of alert thing that is not a kind of an inequality is not true then it does impinge eryngo. sent2: the ptyalism does not impinge eryngo if that it is an alert and it is an inequality does not hold. sent3: if something is a kind of an alert but it is not an inequality it does not impinge eryngo. sent4: a unalert thing does not impinge eryngo. sent5: something is a micrometeorite if that it recoups stomachache and is not a procaine is incorrect. sent6: there is something such that if it is an alert and not an inequality then the fact that it does not impinge eryngo hold. sent7: there is something such that if it is not a micrometeorite that it is incalculable is incorrect. sent8: if the immortelle is not high-tech it is not caffeinic. sent9: there exists something such that if the fact that it is a Paige and it does not dishonor reference does not hold it is not immunodeficient. | sent1: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent2: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent3: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent4: (x): ¬{AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent5: (x): ¬({BJ}x & ¬{DU}x) -> {R}x sent6: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent7: (Ex): ¬{R}x -> ¬{CE}x sent8: ¬{IT}{cf} -> ¬{GC}{cf} sent9: (Ex): ¬({DF}x & ¬{FG}x) -> ¬{EQ}x | [] | [] | null | null | [] | null | 2 | null | 9 | 0 | 9 | UNKNOWN | null | UNKNOWN | null | $hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if that it is an alert but not an inequality is not correct it does not impinge eryngo. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if that it is a kind of alert thing that is not a kind of an inequality is not true then it does impinge eryngo. sent2: the ptyalism does not impinge eryngo if that it is an alert and it is an inequality does not hold. sent3: if something is a kind of an alert but it is not an inequality it does not impinge eryngo. sent4: a unalert thing does not impinge eryngo. sent5: something is a micrometeorite if that it recoups stomachache and is not a procaine is incorrect. sent6: there is something such that if it is an alert and not an inequality then the fact that it does not impinge eryngo hold. sent7: there is something such that if it is not a micrometeorite that it is incalculable is incorrect. sent8: if the immortelle is not high-tech it is not caffeinic. sent9: there exists something such that if the fact that it is a Paige and it does not dishonor reference does not hold it is not immunodeficient. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | the viricidalness does not occur and the convert does not occur. | (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) | sent1: the fact that not the bow but the innerness occurs is wrong. sent2: the client-serverness occurs if the fact that that the viricidalness does not occur and the convert does not occur hold is false. sent3: that the viricidalness does not occur and the converting does not occur does not hold if the innerness happens. | sent1: ¬(¬{C} & {A}) sent2: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent3: {A} -> ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the viricidalness does not occur and the convert does not occur is not true.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the client-serverness happens.;"
] | [
"void -> assump1: ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}); sent2 & assump1 -> int1: {B};"
] | that the viricidalness does not occur and the converting does not occur is incorrect. | ¬(¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) | [] | 6 | 3 | null | 1 | 0 | 1 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the viricidalness does not occur and the convert does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that not the bow but the innerness occurs is wrong. sent2: the client-serverness occurs if the fact that that the viricidalness does not occur and the convert does not occur hold is false. sent3: that the viricidalness does not occur and the converting does not occur does not hold if the innerness happens. ; $proof$ = | void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the viricidalness does not occur and the convert does not occur is not true.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the client-serverness happens.; __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | the capitol is not a kind of a citron. | ¬{B}{c} | sent1: the fact that if something does not cane Pyrex and/or does recoup renin the capitol is not a kind of a citron is correct. sent2: something is a citron if it does recoup Nanning. sent3: the slasher is a citron or it does recoup renin or both. sent4: something does recoup renin or is a citron or both. sent5: the rocambole does not recoup Nanning. sent6: something is a kind of nonreturnable thing that is a Megaera if it is not a jammer. sent7: the fact that the spearfish is a game and it is a birdlime is not false. sent8: either something does not recoup Nanning or it is a citron or both. sent9: the capitol is not a citron if there exists something such that it recoups renin. sent10: if the filefish does impinge authority the fact that the slasher is both not telephonic and a jammer is incorrect. sent11: the partitionist does not impinge authority if the salsa does impinge authority and is not a game. sent12: there is something such that it does not cane Eurydice and/or it does cane mill-hand. sent13: the filefish impinges authority if the partitionist does not impinges authority. sent14: the salsa is not a kind of a game if the spearfish is a kind of a game. sent15: there is something such that that it is not trustworthy and/or it does not dishonor genipa is not right. sent16: there exists something such that it is a ozonide and/or it is not non-crude. sent17: the capitol is not a Megaera. sent18: The Nanning does not recoup rocambole. sent19: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not trustworthy and/or it does not dishonor genipa does not hold then the salsa does impinge authority. sent20: the fact that something is not cucurbitaceous and not a prang is false if it is a Megaera. sent21: if something is not a prang it does recoup Nanning and it does dishonor selfsameness. sent22: the capitol does recoup renin and/or it does recoup Nanning if that the rocambole is not a citron is not wrong. | sent1: (x): (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}{c} sent2: (x): {A}x -> {B}x sent3: ({B}{b} v {AB}{b}) sent4: (Ex): ({AB}x v {B}x) sent5: ¬{A}{a} sent6: (x): ¬{H}x -> ({G}x & {F}x) sent7: ({K}{g} & {L}{g}) sent8: (Ex): (¬{A}x v {B}x) sent9: (x): {AB}x -> ¬{B}{c} sent10: {J}{d} -> ¬(¬{I}{b} & {H}{b}) sent11: ({J}{f} & ¬{K}{f}) -> ¬{J}{e} sent12: (Ex): (¬{GK}x v {IB}x) sent13: ¬{J}{e} -> {J}{d} sent14: {K}{g} -> ¬{K}{f} sent15: (Ex): ¬(¬{M}x v ¬{N}x) sent16: (Ex): ({EJ}x v {ET}x) sent17: ¬{F}{c} sent18: ¬{AC}{aa} sent19: (x): ¬(¬{M}x v ¬{N}x) -> {J}{f} sent20: (x): {F}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{D}x) sent21: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({A}x & {C}x) sent22: ¬{B}{a} -> ({AB}{c} v {A}{c}) | [] | [] | the capitol is a citron. | {B}{c} | [
"sent2 -> int1: the capitol is a citron if that it recoups Nanning is not incorrect.; sent21 -> int2: if that the capitol is not a prang is right it recoups Nanning and it does dishonor selfsameness.; sent20 -> int3: the fact that the rocambole is not cucurbitaceous and is not a prang is not correct if it is a Megaera.; sent6 -> int4: the rocambole is both nonreturnable and a Megaera if it is not a jammer.; sent15 & sent19 -> int5: the salsa does impinge authority.; sent7 -> int6: the spearfish is a game.; sent14 & int6 -> int7: the salsa is not a game.; int5 & int7 -> int8: the salsa does impinge authority and is not a game.; sent11 & int8 -> int9: the partitionist does not impinge authority.; sent13 & int9 -> int10: the filefish impinges authority.; sent10 & int10 -> int11: the fact that the slasher is not telephonic and is a jammer does not hold.; int11 -> int12: there is something such that that it is non-telephonic thing that is a jammer does not hold.;"
] | 15 | 3 | null | 20 | 0 | 20 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the capitol is not a kind of a citron. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that if something does not cane Pyrex and/or does recoup renin the capitol is not a kind of a citron is correct. sent2: something is a citron if it does recoup Nanning. sent3: the slasher is a citron or it does recoup renin or both. sent4: something does recoup renin or is a citron or both. sent5: the rocambole does not recoup Nanning. sent6: something is a kind of nonreturnable thing that is a Megaera if it is not a jammer. sent7: the fact that the spearfish is a game and it is a birdlime is not false. sent8: either something does not recoup Nanning or it is a citron or both. sent9: the capitol is not a citron if there exists something such that it recoups renin. sent10: if the filefish does impinge authority the fact that the slasher is both not telephonic and a jammer is incorrect. sent11: the partitionist does not impinge authority if the salsa does impinge authority and is not a game. sent12: there is something such that it does not cane Eurydice and/or it does cane mill-hand. sent13: the filefish impinges authority if the partitionist does not impinges authority. sent14: the salsa is not a kind of a game if the spearfish is a kind of a game. sent15: there is something such that that it is not trustworthy and/or it does not dishonor genipa is not right. sent16: there exists something such that it is a ozonide and/or it is not non-crude. sent17: the capitol is not a Megaera. sent18: The Nanning does not recoup rocambole. sent19: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not trustworthy and/or it does not dishonor genipa does not hold then the salsa does impinge authority. sent20: the fact that something is not cucurbitaceous and not a prang is false if it is a Megaera. sent21: if something is not a prang it does recoup Nanning and it does dishonor selfsameness. sent22: the capitol does recoup renin and/or it does recoup Nanning if that the rocambole is not a citron is not wrong. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | there is something such that if it is not neuropsychological then it is a kind of genotypical thing that is not a kind of a Thai. | (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) | sent1: the lobscouse is a kind of Thai thing that is a kind of a tidewater if it is not a murine. sent2: there is something such that if it is not a wheeziness then it buries and it is a brokerage. sent3: the Federal is both a Fergon and not neuropsychological if that it does not recoup lobscouse hold. sent4: if the Federal is not basiscopic then it is a kingbird that is genotypical. sent5: if the annualry is not inextricable then it is a coxsackievirus and it does not interpret. sent6: if the Federal is not a Rheum then it is a decathlon and genotypical. sent7: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a Canella-alba then it is a plane that does not cane calyx. sent8: something is a kind of genotypical thing that is not a Thai if it is not neuropsychological. sent9: if the Federal is not neuropsychological it is not a Thai. sent10: something is not a kind of a Thai if that it is not neuropsychological is not incorrect. sent11: if that the Federal is neuropsychological hold it is genotypical and it is non-Thai. sent12: if the Federal canes forecastle then it familiarizes and it does not cane tubed. sent13: there exists something such that if it is neuropsychological it is not non-genotypical and it is not a Thai. sent14: there is something such that if it is not neuropsychological then that it is not a Thai is right. sent15: there is something such that if it does not cane tubed then it does cane propriety and it does not dishonor season. | sent1: ¬{G}{cg} -> ({AB}{cg} & {BF}{cg}) sent2: (Ex): ¬{I}x -> ({FK}x & {EJ}x) sent3: ¬{GB}{aa} -> ({DS}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa}) sent4: ¬{CP}{aa} -> ({EE}{aa} & {AA}{aa}) sent5: ¬{GR}{gc} -> ({CL}{gc} & ¬{IR}{gc}) sent6: ¬{E}{aa} -> ({JD}{aa} & {AA}{aa}) sent7: (Ex): ¬{JA}x -> ({CA}x & ¬{AO}x) sent8: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent9: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬{AB}{aa} sent10: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{AB}x sent11: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent12: {HJ}{aa} -> ({AK}{aa} & ¬{GK}{aa}) sent13: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent14: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬{AB}x sent15: (Ex): ¬{GK}x -> ({HU}x & ¬{BM}x) | [
"sent8 -> int1: the fact that the Federal is genotypical but it is not a Thai is true if it is not neuropsychological.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent8 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null | [] | null | 2 | 2 | 14 | 0 | 14 | PROVED | null | PROVED | null | $hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is not neuropsychological then it is a kind of genotypical thing that is not a kind of a Thai. ; $context$ = sent1: the lobscouse is a kind of Thai thing that is a kind of a tidewater if it is not a murine. sent2: there is something such that if it is not a wheeziness then it buries and it is a brokerage. sent3: the Federal is both a Fergon and not neuropsychological if that it does not recoup lobscouse hold. sent4: if the Federal is not basiscopic then it is a kingbird that is genotypical. sent5: if the annualry is not inextricable then it is a coxsackievirus and it does not interpret. sent6: if the Federal is not a Rheum then it is a decathlon and genotypical. sent7: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a Canella-alba then it is a plane that does not cane calyx. sent8: something is a kind of genotypical thing that is not a Thai if it is not neuropsychological. sent9: if the Federal is not neuropsychological it is not a Thai. sent10: something is not a kind of a Thai if that it is not neuropsychological is not incorrect. sent11: if that the Federal is neuropsychological hold it is genotypical and it is non-Thai. sent12: if the Federal canes forecastle then it familiarizes and it does not cane tubed. sent13: there exists something such that if it is neuropsychological it is not non-genotypical and it is not a Thai. sent14: there is something such that if it is not neuropsychological then that it is not a Thai is right. sent15: there is something such that if it does not cane tubed then it does cane propriety and it does not dishonor season. ; $proof$ = | sent8 -> int1: the fact that the Federal is genotypical but it is not a Thai is true if it is not neuropsychological.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the collusion occurs. | {D} | sent1: that the sit-down does not occur brings about either that the nonharmonicness does not occur or that the recouping headman does not occur or both. sent2: the non-hydrodynamicsness results in the collusion. sent3: the hemodynamicsness happens if the fact that the battering does not occur is not false. sent4: that the moreness occurs and/or that the diathermy occurs prevents that the hydrodynamicsness happens. sent5: the moreness happens. sent6: the humaneness does not occur if the diathermy does not occur and/or the moreness does not occur. sent7: if the nonharmonicness does not occur and/or the recouping headman does not occur the nonharmonicness does not occur. sent8: the sit-down is prevented by either that the betting does not occur or that the receivership does not occur or both. sent9: both the collusion and the hydrodynamicsness happens if the nonharmonicness does not occur. sent10: if the diathermy happens then the hydrodynamicsness does not occur. sent11: if the hydrodynamicsness occurs then the diathermy does not occur and/or the moreness does not occur. | sent1: ¬{G} -> (¬{E} v ¬{F}) sent2: ¬{C} -> {D} sent3: ¬{BD} -> {FU} sent4: ({A} v {B}) -> ¬{C} sent5: {A} sent6: (¬{B} v ¬{A}) -> ¬{HR} sent7: (¬{E} v ¬{F}) -> ¬{E} sent8: (¬{I} v ¬{H}) -> ¬{G} sent9: ¬{E} -> ({D} & {C}) sent10: {B} -> ¬{C} sent11: {C} -> (¬{B} v ¬{A}) | [
"sent5 -> int1: the moreness happens or the diathermy occurs or both.; sent4 & int1 -> int2: that the hydrodynamicsness does not occur is not incorrect.; sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent5 -> int1: ({A} v {B}); sent4 & int1 -> int2: ¬{C}; sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | the humaneness does not occur. | ¬{HR} | [] | 11 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 8 | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the collusion occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: that the sit-down does not occur brings about either that the nonharmonicness does not occur or that the recouping headman does not occur or both. sent2: the non-hydrodynamicsness results in the collusion. sent3: the hemodynamicsness happens if the fact that the battering does not occur is not false. sent4: that the moreness occurs and/or that the diathermy occurs prevents that the hydrodynamicsness happens. sent5: the moreness happens. sent6: the humaneness does not occur if the diathermy does not occur and/or the moreness does not occur. sent7: if the nonharmonicness does not occur and/or the recouping headman does not occur the nonharmonicness does not occur. sent8: the sit-down is prevented by either that the betting does not occur or that the receivership does not occur or both. sent9: both the collusion and the hydrodynamicsness happens if the nonharmonicness does not occur. sent10: if the diathermy happens then the hydrodynamicsness does not occur. sent11: if the hydrodynamicsness occurs then the diathermy does not occur and/or the moreness does not occur. ; $proof$ = | sent5 -> int1: the moreness happens or the diathermy occurs or both.; sent4 & int1 -> int2: that the hydrodynamicsness does not occur is not incorrect.; sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the caning Apollinaire does not occur. | ¬{C} | sent1: the recouping swarm occurs. sent2: both the centromericness and the flash happens if the Rastafarian does not occur. sent3: that the dishonoring corundom does not occur and the large-capitalizationness does not occur is brought about by that the impinging obsequiousness does not occur. sent4: the fact that the impinging obsequiousness does not occur is right if that the Honduranness occurs and the zygoticness occurs is wrong. sent5: if the predicating occurs the caning Apollinaire occurs. sent6: that the recouping swarm does not occur causes that the egoisticness does not occur but the reproduction happens. sent7: if the centromericness occurs the fact that that not the patrol but the Draconianness occurs hold is not right. sent8: if the unalertness does not occur then the caning Apollinaire does not occur or the predicate happens or both. sent9: that the recouping swarm occurs triggers that not the braking but the native occurs. sent10: if the disembowelment occurs the Rastafarian does not occur. sent11: if not the dishonoring herbarium but the gubernatorialness happens then the caning scallop happens. sent12: the unalertness does not occur and the uranoplasty does not occur if the excitableness happens. sent13: the fact that both the Honduranness and the zygoticness happens is not correct if the Draconianness does not occur. sent14: if the fact that that the patrolling does not occur and the Draconianness occurs is false is not wrong then the Draconianness does not occur. sent15: the predicating happens if the braking does not occur but the nativeness occurs. sent16: if the predicating does not occur that not the recouping swarm but the caning Apollinaire occurs does not hold. sent17: if the large-capitalizationness does not occur the excitableness happens and the pea-souper occurs. | sent1: {A} sent2: ¬{Q} -> ({N} & {P}) sent3: ¬{J} -> (¬{I} & ¬{H}) sent4: ¬({L} & {K}) -> ¬{J} sent5: {B} -> {C} sent6: ¬{A} -> (¬{EH} & {CP}) sent7: {N} -> ¬(¬{O} & {M}) sent8: ¬{D} -> (¬{C} v {B}) sent9: {A} -> (¬{AA} & {AB}) sent10: {R} -> ¬{Q} sent11: (¬{AR} & {BO}) -> {BT} sent12: {F} -> (¬{D} & ¬{E}) sent13: ¬{M} -> ¬({L} & {K}) sent14: ¬(¬{O} & {M}) -> ¬{M} sent15: (¬{AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent16: ¬{B} -> ¬(¬{A} & {C}) sent17: ¬{H} -> ({F} & {G}) | [
"sent9 & sent1 -> int1: the brake does not occur and the native occurs.; sent15 & int1 -> int2: the predicating occurs.; sent5 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent9 & sent1 -> int1: (¬{AA} & {AB}); sent15 & int1 -> int2: {B}; sent5 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | the caning Apollinaire does not occur. | ¬{C} | [] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 13 | 0 | 13 | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the caning Apollinaire does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the recouping swarm occurs. sent2: both the centromericness and the flash happens if the Rastafarian does not occur. sent3: that the dishonoring corundom does not occur and the large-capitalizationness does not occur is brought about by that the impinging obsequiousness does not occur. sent4: the fact that the impinging obsequiousness does not occur is right if that the Honduranness occurs and the zygoticness occurs is wrong. sent5: if the predicating occurs the caning Apollinaire occurs. sent6: that the recouping swarm does not occur causes that the egoisticness does not occur but the reproduction happens. sent7: if the centromericness occurs the fact that that not the patrol but the Draconianness occurs hold is not right. sent8: if the unalertness does not occur then the caning Apollinaire does not occur or the predicate happens or both. sent9: that the recouping swarm occurs triggers that not the braking but the native occurs. sent10: if the disembowelment occurs the Rastafarian does not occur. sent11: if not the dishonoring herbarium but the gubernatorialness happens then the caning scallop happens. sent12: the unalertness does not occur and the uranoplasty does not occur if the excitableness happens. sent13: the fact that both the Honduranness and the zygoticness happens is not correct if the Draconianness does not occur. sent14: if the fact that that the patrolling does not occur and the Draconianness occurs is false is not wrong then the Draconianness does not occur. sent15: the predicating happens if the braking does not occur but the nativeness occurs. sent16: if the predicating does not occur that not the recouping swarm but the caning Apollinaire occurs does not hold. sent17: if the large-capitalizationness does not occur the excitableness happens and the pea-souper occurs. ; $proof$ = | sent9 & sent1 -> int1: the brake does not occur and the native occurs.; sent15 & int1 -> int2: the predicating occurs.; sent5 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | that if the dishonoring lector does not occur then the praise does not occur is incorrect. | ¬(¬{A} -> ¬{B}) | sent1: the fact that the recouping individuality happens or the torture occurs or both does not hold if the dishonoring lector does not occur. sent2: that either the acidifying happens or the recouping molding occurs or both is not true if the dishonoring toasting does not occur. sent3: the recouping individuality does not occur. sent4: if the multiphaseness does not occur then the fact that the gathering occurs or the aecialness happens or both is wrong. sent5: the fact that the souring or the unsupportiveness or both occurs does not hold. sent6: if that the recouping individuality happens or the torturing happens or both is wrong the praising happens. sent7: the fact that the Aeschyleanness occurs or the listing occurs or both is false. sent8: the fact that the tactileness happens and/or the impinging linsey-woolsey happens is wrong. sent9: the fact that the blending and/or the prostateness occurs does not hold. sent10: if that the recouping individuality or the torturing or both occurs does not hold then the praising does not occur. sent11: the recouping individuality does not occur if the dishonoring lector does not occur. sent12: the aftereffect does not occur if that that the imbibing and/or the caning weight happens does not hold is not false. sent13: the praising happens. sent14: the fact that the apprenticeship does not occur is correct. sent15: the caning brodiaea does not occur if the parasympathetic does not occur. sent16: if the fact that the paperwork or the uncompassionateness or both occurs is incorrect then that the sourness does not occur is correct. sent17: if the dishonoring lector does not occur the praise happens. sent18: if the dolichocephalic does not occur then that the synergisticness and/or the premenopausalness occurs does not hold. | sent1: ¬{A} -> ¬({AA} v {AB}) sent2: ¬{HT} -> ¬({IE} v {EH}) sent3: ¬{AA} sent4: ¬{CR} -> ¬({R} v {IO}) sent5: ¬({AR} v {FE}) sent6: ¬({AA} v {AB}) -> {B} sent7: ¬({O} v {ER}) sent8: ¬({EJ} v {IG}) sent9: ¬({HK} v {DE}) sent10: ¬({AA} v {AB}) -> ¬{B} sent11: ¬{A} -> ¬{AA} sent12: ¬({F} v {D}) -> ¬{AD} sent13: {B} sent14: ¬{CP} sent15: ¬{BD} -> ¬{HG} sent16: ¬({BE} v {IJ}) -> ¬{AR} sent17: ¬{A} -> {B} sent18: ¬{IT} -> ¬({EN} v {FB}) | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the dishonoring lector happens does not hold.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: that either the recouping individuality happens or the torturing occurs or both is not true.; sent10 & int1 -> int2: the praise does not occur.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"void -> assump1: ¬{A}; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: ¬({AA} v {AB}); sent10 & int1 -> int2: ¬{B}; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null | [] | null | 3 | 3 | 16 | 0 | 16 | DISPROVED | null | DISPROVED | null | $hypothesis$ = that if the dishonoring lector does not occur then the praise does not occur is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the recouping individuality happens or the torture occurs or both does not hold if the dishonoring lector does not occur. sent2: that either the acidifying happens or the recouping molding occurs or both is not true if the dishonoring toasting does not occur. sent3: the recouping individuality does not occur. sent4: if the multiphaseness does not occur then the fact that the gathering occurs or the aecialness happens or both is wrong. sent5: the fact that the souring or the unsupportiveness or both occurs does not hold. sent6: if that the recouping individuality happens or the torturing happens or both is wrong the praising happens. sent7: the fact that the Aeschyleanness occurs or the listing occurs or both is false. sent8: the fact that the tactileness happens and/or the impinging linsey-woolsey happens is wrong. sent9: the fact that the blending and/or the prostateness occurs does not hold. sent10: if that the recouping individuality or the torturing or both occurs does not hold then the praising does not occur. sent11: the recouping individuality does not occur if the dishonoring lector does not occur. sent12: the aftereffect does not occur if that that the imbibing and/or the caning weight happens does not hold is not false. sent13: the praising happens. sent14: the fact that the apprenticeship does not occur is correct. sent15: the caning brodiaea does not occur if the parasympathetic does not occur. sent16: if the fact that the paperwork or the uncompassionateness or both occurs is incorrect then that the sourness does not occur is correct. sent17: if the dishonoring lector does not occur the praise happens. sent18: if the dolichocephalic does not occur then that the synergisticness and/or the premenopausalness occurs does not hold. ; $proof$ = | void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the dishonoring lector happens does not hold.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: that either the recouping individuality happens or the torturing occurs or both is not true.; sent10 & int1 -> int2: the praise does not occur.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | there is something such that if it does dishonor Somrai the fact that it is a platyrrhine and it is not a philosophy does not hold. | (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) | sent1: there exists something such that if it does shine the fact that it is synchronous and it is not virulent is not right. sent2: there is something such that if it is a biweekly that it does boot and is a kern is not correct. sent3: that something does recoup Laramie and is not a Fijian is false if it is cyclonic. sent4: that the lacrimation is a platyrrhine but not a philosophy is wrong if it does dishonor Somrai. | sent1: (Ex): {HL}x -> ¬({CT}x & ¬{HI}x) sent2: (Ex): {EU}x -> ¬({BL}x & {CN}x) sent3: (x): {HT}x -> ¬({GK}x & ¬{IT}x) sent4: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) | [
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | if the gatherer is cyclonic then that it does recoup Laramie and is not Fijian is not right. | {HT}{fr} -> ¬({GK}{fr} & ¬{IT}{fr}) | [
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3 | PROVED | PROVED | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it does dishonor Somrai the fact that it is a platyrrhine and it is not a philosophy does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it does shine the fact that it is synchronous and it is not virulent is not right. sent2: there is something such that if it is a biweekly that it does boot and is a kern is not correct. sent3: that something does recoup Laramie and is not a Fijian is false if it is cyclonic. sent4: that the lacrimation is a platyrrhine but not a philosophy is wrong if it does dishonor Somrai. ; $proof$ = | sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the recouping catostomid occurs. | {B} | sent1: the philandering does not occur if that the holdout does not occur and the winking happens is wrong. sent2: the self-fertilization does not occur if that the shoot-down occurs hold. sent3: the reallocation but not the dishonoring outfielder happens. sent4: that the philandering does not occur triggers that the sanitariness and the shoot-down occurs. sent5: that the badminton does not occur and the cosmologicness does not occur is not true if the self-fertilization happens. sent6: if the fetoscopy occurs then the recouping catostomid happens but the caning bohemianism does not occur. sent7: if that both the cosmologicness and the fetoscopy occurs is not true the fetoscopy does not occur. sent8: the recouping catostomid does not occur and the caning bohemianism does not occur if the fetoscopy does not occur. sent9: that the badminton does not occur is correct if the fact that both the badminton and the caning membered happens is wrong. sent10: the winding occurs and the asynchronousness occurs if the Keynesianness does not occur. sent11: that the reallocation happens and the dishonoring outfielder happens prevents that the recouping catostomid does not occur. sent12: the dishonoring outfielder does not occur. sent13: that the reallocation but not the dishonoring outfielder occurs prevents that the recouping catostomid does not occur. sent14: the fact that the holdout does not occur but the wink occurs is false if the winding happens. sent15: if that the badminton does not occur and the cosmologicness does not occur is false then the fetoscopy occurs. sent16: that both the cosmologicness and the fetoscopy happens is false if the badminton does not occur. sent17: if the caning bohemianism does not occur the catechismalness but not the hydrolyzing happens. sent18: the shoot-down and the sanitariness occurs if the philandering does not occur. sent19: the fact that the caning membered does not occur but the self-fertilization happens if the shoot-down occurs hold. sent20: that if the self-fertilization does not occur that the badminton happens and the caning membered happens does not hold is not false. | sent1: ¬(¬{K} & {L}) -> ¬{J} sent2: {H} -> ¬{F} sent3: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent4: ¬{J} -> ({I} & {H}) sent5: {F} -> ¬(¬{E} & ¬{D}) sent6: {C} -> ({B} & ¬{A}) sent7: ¬({D} & {C}) -> ¬{C} sent8: ¬{C} -> (¬{B} & ¬{A}) sent9: ¬({E} & {G}) -> ¬{E} sent10: ¬{O} -> ({M} & {N}) sent11: ({AA} & {AB}) -> {B} sent12: ¬{AB} sent13: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent14: {M} -> ¬(¬{K} & {L}) sent15: ¬(¬{E} & ¬{D}) -> {C} sent16: ¬{E} -> ¬({D} & {C}) sent17: ¬{A} -> ({BJ} & ¬{AD}) sent18: ¬{J} -> ({H} & {I}) sent19: {H} -> (¬{G} & {F}) sent20: ¬{F} -> ¬({E} & {G}) | [
"sent13 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent13 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | the catechismalness occurs but the hydrolyzing does not occur. | ({BJ} & ¬{AD}) | [] | 11 | 1 | 1 | 18 | 0 | 18 | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the recouping catostomid occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the philandering does not occur if that the holdout does not occur and the winking happens is wrong. sent2: the self-fertilization does not occur if that the shoot-down occurs hold. sent3: the reallocation but not the dishonoring outfielder happens. sent4: that the philandering does not occur triggers that the sanitariness and the shoot-down occurs. sent5: that the badminton does not occur and the cosmologicness does not occur is not true if the self-fertilization happens. sent6: if the fetoscopy occurs then the recouping catostomid happens but the caning bohemianism does not occur. sent7: if that both the cosmologicness and the fetoscopy occurs is not true the fetoscopy does not occur. sent8: the recouping catostomid does not occur and the caning bohemianism does not occur if the fetoscopy does not occur. sent9: that the badminton does not occur is correct if the fact that both the badminton and the caning membered happens is wrong. sent10: the winding occurs and the asynchronousness occurs if the Keynesianness does not occur. sent11: that the reallocation happens and the dishonoring outfielder happens prevents that the recouping catostomid does not occur. sent12: the dishonoring outfielder does not occur. sent13: that the reallocation but not the dishonoring outfielder occurs prevents that the recouping catostomid does not occur. sent14: the fact that the holdout does not occur but the wink occurs is false if the winding happens. sent15: if that the badminton does not occur and the cosmologicness does not occur is false then the fetoscopy occurs. sent16: that both the cosmologicness and the fetoscopy happens is false if the badminton does not occur. sent17: if the caning bohemianism does not occur the catechismalness but not the hydrolyzing happens. sent18: the shoot-down and the sanitariness occurs if the philandering does not occur. sent19: the fact that the caning membered does not occur but the self-fertilization happens if the shoot-down occurs hold. sent20: that if the self-fertilization does not occur that the badminton happens and the caning membered happens does not hold is not false. ; $proof$ = | sent13 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the centaury does cane Carpinus and carouses. | ({C}{a} & {B}{a}) | sent1: that something is not a tidemark but it is nonabsorbent is false if it is a lowland. sent2: if something is not nonabsorbent that it does dishonor headman and does not cane Arctonyx does not hold. sent3: if the cesspool is not a lyreflower the fact that either the centaury is not acetylic or it does cane Carpinus or both is not true. sent4: the Burnside is cyprian. sent5: the centaury is not a trekker if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a hyperactivity that does not refuse does not hold. sent6: the mendelevium is lowland if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a lowland and it does not surround does not hold. sent7: the centaury is not gyroscopic. sent8: if the Burnside is cyprian it does dishonor speculum. sent9: the cesspool is not a trekker if the fact that the photoelectron is not a lyreflower but it is acetylic is incorrect. sent10: that the radio-phonograph is not a kind of a lowland and it does not surround is wrong if there exists something such that it is not diagonalizable. sent11: there is something such that that it is a kind of a hyperactivity that does not refuse does not hold. sent12: the corbie-step is a kind of a hyperactivity and it impinges eparchy. sent13: if the Burnside dishonors speculum then the fact that it impinges cahoot or it is not diagonalizable or both is not right. sent14: if something does not scat then the fact that it is both not a lyreflower and acetylic does not hold. sent15: if the centaury is not a kind of a trekker it does cane Carpinus and it carouses. sent16: something is a kind of a carouse that confabulates if it is not a trekker. sent17: if the fact that the mendelevium is not a kind of a tidemark but it is nonabsorbent does not hold then the pea-souper is not nonabsorbent. sent18: there exists something such that the fact that it does cane Carpinus and it is not a kind of a trekker does not hold. sent19: the caecilian is not diagonalizable if that the Burnside does impinge cahoot and/or it is not diagonalizable is not correct. sent20: the fact that the centaury canes Carpinus and carouses is incorrect if the cesspool is not a trekker. | sent1: (x): {K}x -> ¬(¬{J}x & {I}x) sent2: (x): ¬{I}x -> ¬({G}x & ¬{H}x) sent3: ¬{E}{b} -> ¬(¬{D}{a} v {C}{a}) sent4: {P}{h} sent5: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent6: (x): ¬(¬{K}x & ¬{M}x) -> {K}{e} sent7: ¬{EB}{a} sent8: {P}{h} -> {N}{h} sent9: ¬(¬{E}{c} & {D}{c}) -> ¬{A}{b} sent10: (x): ¬{L}x -> ¬(¬{K}{f} & ¬{M}{f}) sent11: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent12: ({AA}{ga} & {IS}{ga}) sent13: {N}{h} -> ¬({O}{h} v ¬{L}{h}) sent14: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & {D}x) sent15: ¬{A}{a} -> ({C}{a} & {B}{a}) sent16: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({B}x & {JA}x) sent17: ¬(¬{J}{e} & {I}{e}) -> ¬{I}{d} sent18: (Ex): ¬({C}x & ¬{A}x) sent19: ¬({O}{h} v ¬{L}{h}) -> ¬{L}{g} sent20: ¬{A}{b} -> ¬({C}{a} & {B}{a}) | [
"sent11 & sent5 -> int1: the centaury is not a trekker.; int1 & sent15 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent11 & sent5 -> int1: ¬{A}{a}; int1 & sent15 -> hypothesis;"
] | the bairn does carouse and it confabulates. | ({B}{ik} & {JA}{ik}) | [
"sent16 -> int2: the fact that the bairn is a carouse and does confabulate is not incorrect if it is not a trekker.;"
] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 17 | 0 | 17 | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the centaury does cane Carpinus and carouses. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is not a tidemark but it is nonabsorbent is false if it is a lowland. sent2: if something is not nonabsorbent that it does dishonor headman and does not cane Arctonyx does not hold. sent3: if the cesspool is not a lyreflower the fact that either the centaury is not acetylic or it does cane Carpinus or both is not true. sent4: the Burnside is cyprian. sent5: the centaury is not a trekker if there is something such that the fact that it is a kind of a hyperactivity that does not refuse does not hold. sent6: the mendelevium is lowland if there exists something such that the fact that it is not a lowland and it does not surround does not hold. sent7: the centaury is not gyroscopic. sent8: if the Burnside is cyprian it does dishonor speculum. sent9: the cesspool is not a trekker if the fact that the photoelectron is not a lyreflower but it is acetylic is incorrect. sent10: that the radio-phonograph is not a kind of a lowland and it does not surround is wrong if there exists something such that it is not diagonalizable. sent11: there is something such that that it is a kind of a hyperactivity that does not refuse does not hold. sent12: the corbie-step is a kind of a hyperactivity and it impinges eparchy. sent13: if the Burnside dishonors speculum then the fact that it impinges cahoot or it is not diagonalizable or both is not right. sent14: if something does not scat then the fact that it is both not a lyreflower and acetylic does not hold. sent15: if the centaury is not a kind of a trekker it does cane Carpinus and it carouses. sent16: something is a kind of a carouse that confabulates if it is not a trekker. sent17: if the fact that the mendelevium is not a kind of a tidemark but it is nonabsorbent does not hold then the pea-souper is not nonabsorbent. sent18: there exists something such that the fact that it does cane Carpinus and it is not a kind of a trekker does not hold. sent19: the caecilian is not diagonalizable if that the Burnside does impinge cahoot and/or it is not diagonalizable is not correct. sent20: the fact that the centaury canes Carpinus and carouses is incorrect if the cesspool is not a trekker. ; $proof$ = | sent11 & sent5 -> int1: the centaury is not a trekker.; int1 & sent15 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the tammy is hidrotic. | {C}{b} | sent1: if something is an impression the tammy is not non-hidrotic and it is a kind of an okra. sent2: something does not recoup graphics if that it is an impression and is an okra is incorrect. | sent1: (x): {B}x -> ({C}{b} & {D}{b}) sent2: (x): ¬({B}x & {D}x) -> ¬{A}x | [] | [] | the tammy is not hidrotic. | ¬{C}{b} | [
"sent2 -> int1: if the fact that the baby is a kind of an impression and it is an okra is not correct it does not recoup graphics.;"
] | 5 | 4 | null | 1 | 0 | 1 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the tammy is hidrotic. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is an impression the tammy is not non-hidrotic and it is a kind of an okra. sent2: something does not recoup graphics if that it is an impression and is an okra is incorrect. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ |