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 upstage does not groom hold. | ¬{B}{aa} | sent1: if something is non-public but it is a quack it does not groom. sent2: the fact that the upstage is not a kind of a quack hold. sent3: the upstage is not a quack if it does not recommend upstage. sent4: the upstage is a kind of non-public thing that is not a quack if it does not recommend upstage. sent5: if the upstage is not public and is a quack then it does not groom. sent6: if something is both not a public and not a quack then it does not groom. sent7: The upstage does not recommend upstage. | sent1: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent2: ¬{AB}{aa} sent3: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬{AB}{aa} sent4: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent5: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent6: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent7: ¬{AC}{ab} | [
"sent6 -> int1: the upstage is not a kind of a groom if it is not a public and not a quack.;"
] | [
"sent6 -> int1: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa};"
] | null | null | [] | null | 2 | null | 5 | 0 | 5 | UNKNOWN | null | UNKNOWN | null | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the upstage does not groom hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is non-public but it is a quack it does not groom. sent2: the fact that the upstage is not a kind of a quack hold. sent3: the upstage is not a quack if it does not recommend upstage. sent4: the upstage is a kind of non-public thing that is not a quack if it does not recommend upstage. sent5: if the upstage is not public and is a quack then it does not groom. sent6: if something is both not a public and not a quack then it does not groom. sent7: The upstage does not recommend upstage. ; $proof$ = | sent6 -> int1: the upstage is not a kind of a groom if it is not a public and not a quack.; __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | there is something such that if it is a kind of a counterfeit then the fact that it does not blitz or it is a kind of a sunburned or both is correct. | (Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) | sent1: the rooting is inelegant or is counterfeit or both if it is Jewish. sent2: that the grosgrain is not the blitz and/or it sunburns if the grosgrain is a counterfeit is true. | sent1: {BM}{fs} -> (¬{AU}{fs} v {A}{fs}) sent2: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) | [
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null | [] | null | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | PROVED | null | PROVED | null | $hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is a kind of a counterfeit then the fact that it does not blitz or it is a kind of a sunburned or both is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the rooting is inelegant or is counterfeit or both if it is Jewish. sent2: that the grosgrain is not the blitz and/or it sunburns if the grosgrain is a counterfeit is true. ; $proof$ = | sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | that the foster-mother is not Sabahan and it is not a arsenical is incorrect. | ¬(¬{B}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) | sent1: the fact that something is a kind of chiasmal thing that is not irreconcilable is wrong if it is not autoradiographic. sent2: the synovia is not a signaler. sent3: something is not Sabahan if that it stagnates and it is not an ovulation is not true. sent4: the pentode does accompany and is a kind of a radicalism if it is not a LGV. sent5: the synovia is not chiasmal if that the warfarin is chiasmal and is not irreconcilable is not true. sent6: if that the sexton is not a signaler is correct then that the fact that the synovia does stagnate and is not an ovulation does not hold is true. sent7: the fact that the foster-mother is not a Sabahan and it is not a kind of a arsenical is not right if the sexton is a kind of a signaler. sent8: the warfarin is not autoradiographic and is not a stein if the pentode is a radicalism. sent9: that the fact that something is respectful but not a signaler hold is wrong if it backpacks fingertip. sent10: if something is not chiasmal it does backpack fingertip. sent11: if the synovia is not a kind of a Sabahan the fact that the foster-mother is both not Sabahan and not arsenical is correct. sent12: the sexton is not a signaler. sent13: the pentode is not a kind of a LGV. | sent1: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬({F}x & ¬{G}x) sent2: ¬{A}{b} sent3: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent4: ¬{L}{e} -> ({K}{e} & {J}{e}) sent5: ¬({F}{d} & ¬{G}{d}) -> ¬{F}{b} sent6: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent7: {A}{a} -> ¬(¬{B}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) sent8: {J}{e} -> (¬{H}{d} & ¬{I}{d}) sent9: (x): {E}x -> ¬({D}x & ¬{A}x) sent10: (x): ¬{F}x -> {E}x sent11: ¬{B}{b} -> (¬{B}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) sent12: ¬{A}{a} sent13: ¬{L}{e} | [
"sent6 & sent12 -> int1: that the synovia stagnates and is not an ovulation is not correct.; sent3 -> int2: if that the synovia does stagnate and is not an ovulation is not true then that it is not a kind of a Sabahan is correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the synovia is not Sabahan.; int3 & sent11 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent6 & sent12 -> int1: ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}); sent3 -> int2: ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬{B}{b}; int3 & sent11 -> hypothesis;"
] | the fact that the foster-mother is both not Sabahan and not a arsenical does not hold. | ¬(¬{B}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) | [
"sent9 -> int4: that the synovia is respectful but not a signaler is not right if it does backpack fingertip.; sent10 -> int5: if the synovia is not chiasmal it does backpack fingertip.; sent1 -> int6: that the warfarin is a kind of chiasmal thing that is not irreconcilable is false if it is not autoradiographic.; sent4 & sent13 -> int7: the pentode does accompany and it is a kind of a radicalism.; int7 -> int8: the pentode is a kind of a radicalism.; sent8 & int8 -> int9: the warfarin is not autoradiographic and it is not a stein.; int9 -> int10: the warfarin is not autoradiographic.; int6 & int10 -> int11: the fact that the warfarin is chiasmal and not irreconcilable is not correct.; sent5 & int11 -> int12: the synovia is not chiasmal.; int5 & int12 -> int13: the synovia backpacks fingertip.; int4 & int13 -> int14: the fact that the synovia is a kind of respectful thing that is not a kind of a signaler is false.; int14 -> int15: there exists something such that the fact that it is respectful and it is not a signaler does not hold.;"
] | 11 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 0 | 9 | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = that the foster-mother is not Sabahan and it is not a arsenical is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is a kind of chiasmal thing that is not irreconcilable is wrong if it is not autoradiographic. sent2: the synovia is not a signaler. sent3: something is not Sabahan if that it stagnates and it is not an ovulation is not true. sent4: the pentode does accompany and is a kind of a radicalism if it is not a LGV. sent5: the synovia is not chiasmal if that the warfarin is chiasmal and is not irreconcilable is not true. sent6: if that the sexton is not a signaler is correct then that the fact that the synovia does stagnate and is not an ovulation does not hold is true. sent7: the fact that the foster-mother is not a Sabahan and it is not a kind of a arsenical is not right if the sexton is a kind of a signaler. sent8: the warfarin is not autoradiographic and is not a stein if the pentode is a radicalism. sent9: that the fact that something is respectful but not a signaler hold is wrong if it backpacks fingertip. sent10: if something is not chiasmal it does backpack fingertip. sent11: if the synovia is not a kind of a Sabahan the fact that the foster-mother is both not Sabahan and not arsenical is correct. sent12: the sexton is not a signaler. sent13: the pentode is not a kind of a LGV. ; $proof$ = | sent6 & sent12 -> int1: that the synovia stagnates and is not an ovulation is not correct.; sent3 -> int2: if that the synovia does stagnate and is not an ovulation is not true then that it is not a kind of a Sabahan is correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the synovia is not Sabahan.; int3 & sent11 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the councilwoman is a kind of a surrealist. | {A}{aa} | sent1: everything is a Podilymbus but not a Psithyrus. sent2: something that is conductive is a riposte. sent3: everything is not a reflectance. sent4: if that the Masorete is a laterality is true the Milanese is antennal. sent5: if that the buntal is not a kind of a superscript is right then the bootstrap is reliable and it recommends Hirundo. sent6: the Masorete is a laterality if the zero is a kind of a laterality. sent7: if something that is a kind of a Podilymbus is not a Psithyrus it is not a surrealist. sent8: if something is antennal then it does not recommend population or does not recommend pliability or both. sent9: if the fact that the hearer is not an ether and it is not conductive is false then the councilwoman is conductive. sent10: everything is not a Psithyrus. sent11: the bootstrap does boat Ficus if it does recommend Hirundo. sent12: the councilwoman does not recommend Masorete. sent13: the masterpiece serves unattractiveness but it does not backpack nosology. sent14: the shawm is not a boulder if the Milanese does not recommend population and/or it does not recommend pliability. sent15: something is not an apparition if it elaborates and it is not a muslin. sent16: everything is not a kind of a graviton. sent17: the buntal is not a superscript. sent18: the councilwoman is not a absconder. sent19: that something is a kind of a surrealist is correct if it does riposte. sent20: if the shawm is not a boulder the fact that the hearer is not an ether and it is not conductive is wrong. sent21: the councilwoman does not serve bootstrap if it is a surrealist and it is impalpable. | sent1: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent2: (x): {C}x -> {B}x sent3: (x): ¬{AJ}x sent4: {I}{d} -> {H}{c} sent5: ¬{M}{g} -> ({L}{f} & {K}{f}) sent6: {I}{e} -> {I}{d} sent7: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{A}x sent8: (x): {H}x -> (¬{F}x v ¬{G}x) sent9: ¬(¬{D}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {C}{aa} sent10: (x): ¬{AB}x sent11: {K}{f} -> {J}{f} sent12: ¬{IJ}{aa} sent13: ({FU}{ha} & ¬{FI}{ha}) sent14: (¬{F}{c} v ¬{G}{c}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent15: (x): ({FO}x & ¬{IN}x) -> ¬{CC}x sent16: (x): ¬{U}x sent17: ¬{M}{g} sent18: ¬{GB}{aa} sent19: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent20: ¬{E}{b} -> ¬(¬{D}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent21: ({A}{aa} & {CK}{aa}) -> ¬{HA}{aa} | [
"sent1 -> int1: the councilwoman is a Podilymbus but it is not a Psithyrus.; sent7 -> int2: the fact that the councilwoman is not a surrealist is true if it is both a Podilymbus and not a Psithyrus.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent1 -> int1: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); sent7 -> int2: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | the councilwoman is a surrealist. | {A}{aa} | [
"sent19 -> int3: if the fact that the councilwoman ripostes is not incorrect then it is a kind of a surrealist.; sent2 -> int4: the councilwoman does riposte if it is conductive.; sent8 -> int5: the Milanese does not recommend population and/or it does not recommend pliability if it is antennal.; sent5 & sent17 -> int6: the bootstrap is reliable and does recommend Hirundo.; int6 -> int7: the bootstrap recommends Hirundo.; sent11 & int7 -> int8: that the bootstrap does boat Ficus hold.; int8 -> int9: there exists something such that the fact that it does boat Ficus is not wrong.;"
] | 13 | 2 | 2 | 19 | 0 | 19 | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the councilwoman is a kind of a surrealist. ; $context$ = sent1: everything is a Podilymbus but not a Psithyrus. sent2: something that is conductive is a riposte. sent3: everything is not a reflectance. sent4: if that the Masorete is a laterality is true the Milanese is antennal. sent5: if that the buntal is not a kind of a superscript is right then the bootstrap is reliable and it recommends Hirundo. sent6: the Masorete is a laterality if the zero is a kind of a laterality. sent7: if something that is a kind of a Podilymbus is not a Psithyrus it is not a surrealist. sent8: if something is antennal then it does not recommend population or does not recommend pliability or both. sent9: if the fact that the hearer is not an ether and it is not conductive is false then the councilwoman is conductive. sent10: everything is not a Psithyrus. sent11: the bootstrap does boat Ficus if it does recommend Hirundo. sent12: the councilwoman does not recommend Masorete. sent13: the masterpiece serves unattractiveness but it does not backpack nosology. sent14: the shawm is not a boulder if the Milanese does not recommend population and/or it does not recommend pliability. sent15: something is not an apparition if it elaborates and it is not a muslin. sent16: everything is not a kind of a graviton. sent17: the buntal is not a superscript. sent18: the councilwoman is not a absconder. sent19: that something is a kind of a surrealist is correct if it does riposte. sent20: if the shawm is not a boulder the fact that the hearer is not an ether and it is not conductive is wrong. sent21: the councilwoman does not serve bootstrap if it is a surrealist and it is impalpable. ; $proof$ = | sent1 -> int1: the councilwoman is a Podilymbus but it is not a Psithyrus.; sent7 -> int2: the fact that the councilwoman is not a surrealist is true if it is both a Podilymbus and not a Psithyrus.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | that the utensil does recommend lumpfish and is a stake is false. | ¬({D}{c} & {E}{c}) | sent1: the harpsichordist is Deweyan if it is climactic. sent2: that the utensil does recommend lumpfish is not false if it is postglacial. sent3: if the Catholic does recommend lifeboat then the fact that the hydrosphere does not recommend lumpfish and it is not a clearway does not hold. sent4: something that is upper-class is intracellular. sent5: if something is strong it is ctenoid. sent6: the utensil is a stake. sent7: if the lifeboat is not a clearway then the Catholic recommends lifeboat and/or it is not Deweyan. sent8: that the utensil is a kind of a clearway is correct if the ultramarine does recommend lifeboat. sent9: if the utensil recommends lifeboat then the ultramarine is a clearway. sent10: that something recommends lumpfish if it is a clearway is not incorrect. sent11: the obsessive-compulsive is a kind of a Phalacrocorax and it clears. sent12: the ultramarine is a stake if the utensil is Deweyan. sent13: the ultramarine is Deweyan and/or does recommend lifeboat. sent14: the utensil is oblate. sent15: the porter is a cellularity and it is a kind of a stake. sent16: the ultramarine stakes if the utensil is a clearway. sent17: the ultramarine does recommend lumpfish if it is Deweyan. sent18: if that the Catholic is a kind of a stake that is Deweyan is incorrect then the ultramarine is not a stake. sent19: if the ultramarine is a kind of a stake then the utensil is Deweyan. sent20: if the Catholic recommends lifeboat or it is not Deweyan or both the ultramarine is not a stake. sent21: the ghat is a stake and it is a kind of a checker. sent22: if the convertible is not a mineralogy and not anuran the dangleberry is anuran. sent23: that the utensil is a clearway is correct if the ultramarine is Deweyan. sent24: the utensil does recommend lifeboat. | sent1: {IN}{fl} -> {A}{fl} sent2: {DP}{c} -> {D}{c} sent3: {B}{b} -> ¬(¬{D}{jk} & ¬{C}{jk}) sent4: (x): {AF}x -> {ED}x sent5: (x): {DF}x -> {FM}x sent6: {E}{c} sent7: ¬{C}{d} -> ({B}{b} v ¬{A}{b}) sent8: {B}{a} -> {C}{c} sent9: {B}{c} -> {C}{a} sent10: (x): {C}x -> {D}x sent11: ({DQ}{hr} & {CQ}{hr}) sent12: {A}{c} -> {E}{a} sent13: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}) sent14: {U}{c} sent15: ({HI}{gs} & {E}{gs}) sent16: {C}{c} -> {E}{a} sent17: {A}{a} -> {D}{a} sent18: ¬({E}{b} & {A}{b}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent19: {E}{a} -> {A}{c} sent20: ({B}{b} v ¬{A}{b}) -> ¬{E}{a} sent21: ({E}{it} & {IR}{it}) sent22: (¬{H}{f} & ¬{F}{f}) -> {F}{e} sent23: {A}{a} -> {C}{c} sent24: {B}{c} | [
"sent13 & sent23 & sent8 -> int1: the utensil is a kind of a clearway.; sent10 -> int2: if the utensil is a kind of a clearway then the fact that it recommends lumpfish is true.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the utensil recommends lumpfish.; int3 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent13 & sent23 & sent8 -> int1: {C}{c}; sent10 -> int2: {C}{c} -> {D}{c}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {D}{c}; int3 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] | the hydrosphere recommends lumpfish and it is a lapdog. | ({D}{jk} & {HS}{jk}) | [] | 3 | 3 | 3 | 19 | 0 | 19 | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = that the utensil does recommend lumpfish and is a stake is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the harpsichordist is Deweyan if it is climactic. sent2: that the utensil does recommend lumpfish is not false if it is postglacial. sent3: if the Catholic does recommend lifeboat then the fact that the hydrosphere does not recommend lumpfish and it is not a clearway does not hold. sent4: something that is upper-class is intracellular. sent5: if something is strong it is ctenoid. sent6: the utensil is a stake. sent7: if the lifeboat is not a clearway then the Catholic recommends lifeboat and/or it is not Deweyan. sent8: that the utensil is a kind of a clearway is correct if the ultramarine does recommend lifeboat. sent9: if the utensil recommends lifeboat then the ultramarine is a clearway. sent10: that something recommends lumpfish if it is a clearway is not incorrect. sent11: the obsessive-compulsive is a kind of a Phalacrocorax and it clears. sent12: the ultramarine is a stake if the utensil is Deweyan. sent13: the ultramarine is Deweyan and/or does recommend lifeboat. sent14: the utensil is oblate. sent15: the porter is a cellularity and it is a kind of a stake. sent16: the ultramarine stakes if the utensil is a clearway. sent17: the ultramarine does recommend lumpfish if it is Deweyan. sent18: if that the Catholic is a kind of a stake that is Deweyan is incorrect then the ultramarine is not a stake. sent19: if the ultramarine is a kind of a stake then the utensil is Deweyan. sent20: if the Catholic recommends lifeboat or it is not Deweyan or both the ultramarine is not a stake. sent21: the ghat is a stake and it is a kind of a checker. sent22: if the convertible is not a mineralogy and not anuran the dangleberry is anuran. sent23: that the utensil is a clearway is correct if the ultramarine is Deweyan. sent24: the utensil does recommend lifeboat. ; $proof$ = | sent13 & sent23 & sent8 -> int1: the utensil is a kind of a clearway.; sent10 -> int2: if the utensil is a kind of a clearway then the fact that it recommends lumpfish is true.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the utensil recommends lumpfish.; int3 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the schnook does recommend copyreader. | {AB}{a} | sent1: if the schnook is not ethnographic then it is a Riley and it is not obedient. sent2: if that something is vulvar and it is a freemasonry is false it is not vulvar. sent3: the reboxetine is not exculpatory. sent4: that the schnook does recommend copyreader is right if the potholder piffles. sent5: the ghat does recommend copyreader. sent6: the fact that the reboxetine is a kind of vulvar thing that is a freemasonry is false if it is not exculpatory. sent7: the reboxetine is a unit. sent8: if the pneumatophore is not a top-up it is a kind of an opening and it does not recommend copyreader. sent9: if the schnook is not a kind of a niqaabi it is a kind of a seine that does not serve Pliocene. sent10: something is not Indian but it is a microbe if it is not vulvar. sent11: the schnook is a niqaabi but it is not unnoticeable. sent12: if something is a kind of a unit it is a kind of a requital. sent13: if the schnook does not piffle then it is a niqaabi and it does not recommend copyreader. sent14: the schnook does not piffle. | sent1: ¬{EB}{a} -> ({FO}{a} & ¬{DN}{a}) sent2: (x): ¬({F}x & {H}x) -> ¬{F}x sent3: ¬{G}{c} sent4: {A}{b} -> {AB}{a} sent5: {AB}{is} sent6: ¬{G}{c} -> ¬({F}{c} & {H}{c}) sent7: {D}{c} sent8: ¬{AF}{en} -> ({GU}{en} & ¬{AB}{en}) sent9: ¬{AA}{a} -> ({JI}{a} & ¬{EU}{a}) sent10: (x): ¬{F}x -> (¬{E}x & {B}x) sent11: ({AA}{a} & ¬{EJ}{a}) sent12: (x): {D}x -> {C}x sent13: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent14: ¬{A}{a} | [
"sent13 & sent14 -> int1: the schnook is a niqaabi but it does not recommend copyreader.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent13 & sent14 -> int1: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | the schnook recommends copyreader. | {AB}{a} | [
"sent12 -> int2: the reboxetine is a requital if it is a unit.; int2 & sent7 -> int3: that the reboxetine is a kind of a requital hold.; sent10 -> int4: if the fact that the reboxetine is not vulvar is correct then it is not a Indian and it is a microbe.; sent2 -> int5: if that the reboxetine is vulvar and is a freemasonry is not true it is not vulvar.; sent6 & sent3 -> int6: the fact that the reboxetine is vulvar and is a freemasonry is not true.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the reboxetine is not vulvar.; int4 & int7 -> int8: the reboxetine is not a Indian but it is a kind of a microbe.; int8 -> int9: the reboxetine is a microbe.; int3 & int9 -> int10: the reboxetine is a requital and is a microbe.; int10 -> int11: there exists something such that it is a requital and it is a kind of a microbe.;"
] | 8 | 2 | 2 | 12 | 0 | 12 | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the schnook does recommend copyreader. ; $context$ = sent1: if the schnook is not ethnographic then it is a Riley and it is not obedient. sent2: if that something is vulvar and it is a freemasonry is false it is not vulvar. sent3: the reboxetine is not exculpatory. sent4: that the schnook does recommend copyreader is right if the potholder piffles. sent5: the ghat does recommend copyreader. sent6: the fact that the reboxetine is a kind of vulvar thing that is a freemasonry is false if it is not exculpatory. sent7: the reboxetine is a unit. sent8: if the pneumatophore is not a top-up it is a kind of an opening and it does not recommend copyreader. sent9: if the schnook is not a kind of a niqaabi it is a kind of a seine that does not serve Pliocene. sent10: something is not Indian but it is a microbe if it is not vulvar. sent11: the schnook is a niqaabi but it is not unnoticeable. sent12: if something is a kind of a unit it is a kind of a requital. sent13: if the schnook does not piffle then it is a niqaabi and it does not recommend copyreader. sent14: the schnook does not piffle. ; $proof$ = | sent13 & sent14 -> int1: the schnook is a niqaabi but it does not recommend copyreader.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | both the recommending bitter-bark and the knelling occurs. | ({B} & {C}) | sent1: the serving Morgantown happens. sent2: the unfamiliarness happens. sent3: the spending occurs and the ontogeneticness occurs. sent4: if the serving Morgantown does not occur then the fact that the recommending bitter-bark occurs and the knell occurs is not right. sent5: both the serving Morgantown and the recommending bitter-bark occurs. sent6: the recommending Oklahoman occurs. sent7: the serving utilization occurs and the birth occurs. sent8: the knell occurs. sent9: that the recommending unenlightenment does not occur yields that the serving Morgantown and the backpacking skep happens. | sent1: {A} sent2: {GR} sent3: ({HU} & {BM}) sent4: ¬{A} -> ¬({B} & {C}) sent5: ({A} & {B}) sent6: {O} sent7: ({DF} & {T}) sent8: {C} sent9: ¬{E} -> ({A} & {HI}) | [
"sent5 -> int1: the recommending bitter-bark occurs.; int1 & sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent5 -> int1: {B}; int1 & sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] | the fact that the recommending bitter-bark and the knell happens is wrong. | ¬({B} & {C}) | [] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 7 | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = both the recommending bitter-bark and the knelling occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the serving Morgantown happens. sent2: the unfamiliarness happens. sent3: the spending occurs and the ontogeneticness occurs. sent4: if the serving Morgantown does not occur then the fact that the recommending bitter-bark occurs and the knell occurs is not right. sent5: both the serving Morgantown and the recommending bitter-bark occurs. sent6: the recommending Oklahoman occurs. sent7: the serving utilization occurs and the birth occurs. sent8: the knell occurs. sent9: that the recommending unenlightenment does not occur yields that the serving Morgantown and the backpacking skep happens. ; $proof$ = | sent5 -> int1: the recommending bitter-bark occurs.; int1 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the triquetral is not Aleutians and/or is not a Euphagus. | (¬{B}{a} v ¬{A}{a}) | sent1: if something is north it is not a kind of a Euphagus. sent2: something is a north but not a gee-gee if it is not a kind of a gasbag. sent3: the centerpiece does not recommend ethics and is not Aleutians. sent4: if the triquetral does recommend isosorbide but it is not evening then it is not a Germanic. sent5: the triquetral is not Aleutians if it does not condition and it does not serve format. | sent1: (x): {C}x -> ¬{A}x sent2: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({C}x & ¬{D}x) sent3: (¬{N}{it} & ¬{B}{it}) sent4: ({DF}{a} & ¬{BC}{a}) -> ¬{CD}{a} sent5: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} | [] | [] | the Casanova is both not Aleutians and not a cast. | (¬{B}{dh} & ¬{GE}{dh}) | [
"sent1 -> int1: if the triquetral is a north it is not a Euphagus.; sent2 -> int2: the triquetral is a north but it is not a gee-gee if it is not a gasbag.;"
] | 6 | 2 | null | 4 | 0 | 4 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the triquetral is not Aleutians and/or is not a Euphagus. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is north it is not a kind of a Euphagus. sent2: something is a north but not a gee-gee if it is not a kind of a gasbag. sent3: the centerpiece does not recommend ethics and is not Aleutians. sent4: if the triquetral does recommend isosorbide but it is not evening then it is not a Germanic. sent5: the triquetral is not Aleutians if it does not condition and it does not serve format. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | the self-starter is noncritical if the pit is a readout. | {A}{a} -> {C}{b} | sent1: the self-starter is noncritical if that the pit is a tetrahedron is correct. sent2: the fact that the self-starter is a kind of a readout hold. sent3: if something is not transitional then it is not noncritical. sent4: the pit is a Salvadoran. sent5: something is a tetrahedron and it is a readout if it is not noncritical. sent6: the pit is noncritical. sent7: if the pit is a readout then it is a tetrahedron. | sent1: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent2: {A}{b} sent3: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬{C}x sent4: {HL}{a} sent5: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & {A}x) sent6: {C}{a} sent7: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the pit is a readout.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: the pit is a tetrahedron.; sent1 & int1 -> int2: that the self-starter is noncritical is true.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"void -> assump1: {A}{a}; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent1 & int1 -> int2: {C}{b}; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | the algebraist is a tetrahedron. | {B}{as} | [
"sent5 -> int3: if the algebraist is not noncritical then it is a tetrahedron and it is a readout.; sent3 -> int4: the algebraist is not noncritical if it is not transitional.;"
] | 5 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 5 | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the self-starter is noncritical if the pit is a readout. ; $context$ = sent1: the self-starter is noncritical if that the pit is a tetrahedron is correct. sent2: the fact that the self-starter is a kind of a readout hold. sent3: if something is not transitional then it is not noncritical. sent4: the pit is a Salvadoran. sent5: something is a tetrahedron and it is a readout if it is not noncritical. sent6: the pit is noncritical. sent7: if the pit is a readout then it is a tetrahedron. ; $proof$ = | void -> assump1: Let's assume that the pit is a readout.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: the pit is a tetrahedron.; sent1 & int1 -> int2: that the self-starter is noncritical is true.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the fact that that there exists something such that if it is a kind of a Muraenidae and is basic then it does not backpack Vespertilionidae is correct is wrong. | ¬((Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x) | sent1: if something is both a tallith and tabular the fact that it is a Czech hold. sent2: there is something such that if it absconds and ramifies it is not a inessential. sent3: if something is a soffit and it numerates then it is not a kind of a mealberry. sent4: the tawse is not a kind of a barbiturate if it does serve precognition and it does backpack Vespertilionidae. sent5: there is something such that if it does recommend cupflower and does appreciate then it is a pitilessness. sent6: something does not boat bylaw if it does backpack Levite and it does recommend Camelus. sent7: there exists something such that if it is a kind of Markovian thing that serves Rheum then it is a pothunter. sent8: the loaner is a kind of a fast if it is a kind of a Muraenidae that is variolar. sent9: that the poetess serves mummery is right if it is a Muraenidae and is vasomotor. sent10: if the tawse is a Muraenidae and a basic it does backpack Vespertilionidae. sent11: if a Muraenidae is basic it backpacks Vespertilionidae. sent12: if something is custard-like and it does serve Limulus it is non-basic. sent13: there exists something such that if it is a scaffold and it is a kind of a hotel it is not a kind of a Verne. sent14: there exists something such that if it is a Muraenidae and it is a basic then it backpacks Vespertilionidae. sent15: if something is both a Muraenidae and a basic that it does not backpack Vespertilionidae hold. | sent1: (x): ({ED}x & {AD}x) -> {U}x sent2: (Ex): ({CN}x & {DF}x) -> ¬{HR}x sent3: (x): ({IU}x & {L}x) -> ¬{IF}x sent4: ({HN}{aa} & {B}{aa}) -> ¬{DN}{aa} sent5: (Ex): ({EU}x & {EB}x) -> {T}x sent6: (x): ({BU}x & {GD}x) -> ¬{AJ}x sent7: (Ex): ({CF}x & {DI}x) -> {HO}x sent8: ({AA}{ci} & {GU}{ci}) -> {EF}{ci} sent9: ({AA}{ff} & {HS}{ff}) -> {ID}{ff} sent10: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent11: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent12: (x): ({HI}x & {EL}x) -> ¬{AB}x sent13: (Ex): ({C}x & {M}x) -> ¬{BR}x sent14: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent15: (x): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x | [
"sent15 -> int1: the tawse does not backpack Vespertilionidae if it is both a Muraenidae and basic.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent15 -> int1: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | the Rheum is not a kind of a basic if it is custard-like and it serves Limulus. | ({HI}{ja} & {EL}{ja}) -> ¬{AB}{ja} | [
"sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 2 | 2 | 14 | 0 | 14 | DISPROVED | PROVED | DISPROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = the fact that that there exists something such that if it is a kind of a Muraenidae and is basic then it does not backpack Vespertilionidae is correct is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is both a tallith and tabular the fact that it is a Czech hold. sent2: there is something such that if it absconds and ramifies it is not a inessential. sent3: if something is a soffit and it numerates then it is not a kind of a mealberry. sent4: the tawse is not a kind of a barbiturate if it does serve precognition and it does backpack Vespertilionidae. sent5: there is something such that if it does recommend cupflower and does appreciate then it is a pitilessness. sent6: something does not boat bylaw if it does backpack Levite and it does recommend Camelus. sent7: there exists something such that if it is a kind of Markovian thing that serves Rheum then it is a pothunter. sent8: the loaner is a kind of a fast if it is a kind of a Muraenidae that is variolar. sent9: that the poetess serves mummery is right if it is a Muraenidae and is vasomotor. sent10: if the tawse is a Muraenidae and a basic it does backpack Vespertilionidae. sent11: if a Muraenidae is basic it backpacks Vespertilionidae. sent12: if something is custard-like and it does serve Limulus it is non-basic. sent13: there exists something such that if it is a scaffold and it is a kind of a hotel it is not a kind of a Verne. sent14: there exists something such that if it is a Muraenidae and it is a basic then it backpacks Vespertilionidae. sent15: if something is both a Muraenidae and a basic that it does not backpack Vespertilionidae hold. ; $proof$ = | sent15 -> int1: the tawse does not backpack Vespertilionidae if it is both a Muraenidae and basic.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | something is a Kaufman and does surprise. | (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x) | sent1: something is a Kaufman. sent2: the acumen is uneventful. sent3: the acumen is a surprise. sent4: the pheno-safranine is a surprise. | sent1: (Ex): {A}x sent2: {FO}{a} sent3: {B}{a} sent4: {B}{hb} | [] | [] | null | null | [] | null | 2 | null | 3 | 0 | 3 | UNKNOWN | null | UNKNOWN | null | $hypothesis$ = something is a Kaufman and does surprise. ; $context$ = sent1: something is a Kaufman. sent2: the acumen is uneventful. sent3: the acumen is a surprise. sent4: the pheno-safranine is a surprise. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | the voluptuary is a kind of a notoriety. | {A}{a} | sent1: the voluptuary is a kind of a notoriety if the convalescence is a notoriety. sent2: something is a prostitute that does quintuple. sent3: something is a kind of uncousinly thing that does recommend neurectomy if it is a notoriety. sent4: something does not backpack pneumonectomy. sent5: there is something such that the fact that it does quintuple is not false. sent6: the Berber is either not amethystine or a bull or both if the fact that it does not serve correctness is correct. sent7: the mouth is a kind of non-endocrine thing that is a proconvertin. sent8: that the mouth is not a kind of a prostitute but it quintuples is true. sent9: the Berber does not serve correctness. sent10: the voluptuary is not a kind of a notoriety if something that is not a kind of a prostitute does quintuple. sent11: the mouth is not a prostitute. sent12: something is a kind of a notoriety and is a Cosmocampus if it is not a hoard. sent13: there is something such that it does not prostitute. sent14: that the strawworm does serve correctness is right if it bulls. sent15: the strawworm is not amethystine if there exists something such that either it is not amethystine or it does bull or both. | sent1: {A}{b} -> {A}{a} sent2: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: (x): {A}x -> (¬{HU}x & {DN}x) sent4: (Ex): ¬{G}x sent5: (Ex): {AB}x sent6: ¬{E}{d} -> (¬{D}{d} v {F}{d}) sent7: (¬{EB}{aa} & {BK}{aa}) sent8: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent9: ¬{E}{d} sent10: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent11: ¬{AA}{aa} sent12: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({A}x & {B}x) sent13: (Ex): ¬{AA}x sent14: {F}{c} -> {E}{c} sent15: (x): (¬{D}x v {F}x) -> ¬{D}{c} | [
"sent8 -> int1: there is something such that it is not a prostitute and it does quintuple.; int1 & sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent8 -> int1: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x); int1 & sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] | the voluptuary is a kind of a notoriety. | {A}{a} | [
"sent12 -> int2: if the convalescence is not a kind of a hoard it is a notoriety and a Cosmocampus.;"
] | 8 | 2 | 2 | 13 | 0 | 13 | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the voluptuary is a kind of a notoriety. ; $context$ = sent1: the voluptuary is a kind of a notoriety if the convalescence is a notoriety. sent2: something is a prostitute that does quintuple. sent3: something is a kind of uncousinly thing that does recommend neurectomy if it is a notoriety. sent4: something does not backpack pneumonectomy. sent5: there is something such that the fact that it does quintuple is not false. sent6: the Berber is either not amethystine or a bull or both if the fact that it does not serve correctness is correct. sent7: the mouth is a kind of non-endocrine thing that is a proconvertin. sent8: that the mouth is not a kind of a prostitute but it quintuples is true. sent9: the Berber does not serve correctness. sent10: the voluptuary is not a kind of a notoriety if something that is not a kind of a prostitute does quintuple. sent11: the mouth is not a prostitute. sent12: something is a kind of a notoriety and is a Cosmocampus if it is not a hoard. sent13: there is something such that it does not prostitute. sent14: that the strawworm does serve correctness is right if it bulls. sent15: the strawworm is not amethystine if there exists something such that either it is not amethystine or it does bull or both. ; $proof$ = | sent8 -> int1: there is something such that it is not a prostitute and it does quintuple.; int1 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the fact that the oratory happens and the recommending gaskin does not occur does not hold. | ¬({D} & ¬{C}) | sent1: if the wipeout occurs then the fact that the oratory but not the recommending gaskin occurs is not true. sent2: the contraception occurs if the fact that the wipeout but not the contraception occurs does not hold. sent3: that the wipeout does not occur is prevented by that the boniness occurs and the cuckoldry does not occur. sent4: if the fact that the blondness occurs hold the boniness does not occur and the cuckoldry does not occur. sent5: the pose causes the non-scalicness. sent6: the backpacking ghastliness happens. sent7: the salute occurs. sent8: the non-metricness occurs if the acrogenicness does not occur and the bilking does not occur. sent9: the poplitealness is prevented by that the caroling occurs. sent10: if the percussiveness happens then that the poplitealness occurs and the recommending southernness does not occur is wrong. sent11: that the episiotomy but not the caroling happens does not hold. sent12: the wipeout is brought about by that the boniness does not occur and the cuckoldry does not occur. sent13: that the sport happens but the lumbarness does not occur is not correct. sent14: that the velarness happens results in that the self-improvement does not occur and the gravy does not occur. sent15: the boniness does not occur. sent16: the blond happens. sent17: the fact that the unequivocalness happens but the chimericness does not occur is false if the counterinsurgentness occurs. sent18: the fact that the oratory occurs and the recommending gaskin occurs does not hold. sent19: if the backpacking croup occurs then that the proprietariness and the backpacking Levite happens is not true. | sent1: {B} -> ¬({D} & ¬{C}) sent2: ¬({B} & ¬{DG}) -> {DG} sent3: ({AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent4: {A} -> (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) sent5: {CQ} -> ¬{HN} sent6: {DK} sent7: {M} sent8: (¬{FJ} & ¬{HC}) -> {FT} sent9: {EF} -> ¬{L} sent10: {IU} -> ¬({L} & ¬{HF}) sent11: ¬({HM} & ¬{EF}) sent12: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}) -> {B} sent13: ¬({T} & ¬{EK}) sent14: {HI} -> (¬{EB} & ¬{DD}) sent15: ¬{AA} sent16: {A} sent17: {HB} -> ¬({FA} & ¬{CM}) sent18: ¬({D} & {C}) sent19: {DE} -> ¬({IF} & {BN}) | [
"sent4 & sent16 -> int1: the boniness does not occur and the cuckoldry does not occur.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the wipeout occurs.; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent4 & sent16 -> int1: (¬{AA} & ¬{AB}); int1 & sent12 -> int2: {B}; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | the contraception happens. | {DG} | [] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 15 | 0 | 15 | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the oratory happens and the recommending gaskin does not occur does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if the wipeout occurs then the fact that the oratory but not the recommending gaskin occurs is not true. sent2: the contraception occurs if the fact that the wipeout but not the contraception occurs does not hold. sent3: that the wipeout does not occur is prevented by that the boniness occurs and the cuckoldry does not occur. sent4: if the fact that the blondness occurs hold the boniness does not occur and the cuckoldry does not occur. sent5: the pose causes the non-scalicness. sent6: the backpacking ghastliness happens. sent7: the salute occurs. sent8: the non-metricness occurs if the acrogenicness does not occur and the bilking does not occur. sent9: the poplitealness is prevented by that the caroling occurs. sent10: if the percussiveness happens then that the poplitealness occurs and the recommending southernness does not occur is wrong. sent11: that the episiotomy but not the caroling happens does not hold. sent12: the wipeout is brought about by that the boniness does not occur and the cuckoldry does not occur. sent13: that the sport happens but the lumbarness does not occur is not correct. sent14: that the velarness happens results in that the self-improvement does not occur and the gravy does not occur. sent15: the boniness does not occur. sent16: the blond happens. sent17: the fact that the unequivocalness happens but the chimericness does not occur is false if the counterinsurgentness occurs. sent18: the fact that the oratory occurs and the recommending gaskin occurs does not hold. sent19: if the backpacking croup occurs then that the proprietariness and the backpacking Levite happens is not true. ; $proof$ = | sent4 & sent16 -> int1: the boniness does not occur and the cuckoldry does not occur.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the wipeout occurs.; int2 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | there exists something such that if it is determinate it is multiform and/or it does serve Egyptologist. | (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x v {AB}x) | sent1: something is nervous and/or it is indeterminate if it is not supportive. sent2: something is multiform and/or does serve Egyptologist if it is indeterminate. sent3: the website is multiform or does serve Egyptologist or both if it is indeterminate. | sent1: (x): ¬{EP}x -> ({JH}x v {A}x) sent2: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}x v {AB}x) sent3: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) | [] | [] | either the ropewalk is nervous or it is indeterminate or both if it is not supportive. | ¬{EP}{p} -> ({JH}{p} v {A}{p}) | [
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 2 | null | 3 | 0 | 3 | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is determinate it is multiform and/or it does serve Egyptologist. ; $context$ = sent1: something is nervous and/or it is indeterminate if it is not supportive. sent2: something is multiform and/or does serve Egyptologist if it is indeterminate. sent3: the website is multiform or does serve Egyptologist or both if it is indeterminate. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | the exocentricness does not occur. | ¬{A} | sent1: the clayeiness does not occur. sent2: the fact that the libidinalness occurs is not false. sent3: if the serving Bardeen happens the echocardiography occurs. sent4: that the clayeiness and the eligibleness happens does not hold if the Gallicness occurs. sent5: if the clayeiness happens the fact that the beating but not the eligibleness happens is incorrect. sent6: that the clayeiness does not occur is brought about by the beating. sent7: that the clayeiness and the eligibleness occurs is incorrect. sent8: the hotbedness happens. sent9: the cybercrime occurs. sent10: that both the campfire and the backlessness occurs is incorrect if the masochisticness happens. sent11: if the Gallicness occurs the fact that that the clayeiness does not occur and the eligibleness occurs is not wrong is not right. sent12: that the thalloidness does not occur hold. sent13: the Gallicness occurs if the cybercrime happens. sent14: the graduating happens. sent15: the nagging does not occur. sent16: if the Gallicness does not occur then the fact that the ineligibleness and the clayeiness happens does not hold. sent17: if the pall happens then the cybercrime does not occur. sent18: the opticalness occurs. sent19: if the rebuilding does not occur then both the equineness and the pall occurs. sent20: not the clayeiness but the eligibleness happens if the beating happens. | sent1: ¬{D} sent2: {HQ} sent3: {AP} -> {CU} sent4: {E} -> ¬({D} & {C}) sent5: {D} -> ¬({B} & ¬{C}) sent6: {B} -> ¬{D} sent7: ¬({D} & {C}) sent8: {HH} sent9: {F} sent10: {CQ} -> ¬({DF} & {GF}) sent11: {E} -> ¬(¬{D} & {C}) sent12: ¬{HB} sent13: {F} -> {E} sent14: {EP} sent15: ¬{CL} sent16: ¬{E} -> ¬(¬{C} & {D}) sent17: {G} -> ¬{F} sent18: {FO} sent19: ¬{I} -> ({H} & {G}) sent20: {B} -> (¬{D} & {C}) | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the exocentricness happens.; sent13 & sent9 -> int1: the Gallicness occurs.; sent11 & int1 -> int2: the fact that both the non-clayeyness and the eligibleness occurs is wrong.;"
] | [
"void -> assump1: {A}; sent13 & sent9 -> int1: {E}; sent11 & int1 -> int2: ¬(¬{D} & {C});"
] | the deployment occurs. | {CP} | [] | 6 | 4 | null | 16 | 0 | 16 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the exocentricness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the clayeiness does not occur. sent2: the fact that the libidinalness occurs is not false. sent3: if the serving Bardeen happens the echocardiography occurs. sent4: that the clayeiness and the eligibleness happens does not hold if the Gallicness occurs. sent5: if the clayeiness happens the fact that the beating but not the eligibleness happens is incorrect. sent6: that the clayeiness does not occur is brought about by the beating. sent7: that the clayeiness and the eligibleness occurs is incorrect. sent8: the hotbedness happens. sent9: the cybercrime occurs. sent10: that both the campfire and the backlessness occurs is incorrect if the masochisticness happens. sent11: if the Gallicness occurs the fact that that the clayeiness does not occur and the eligibleness occurs is not wrong is not right. sent12: that the thalloidness does not occur hold. sent13: the Gallicness occurs if the cybercrime happens. sent14: the graduating happens. sent15: the nagging does not occur. sent16: if the Gallicness does not occur then the fact that the ineligibleness and the clayeiness happens does not hold. sent17: if the pall happens then the cybercrime does not occur. sent18: the opticalness occurs. sent19: if the rebuilding does not occur then both the equineness and the pall occurs. sent20: not the clayeiness but the eligibleness happens if the beating happens. ; $proof$ = | void -> assump1: Let's assume that the exocentricness happens.; sent13 & sent9 -> int1: the Gallicness occurs.; sent11 & int1 -> int2: the fact that both the non-clayeyness and the eligibleness occurs is wrong.; __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | the taboret is not endoparasitic. | ¬{A}{a} | sent1: the taboret is endoparasitic if the chaperon is a mildew. sent2: the fact that the taboret is not a mildew but it is endoparasitic is incorrect. sent3: there exists nothing such that it is endoparasitic and is not a kind of a methanogen. sent4: something that is not a quad is both a mildew and endoparasitic. sent5: if the taboret is not aphetic it is both a quad and not a parley. sent6: if something is not a kind of a hardtop but it is restful then it is not aphetic. sent7: there exists nothing such that it is a mildew and it is not a methanogen. sent8: the fact that the chaperon is a mildew but it is not a methanogen is false. sent9: the taboret is endoparasitic if that the chaperon is not a kind of a mildew and is not a kind of a methanogen is incorrect. sent10: if the fact that the fornix is endoparasitic but it is not a parley is incorrect then the taboret is not endoparasitic. sent11: that the taboret is both not endoparasitic and a mildew is not right. sent12: if the fact that the lomustine is aphetic is true then that the bootstrap is restful and/or is not a quad is incorrect. sent13: the fact that the quadrant is not a mildew and it does not backpack bootstrap is not correct. sent14: there exists nothing that is not a mildew and not a methanogen. sent15: the fornix is not a quad if the fact that either the bootstrap is restful or it is not a quad or both is not true. sent16: the fact that something is endoparasitic but it is not a kind of a parley is false if it is not a quad. | sent1: {AA}{aa} -> {A}{a} sent2: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {A}{a}) sent3: (x): ¬({A}x & ¬{AB}x) sent4: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({AA}x & {A}x) sent5: ¬{D}{a} -> ({C}{a} & ¬{B}{a}) sent6: (x): (¬{F}x & {E}x) -> ¬{D}x sent7: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent8: ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent9: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {A}{a} sent10: ¬({A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent11: ¬(¬{A}{a} & {AA}{a}) sent12: {D}{d} -> ¬({E}{c} v ¬{C}{c}) sent13: ¬(¬{AA}{fn} & ¬{AH}{fn}) sent14: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent15: ¬({E}{c} v ¬{C}{c}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent16: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({A}x & ¬{B}x) | [
"sent14 -> int1: the fact that the chaperon is not a mildew and it is not a kind of a methanogen is not true.; sent9 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent14 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); sent9 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | the fact that the taboret is not endoparasitic is right. | ¬{A}{a} | [
"sent16 -> int2: if the fornix is not a quad then the fact that it is a kind of endoparasitic thing that does not parley does not hold.;"
] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 14 | 0 | 14 | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the taboret is not endoparasitic. ; $context$ = sent1: the taboret is endoparasitic if the chaperon is a mildew. sent2: the fact that the taboret is not a mildew but it is endoparasitic is incorrect. sent3: there exists nothing such that it is endoparasitic and is not a kind of a methanogen. sent4: something that is not a quad is both a mildew and endoparasitic. sent5: if the taboret is not aphetic it is both a quad and not a parley. sent6: if something is not a kind of a hardtop but it is restful then it is not aphetic. sent7: there exists nothing such that it is a mildew and it is not a methanogen. sent8: the fact that the chaperon is a mildew but it is not a methanogen is false. sent9: the taboret is endoparasitic if that the chaperon is not a kind of a mildew and is not a kind of a methanogen is incorrect. sent10: if the fact that the fornix is endoparasitic but it is not a parley is incorrect then the taboret is not endoparasitic. sent11: that the taboret is both not endoparasitic and a mildew is not right. sent12: if the fact that the lomustine is aphetic is true then that the bootstrap is restful and/or is not a quad is incorrect. sent13: the fact that the quadrant is not a mildew and it does not backpack bootstrap is not correct. sent14: there exists nothing that is not a mildew and not a methanogen. sent15: the fornix is not a quad if the fact that either the bootstrap is restful or it is not a quad or both is not true. sent16: the fact that something is endoparasitic but it is not a kind of a parley is false if it is not a quad. ; $proof$ = | sent14 -> int1: the fact that the chaperon is not a mildew and it is not a kind of a methanogen is not true.; sent9 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the Split is not a tansy. | ¬{A}{a} | sent1: something is not an evacuation and is not Sinhala. sent2: if the fact that something is a kind of non-post-communist thing that does not serve Algren is wrong then it does serve Algren. sent3: if something is not monatomic but it serves Algren then it is a thickhead. sent4: if something does not serve Algren then it is not unresentful or is not a kind of a thickhead or both. sent5: the candlepins is a Neofiber. sent6: the Split is not a councillorship. sent7: the stockist is not enzymatic if the candlepins does antiquate and is a Neofiber. sent8: the fact that the Split is a councillorship and/or is not a humification is not right. sent9: if the pintle does antiquate then the candlepins does antiquate. sent10: if there exists something such that it is not an evacuation and it is not Sinhala the pintle antiquates. sent11: if something is not enzymatic then it does backpack polydactyly. sent12: if there is something such that it does backpack polydactyly that the absentee is non-post-communist thing that does not serve Algren does not hold. sent13: the Split either is a councillorship or is not a humification or both if it is a kind of a tansy. sent14: the CRP is not a tansy if there exists something such that it is not unresentful and/or it is not a kind of a thickhead. sent15: something is not monatomic if it does not recommend entertainer and/or it is not a kind of a atresia. sent16: the absentee does not recommend entertainer and/or it is not a kind of a atresia. | sent1: (Ex): (¬{N}x & ¬{M}x) sent2: (x): ¬(¬{F}x & ¬{D}x) -> {D}x sent3: (x): (¬{E}x & {D}x) -> {C}x sent4: (x): ¬{D}x -> (¬{B}x v ¬{C}x) sent5: {I}{d} sent6: ¬{AA}{a} sent7: ({J}{d} & {I}{d}) -> ¬{H}{c} sent8: ¬({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent9: {J}{e} -> {J}{d} sent10: (x): (¬{N}x & ¬{M}x) -> {J}{e} sent11: (x): ¬{H}x -> {G}x sent12: (x): {G}x -> ¬(¬{F}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent13: {A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent14: (x): (¬{B}x v ¬{C}x) -> ¬{A}{id} sent15: (x): (¬{K}x v ¬{L}x) -> ¬{E}x sent16: (¬{K}{b} v ¬{L}{b}) | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Split is a tansy.; sent13 & assump1 -> int1: the Split is a councillorship and/or it is not a kind of a humification.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"void -> assump1: {A}{a}; sent13 & assump1 -> int1: ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}); int1 & sent8 -> int2: #F#; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | the CRP does recommend candlepins or it is not cooling or both. | ({P}{id} v ¬{JI}{id}) | [
"sent4 -> int3: if the absentee does not serve Algren then it is not unresentful or it is not a thickhead or both.;"
] | 7 | 3 | 3 | 14 | 0 | 14 | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the Split is not a tansy. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not an evacuation and is not Sinhala. sent2: if the fact that something is a kind of non-post-communist thing that does not serve Algren is wrong then it does serve Algren. sent3: if something is not monatomic but it serves Algren then it is a thickhead. sent4: if something does not serve Algren then it is not unresentful or is not a kind of a thickhead or both. sent5: the candlepins is a Neofiber. sent6: the Split is not a councillorship. sent7: the stockist is not enzymatic if the candlepins does antiquate and is a Neofiber. sent8: the fact that the Split is a councillorship and/or is not a humification is not right. sent9: if the pintle does antiquate then the candlepins does antiquate. sent10: if there exists something such that it is not an evacuation and it is not Sinhala the pintle antiquates. sent11: if something is not enzymatic then it does backpack polydactyly. sent12: if there is something such that it does backpack polydactyly that the absentee is non-post-communist thing that does not serve Algren does not hold. sent13: the Split either is a councillorship or is not a humification or both if it is a kind of a tansy. sent14: the CRP is not a tansy if there exists something such that it is not unresentful and/or it is not a kind of a thickhead. sent15: something is not monatomic if it does not recommend entertainer and/or it is not a kind of a atresia. sent16: the absentee does not recommend entertainer and/or it is not a kind of a atresia. ; $proof$ = | void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Split is a tansy.; sent13 & assump1 -> int1: the Split is a councillorship and/or it is not a kind of a humification.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the rigout is not non-neolithic. | {D}{c} | sent1: the rigout is not neolithic if the niqab speculates but it is not neolithic. sent2: if the almsgiver is a instillator then the rigout is neolithic. sent3: the niqab is a recitative. sent4: if the almsgiver is a kind of a recitative then the niqab speculates but it is not neolithic. sent5: there is something such that it is neolithic thing that speculates. sent6: the niqab does speculate. | sent1: ({A}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) -> ¬{D}{c} sent2: {C}{b} -> {D}{c} sent3: {B}{a} sent4: {B}{b} -> ({A}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent5: (Ex): ({D}x & {A}x) sent6: {A}{a} | [
"sent6 & sent3 -> int1: the niqab speculates and is a kind of a recitative.; int1 -> int2: something speculates and is a recitative.;"
] | [
"sent6 & sent3 -> int1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x);"
] | the rigout is not neolithic. | ¬{D}{c} | [] | 6 | 4 | null | 3 | 0 | 3 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the rigout is not non-neolithic. ; $context$ = sent1: the rigout is not neolithic if the niqab speculates but it is not neolithic. sent2: if the almsgiver is a instillator then the rigout is neolithic. sent3: the niqab is a recitative. sent4: if the almsgiver is a kind of a recitative then the niqab speculates but it is not neolithic. sent5: there is something such that it is neolithic thing that speculates. sent6: the niqab does speculate. ; $proof$ = | sent6 & sent3 -> int1: the niqab speculates and is a kind of a recitative.; int1 -> int2: something speculates and is a recitative.; __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | the backpacking gamboge occurs. | {B} | sent1: the bridle does not occur. sent2: the tip-off does not occur if that that the unperceptiveness and the tip-off happens is not incorrect does not hold. sent3: that both the unperceptiveness and the tip-off occurs is not correct if the chance-medley does not occur. sent4: if the extradition does not occur the gambling does not occur. sent5: if both the salving and the non-prolixness occurs then the recommending nucleoplasm does not occur. sent6: that the serving Colossae does not occur and the stripping does not occur is triggered by that the backpacking roasting occurs. sent7: that the tolerance does not occur is caused by that the recommending timer does not occur. sent8: if the Ptolemaicness does not occur then the sinking does not occur. sent9: the serving Shetland does not occur. sent10: if the tip-off does not occur then both the insubordination and the backpacking roasting occurs. sent11: the recommending timer does not occur and the backpacking gamboge does not occur if the recommending nucleoplasm does not occur. sent12: if that the warpath does not occur is not false then the backpacking vaccination happens and the recommending expulsion does not occur. sent13: that the backpacking gamboge does not occur is prevented by the cuckoldry. sent14: if the backpacking vaccination occurs but the recommending expulsion does not occur then the aftermath does not occur. sent15: if the actinometry occurs then the chance-medley does not occur. sent16: if that the recommending timer does not occur is true the cuckoldry but not the tolerance occurs. sent17: that both the reallocation and the actinometry happens is triggered by that the aftermath does not occur. sent18: if the serving Colossae does not occur both the salve and the non-prolixness occurs. sent19: the circularization but not the aeromechanicsness happens. sent20: the recommending timer does not occur. sent21: if the fact that the supervening does not occur and the defeat does not occur is not false the warpath does not occur. | sent1: ¬{IH} sent2: ¬({K} & {J}) -> ¬{J} sent3: ¬{L} -> ¬({K} & {J}) sent4: ¬{DK} -> ¬{EA} sent5: ({E} & ¬{D}) -> ¬{C} sent6: {H} -> (¬{F} & ¬{G}) sent7: ¬{A} -> ¬{AB} sent8: ¬{GT} -> ¬{AP} sent9: ¬{ET} sent10: ¬{J} -> ({I} & {H}) sent11: ¬{C} -> (¬{A} & ¬{B}) sent12: ¬{R} -> ({Q} & ¬{P}) sent13: {AA} -> {B} sent14: ({Q} & ¬{P}) -> ¬{O} sent15: {M} -> ¬{L} sent16: ¬{A} -> ({AA} & ¬{AB}) sent17: ¬{O} -> ({N} & {M}) sent18: ¬{F} -> ({E} & ¬{D}) sent19: ({GC} & ¬{EI}) sent20: ¬{A} sent21: (¬{S} & ¬{T}) -> ¬{R} | [
"sent16 & sent20 -> int1: the cuckoldry but not the tolerance happens.; int1 -> int2: the cuckoldry happens.; sent13 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent16 & sent20 -> int1: ({AA} & ¬{AB}); int1 -> int2: {AA}; sent13 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | the backpacking gamboge does not occur. | ¬{B} | [] | 17 | 3 | 3 | 18 | 0 | 18 | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the backpacking gamboge occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: the bridle does not occur. sent2: the tip-off does not occur if that that the unperceptiveness and the tip-off happens is not incorrect does not hold. sent3: that both the unperceptiveness and the tip-off occurs is not correct if the chance-medley does not occur. sent4: if the extradition does not occur the gambling does not occur. sent5: if both the salving and the non-prolixness occurs then the recommending nucleoplasm does not occur. sent6: that the serving Colossae does not occur and the stripping does not occur is triggered by that the backpacking roasting occurs. sent7: that the tolerance does not occur is caused by that the recommending timer does not occur. sent8: if the Ptolemaicness does not occur then the sinking does not occur. sent9: the serving Shetland does not occur. sent10: if the tip-off does not occur then both the insubordination and the backpacking roasting occurs. sent11: the recommending timer does not occur and the backpacking gamboge does not occur if the recommending nucleoplasm does not occur. sent12: if that the warpath does not occur is not false then the backpacking vaccination happens and the recommending expulsion does not occur. sent13: that the backpacking gamboge does not occur is prevented by the cuckoldry. sent14: if the backpacking vaccination occurs but the recommending expulsion does not occur then the aftermath does not occur. sent15: if the actinometry occurs then the chance-medley does not occur. sent16: if that the recommending timer does not occur is true the cuckoldry but not the tolerance occurs. sent17: that both the reallocation and the actinometry happens is triggered by that the aftermath does not occur. sent18: if the serving Colossae does not occur both the salve and the non-prolixness occurs. sent19: the circularization but not the aeromechanicsness happens. sent20: the recommending timer does not occur. sent21: if the fact that the supervening does not occur and the defeat does not occur is not false the warpath does not occur. ; $proof$ = | sent16 & sent20 -> int1: the cuckoldry but not the tolerance happens.; int1 -> int2: the cuckoldry happens.; sent13 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | there exists something such that if the fact that it does not recommend collect and it is a holocephalan is not correct then it shags. | (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x | sent1: if that something does recommend collect and is a holocephalan is incorrect it is a shag. sent2: if the anteater does not recommend collect but it is a holocephalan then it is a shag. sent3: the anteater shags if it is not a holocephalan. sent4: something recommends Lanai if that it is not a kind of a isogram and it misgives is not true. sent5: something is a shag if it is not a kind of a holocephalan. sent6: there is something such that if it does not recommend collect and is a kind of a holocephalan it is a kind of a shag. sent7: there is something such that if that it is not a holocephalan is correct then it does shag. sent8: if that the anteater does recommend collect and it is a holocephalan is not correct then it is a shag. sent9: something is a shag if it does not recommend collect and is a holocephalan. sent10: there is something such that if the fact that it is not Moravian is correct then it serves immortelle. sent11: if that something is not a kind of a Handel but it is costal is not right it is a Maoist. sent12: there exists something such that if that it does recommend collect and it is a holocephalan is not true then it is a shag. sent13: the fact that if that something does not recommend collect and is a holocephalan is not correct that it is a shag is not false is correct. | sent1: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent2: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent3: ¬{AB}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent4: (x): ¬(¬{GL}x & {AK}x) -> {DH}x sent5: (x): ¬{AB}x -> {B}x sent6: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent7: (Ex): ¬{AB}x -> {B}x sent8: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent9: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent10: (Ex): ¬{HS}x -> {FG}x sent11: (x): ¬(¬{CM}x & {IG}x) -> {DM}x sent12: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent13: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x | [
"sent13 -> int1: the anteater is a kind of a shag if that the fact that it does not recommend collect and is a holocephalan hold is false.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent13 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null | [] | null | 2 | 2 | 12 | 0 | 12 | PROVED | null | PROVED | null | $hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if the fact that it does not recommend collect and it is a holocephalan is not correct then it shags. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something does recommend collect and is a holocephalan is incorrect it is a shag. sent2: if the anteater does not recommend collect but it is a holocephalan then it is a shag. sent3: the anteater shags if it is not a holocephalan. sent4: something recommends Lanai if that it is not a kind of a isogram and it misgives is not true. sent5: something is a shag if it is not a kind of a holocephalan. sent6: there is something such that if it does not recommend collect and is a kind of a holocephalan it is a kind of a shag. sent7: there is something such that if that it is not a holocephalan is correct then it does shag. sent8: if that the anteater does recommend collect and it is a holocephalan is not correct then it is a shag. sent9: something is a shag if it does not recommend collect and is a holocephalan. sent10: there is something such that if the fact that it is not Moravian is correct then it serves immortelle. sent11: if that something is not a kind of a Handel but it is costal is not right it is a Maoist. sent12: there exists something such that if that it does recommend collect and it is a holocephalan is not true then it is a shag. sent13: the fact that if that something does not recommend collect and is a holocephalan is not correct that it is a shag is not false is correct. ; $proof$ = | sent13 -> int1: the anteater is a kind of a shag if that the fact that it does not recommend collect and is a holocephalan hold is false.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the fact that the lifeboat is not a kind of a peculiarity but it is Melanesian is not true. | ¬(¬{C}{a} & {D}{a}) | sent1: if the chit serves entreaty the lifeboat does not serve Methodist. sent2: if the chit does perch it is not a show-stopper and is a phosphor. sent3: the wisteria is a Pompadour. sent4: if something that is not a kind of a show-stopper is a phosphor then it serves entreaty. sent5: if the dominance does not perch then the aphorist serves Methodist and does not serve entreaty. sent6: that something is not a kind of a peculiarity and is Melanesian is not correct if it does not serve Methodist. | sent1: {B}{aa} -> ¬{A}{a} sent2: {E}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent3: {F}{d} sent4: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent5: ¬{E}{c} -> ({A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent6: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{C}x & {D}x) | [
"sent4 -> int1: the chit does serve entreaty if it is both not a show-stopper and a phosphor.; sent6 -> int2: the fact that the lifeboat is not a peculiarity but it is Melanesian does not hold if it does not serve Methodist.;"
] | [
"sent4 -> int1: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}; sent6 -> int2: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{C}{a} & {D}{a});"
] | the lifeboat is not a kind of a peculiarity and is Melanesian. | (¬{C}{a} & {D}{a}) | [] | 7 | 4 | null | 2 | 0 | 2 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the lifeboat is not a kind of a peculiarity but it is Melanesian is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: if the chit serves entreaty the lifeboat does not serve Methodist. sent2: if the chit does perch it is not a show-stopper and is a phosphor. sent3: the wisteria is a Pompadour. sent4: if something that is not a kind of a show-stopper is a phosphor then it serves entreaty. sent5: if the dominance does not perch then the aphorist serves Methodist and does not serve entreaty. sent6: that something is not a kind of a peculiarity and is Melanesian is not correct if it does not serve Methodist. ; $proof$ = | sent4 -> int1: the chit does serve entreaty if it is both not a show-stopper and a phosphor.; sent6 -> int2: the fact that the lifeboat is not a peculiarity but it is Melanesian does not hold if it does not serve Methodist.; __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | the tendergreen is not arborical. | ¬{B}{aa} | sent1: the anchorite does recommend electroencephalogram or is not a betrayal or both. sent2: the henbane is inferential. sent3: if the fact that something is not a kind of a bubo but it boats camail does not hold it is a blasphemy. sent4: something is a blasphemy. sent5: if the Caliphate is bicapsular then the henbane serves VLF. sent6: if there exists something such that it does recommend Lardner then the tendergreen is nonsteroidal or it is not a blocking or both. sent7: the atmometer does not recommend electroencephalogram. sent8: the fact that the Caliphate is bicapsular hold. sent9: the tendergreen either is buccal or does not recommend electroencephalogram or both if something is a blasphemy. sent10: if something is buccal and/or it does not recommend electroencephalogram then it is not arborical. sent11: if something is a kind of a blasphemy then it is arborical. sent12: something is non-arborical if it is buccal. | sent1: ({AB}{is} v ¬{FB}{is}) sent2: {E}{b} sent3: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & {D}x) -> {A}x sent4: (Ex): {A}x sent5: {G}{c} -> {F}{b} sent6: (x): {GU}x -> ({FL}{aa} v ¬{GP}{aa}) sent7: ¬{AB}{gg} sent8: {G}{c} sent9: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent10: (x): ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent11: (x): {A}x -> {B}x sent12: (x): {AA}x -> ¬{B}x | [
"sent10 -> int1: the fact that the tendergreen is not arborical if the tendergreen is buccal and/or it does not recommend electroencephalogram is right.; sent4 & sent9 -> int2: the tendergreen is buccal and/or it does not recommend electroencephalogram.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent10 -> int1: ({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; sent4 & sent9 -> int2: ({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | the tendergreen is arborical. | {B}{aa} | [
"sent11 -> int3: if the tendergreen is a kind of a blasphemy it is arborical.; sent3 -> int4: the tendergreen is a kind of a blasphemy if that it is not a bubo and boats camail is wrong.; sent5 & sent8 -> int5: that the henbane serves VLF is correct.; sent2 & int5 -> int6: that the henbane is not non-inferential and it does serve VLF is correct.; int6 -> int7: there is something such that it is inferential and it serves VLF.;"
] | 8 | 2 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 9 | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the tendergreen is not arborical. ; $context$ = sent1: the anchorite does recommend electroencephalogram or is not a betrayal or both. sent2: the henbane is inferential. sent3: if the fact that something is not a kind of a bubo but it boats camail does not hold it is a blasphemy. sent4: something is a blasphemy. sent5: if the Caliphate is bicapsular then the henbane serves VLF. sent6: if there exists something such that it does recommend Lardner then the tendergreen is nonsteroidal or it is not a blocking or both. sent7: the atmometer does not recommend electroencephalogram. sent8: the fact that the Caliphate is bicapsular hold. sent9: the tendergreen either is buccal or does not recommend electroencephalogram or both if something is a blasphemy. sent10: if something is buccal and/or it does not recommend electroencephalogram then it is not arborical. sent11: if something is a kind of a blasphemy then it is arborical. sent12: something is non-arborical if it is buccal. ; $proof$ = | sent10 -> int1: the fact that the tendergreen is not arborical if the tendergreen is buccal and/or it does not recommend electroencephalogram is right.; sent4 & sent9 -> int2: the tendergreen is buccal and/or it does not recommend electroencephalogram.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the handhold is a quad. | {B}{a} | sent1: if the fact that the handhold is not gymnastics is not false it is a prosperity and it does grin. sent2: the handhold does grin. sent3: the handhold is not gymnastics. sent4: the handhold grins if it is not gymnastics. sent5: if something is a prosperity it is a kind of a quad. | sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent2: {AB}{a} sent3: ¬{A}{a} sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> {AB}{a} sent5: (x): {AA}x -> {B}x | [
"sent1 & sent3 -> int1: the handhold is a prosperity and it grins.; int1 -> int2: the handhold is a prosperity.; sent5 -> int3: the handhold is a quad if it is a prosperity.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent1 & sent3 -> int1: ({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}); int1 -> int2: {AA}{a}; sent5 -> int3: {AA}{a} -> {B}{a}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null | [] | null | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | PROVED | null | PROVED | null | $hypothesis$ = the handhold is a quad. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the handhold is not gymnastics is not false it is a prosperity and it does grin. sent2: the handhold does grin. sent3: the handhold is not gymnastics. sent4: the handhold grins if it is not gymnastics. sent5: if something is a prosperity it is a kind of a quad. ; $proof$ = | sent1 & sent3 -> int1: the handhold is a prosperity and it grins.; int1 -> int2: the handhold is a prosperity.; sent5 -> int3: the handhold is a quad if it is a prosperity.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the councilwoman does not backpack mummy. | ¬{A}{a} | sent1: the councilwoman is not a stern if there exists something such that that it is seamless and/or is navigational does not hold. sent2: something is not bacteroidal if it is a kind of a stern. sent3: the Casanova does not boat requested. sent4: if the fact that the councilwoman does backpack mummy hold it does boat requested. sent5: if something is tolerant then the councilwoman does not boat requested. sent6: something backpacks mummy. sent7: something is a stern or it is navigational or both if it is not seamless. sent8: a navigational thing is not bacteroidal. sent9: the councilwoman does serve farrier. sent10: the councilwoman conglutinates. sent11: the councilwoman boats requested if it is a Webster. sent12: the councilwoman is basaltic if it is seamless. sent13: the councilwoman does not recommend protectionist. sent14: there exists something such that that it is tolerant is right. sent15: if something is not bacteroidal then the fact that the mattress is not a kind of a T-man hold. sent16: the councilwoman recommends ram's-head. sent17: there is something such that that it is seamless or it is navigational or both does not hold. sent18: the councilwoman is not tolerant. sent19: the ram's-head is not seamless. sent20: if something is not tolerant and it does not backpack mummy then it does not boat requested. sent21: if something is not a kind of a T-man it boats requested and it does backpack mummy. | sent1: (x): ¬({H}x v {G}x) -> ¬{F}{a} sent2: (x): {F}x -> ¬{E}x sent3: ¬{B}{gg} sent4: {A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent5: (x): {C}x -> ¬{B}{a} sent6: (Ex): {A}x sent7: (x): ¬{H}x -> ({F}x v {G}x) sent8: (x): {G}x -> ¬{E}x sent9: {JH}{a} sent10: {U}{a} sent11: {DQ}{a} -> {B}{a} sent12: {H}{a} -> {HA}{a} sent13: ¬{GP}{a} sent14: (Ex): {C}x sent15: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬{D}{b} sent16: {EA}{a} sent17: (Ex): ¬({H}x v {G}x) sent18: ¬{C}{a} sent19: ¬{H}{c} sent20: (x): (¬{C}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{B}x sent21: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({B}x & {A}x) | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the councilwoman does backpack mummy.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the councilwoman boats requested.; sent14 & sent5 -> int2: the councilwoman does not boat requested.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"void -> assump1: {A}{a}; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent14 & sent5 -> int2: ¬{B}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | the mummy does not boat requested. | ¬{B}{ff} | [
"sent20 -> int4: if the mummy is not tolerant and does not backpack mummy then that it does not boat requested hold.; sent17 & sent1 -> int5: the councilwoman is not a stern.; int5 -> int6: something is not a stern.;"
] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 18 | 0 | 18 | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the councilwoman does not backpack mummy. ; $context$ = sent1: the councilwoman is not a stern if there exists something such that that it is seamless and/or is navigational does not hold. sent2: something is not bacteroidal if it is a kind of a stern. sent3: the Casanova does not boat requested. sent4: if the fact that the councilwoman does backpack mummy hold it does boat requested. sent5: if something is tolerant then the councilwoman does not boat requested. sent6: something backpacks mummy. sent7: something is a stern or it is navigational or both if it is not seamless. sent8: a navigational thing is not bacteroidal. sent9: the councilwoman does serve farrier. sent10: the councilwoman conglutinates. sent11: the councilwoman boats requested if it is a Webster. sent12: the councilwoman is basaltic if it is seamless. sent13: the councilwoman does not recommend protectionist. sent14: there exists something such that that it is tolerant is right. sent15: if something is not bacteroidal then the fact that the mattress is not a kind of a T-man hold. sent16: the councilwoman recommends ram's-head. sent17: there is something such that that it is seamless or it is navigational or both does not hold. sent18: the councilwoman is not tolerant. sent19: the ram's-head is not seamless. sent20: if something is not tolerant and it does not backpack mummy then it does not boat requested. sent21: if something is not a kind of a T-man it boats requested and it does backpack mummy. ; $proof$ = | void -> assump1: Let's assume that the councilwoman does backpack mummy.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the councilwoman boats requested.; sent14 & sent5 -> int2: the councilwoman does not boat requested.; 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 throne then the fact that it does not backpack tetranychid and it is coccal does not hold is wrong. | ¬((Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x)) | sent1: that something does not serve Nergal and is coccal does not hold if it does serve caustic. sent2: there exists something such that if it is a throne then the fact that it does not backpack tetranychid and is coccal is true. sent3: there is something such that if it does throne the fact that that it does backpack tetranychid and it is coccal is not incorrect does not hold. sent4: there exists something such that if it is avifaunal that it does not attenuate and is unidentifiable is not right. sent5: there is something such that if it boats cupflower then the fact that it is not faceless and is informational is not right. sent6: if the caustic does throne the fact that it backpacks tetranychid and it is coccal is not right. sent7: that something is a kind of non-coccal an adder does not hold if it is a Siluridae. sent8: if the tetranychid is indefeasible the fact that it is not a kind of a salamander and is a throne is not right. sent9: the fact that the caustic does not backpack tetranychid and is coccal is not true if it thrones. sent10: the caustic does not backpack tetranychid and is coccal if it is a throne. | sent1: (x): {EK}x -> ¬(¬{Q}x & {AB}x) sent2: (Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent4: (Ex): {HM}x -> ¬(¬{EJ}x & {GM}x) sent5: (Ex): {GH}x -> ¬(¬{BK}x & {BO}x) sent6: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent7: (x): {BS}x -> ¬(¬{AB}x & {IK}x) sent8: {GG}{gt} -> ¬(¬{DD}{gt} & {A}{gt}) sent9: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent10: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) | [
"sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] | that the longbow is a kind of non-coccal an adder does not hold if it is a Siluridae. | {BS}{dj} -> ¬(¬{AB}{dj} & {IK}{dj}) | [
"sent7 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 | 0 | 9 | DISPROVED | PROVED | DISPROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it is a kind of a throne then the fact that it does not backpack tetranychid and it is coccal does not hold is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: that something does not serve Nergal and is coccal does not hold if it does serve caustic. sent2: there exists something such that if it is a throne then the fact that it does not backpack tetranychid and is coccal is true. sent3: there is something such that if it does throne the fact that that it does backpack tetranychid and it is coccal is not incorrect does not hold. sent4: there exists something such that if it is avifaunal that it does not attenuate and is unidentifiable is not right. sent5: there is something such that if it boats cupflower then the fact that it is not faceless and is informational is not right. sent6: if the caustic does throne the fact that it backpacks tetranychid and it is coccal is not right. sent7: that something is a kind of non-coccal an adder does not hold if it is a Siluridae. sent8: if the tetranychid is indefeasible the fact that it is not a kind of a salamander and is a throne is not right. sent9: the fact that the caustic does not backpack tetranychid and is coccal is not true if it thrones. sent10: the caustic does not backpack tetranychid and is coccal if it is a throne. ; $proof$ = | sent9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the traverser is a Ottumwa. | {D}{a} | sent1: the fact that the traverser is not a latest is true if something is a proctoscopy and it is a crater. sent2: the traverser is not a kind of a proctoscopy. sent3: something is a redistribution and it is a psychodid. sent4: the traverser does not recommend packinghouse. sent5: the fact that the anteater is not a Ottumwa is not incorrect. sent6: something is a cinema. sent7: the fact that something does serve cirrus and is a allocution is correct. sent8: the traverser is not greenside. sent9: the flagging is not a Ottumwa. sent10: the traverser is not pronounceable. sent11: there exists something such that it is a briefcase. sent12: something is not a Ottumwa if it is not a kind of a latest. sent13: there exists something such that it directs. sent14: the traverser does not direct. sent15: the shortbread is not a kind of a Ottumwa. sent16: if that the traverser is not a briefcase is right then it is not a proctoscopy. sent17: the traverser does not serve anapsid. sent18: there exists something such that it is alkahestic. sent19: the traverser is not a crater. sent20: something is a kind of a Garrulus and it does intend. sent21: something is a proctoscopy that is a crater. sent22: the homeotherm is not a remainder if something that is mortuary is a crater. | sent1: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{C}{a} sent2: ¬{A}{a} sent3: (Ex): ({HJ}x & {FS}x) sent4: ¬{ET}{a} sent5: ¬{D}{ac} sent6: (Ex): {HF}x sent7: (Ex): ({BU}x & {IT}x) sent8: ¬{DU}{a} sent9: ¬{D}{dq} sent10: ¬{BL}{a} sent11: (Ex): {JB}x sent12: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬{D}x sent13: (Ex): {IC}x sent14: ¬{IC}{a} sent15: ¬{D}{fg} sent16: ¬{JB}{a} -> ¬{A}{a} sent17: ¬{FL}{a} sent18: (Ex): {IP}x sent19: ¬{B}{a} sent20: (Ex): ({L}x & {CF}x) sent21: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x) sent22: (x): ({HO}x & {B}x) -> ¬{HA}{hh} | [
"sent21 & sent1 -> int1: the traverser is not a latest.; sent12 -> int2: the fact that the traverser is not the Ottumwa if the traverser is not a latest hold.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent21 & sent1 -> int1: ¬{C}{a}; sent12 -> int2: ¬{C}{a} -> ¬{D}{a}; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null | [] | null | 2 | 2 | 19 | 0 | 19 | DISPROVED | null | DISPROVED | null | $hypothesis$ = the traverser is a Ottumwa. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the traverser is not a latest is true if something is a proctoscopy and it is a crater. sent2: the traverser is not a kind of a proctoscopy. sent3: something is a redistribution and it is a psychodid. sent4: the traverser does not recommend packinghouse. sent5: the fact that the anteater is not a Ottumwa is not incorrect. sent6: something is a cinema. sent7: the fact that something does serve cirrus and is a allocution is correct. sent8: the traverser is not greenside. sent9: the flagging is not a Ottumwa. sent10: the traverser is not pronounceable. sent11: there exists something such that it is a briefcase. sent12: something is not a Ottumwa if it is not a kind of a latest. sent13: there exists something such that it directs. sent14: the traverser does not direct. sent15: the shortbread is not a kind of a Ottumwa. sent16: if that the traverser is not a briefcase is right then it is not a proctoscopy. sent17: the traverser does not serve anapsid. sent18: there exists something such that it is alkahestic. sent19: the traverser is not a crater. sent20: something is a kind of a Garrulus and it does intend. sent21: something is a proctoscopy that is a crater. sent22: the homeotherm is not a remainder if something that is mortuary is a crater. ; $proof$ = | sent21 & sent1 -> int1: the traverser is not a latest.; sent12 -> int2: the fact that the traverser is not the Ottumwa if the traverser is not a latest hold.; int1 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the fact that the fact that the chromatography companies but it is not a doctor is not true is correct. | ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) | sent1: if the skink does recommend coating but it is not intradermal the chromatography does recommend coating. sent2: if the chromatography is a company and not a doctor then the skink is not intradermal. sent3: if the fact that the kohl is a kind of non-intradermal thing that does not recommend coating is right then the skink is non-intradermal. sent4: that something is not a judgeship and/or it is a kind of a knotgrass is wrong if it is a waterfall. sent5: if that the kohl is not intradermal but it recommends coating is true then the skink is intradermal. sent6: that if the kohl is not bulbaceous the skink is not productive hold. sent7: everything is a waterfall. sent8: the macule is not bulbaceous if that the refresher is not a judgeship and/or it is a knotgrass is not right. sent9: that something is not non-Audenesque and is not a bylaw is not right if the fact that it does recommend coating is true. sent10: the skink recommends coating if the fact that the chromatography recommends coating and is not productive does not hold. sent11: the chromatography is not intradermal. sent12: if the fact that something does recommend coating is true then it is both a company and not a doctor. sent13: the kohl is not a checksum and/or is not bulbaceous if there is something such that it is bulbaceous. sent14: the kohl does not recommend coating. sent15: the fact that the skink is a kind of a company but it is not intradermal is not true. sent16: if something is a checksum then it is not bulbaceous. sent17: the kohl is not intradermal and does not recommend coating. sent18: if the kohl does recommend coating and is not intradermal then the skink is not a company. sent19: the macule is a kind of a checksum. sent20: if the kohl is a company but it is not intradermal then the skink does not recommend coating. | sent1: ({A}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> {A}{a} sent2: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent3: (¬{B}{c} & ¬{A}{c}) -> {B}{b} sent4: (x): {H}x -> ¬(¬{F}x v {G}x) sent5: (¬{B}{c} & {A}{c}) -> {B}{b} sent6: ¬{D}{c} -> ¬{C}{b} sent7: (x): {H}x sent8: ¬(¬{F}{e} v {G}{e}) -> ¬{D}{d} sent9: (x): {A}x -> ¬({EO}x & ¬{IO}x) sent10: ¬({A}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {A}{b} sent11: ¬{B}{a} sent12: (x): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent13: (x): ¬{D}x -> (¬{E}{c} v ¬{D}{c}) sent14: ¬{A}{c} sent15: ¬({AA}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent16: (x): {E}x -> ¬{D}x sent17: (¬{B}{c} & ¬{A}{c}) sent18: ({A}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) -> ¬{AA}{b} sent19: {E}{d} sent20: ({AA}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) -> ¬{A}{b} | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the chromatography companies but it is not a doctor.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the skink is not intradermal.; sent3 & sent17 -> int2: the skink is intradermal.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"void -> assump1: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); sent2 & assump1 -> int1: ¬{B}{b}; sent3 & sent17 -> int2: {B}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | the chromatography is a company but it is not a doctor. | ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) | [
"sent12 -> int4: the chromatography is a company that is not a doctor if that it recommends coating is correct.; sent7 -> int5: the obturator is a waterfall.; sent4 -> int6: if the obturator is a waterfall that it is either not a judgeship or a knotgrass or both does not hold.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the fact that the obturator is not a judgeship and/or it is a kind of a knotgrass is not correct.; int7 -> int8: there exists nothing that either is not a kind of a judgeship or is a knotgrass or both.; int8 -> int9: the fact that the refresher is not a judgeship or a knotgrass or both is not correct.; int9 & sent8 -> int10: the macule is not bulbaceous.; int10 -> int11: there exists something such that it is not bulbaceous.; int11 & sent13 -> int12: either the kohl is not a checksum or it is not bulbaceous or both.;"
] | 11 | 3 | 3 | 17 | 0 | 17 | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the fact that the chromatography companies but it is not a doctor is not true is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the skink does recommend coating but it is not intradermal the chromatography does recommend coating. sent2: if the chromatography is a company and not a doctor then the skink is not intradermal. sent3: if the fact that the kohl is a kind of non-intradermal thing that does not recommend coating is right then the skink is non-intradermal. sent4: that something is not a judgeship and/or it is a kind of a knotgrass is wrong if it is a waterfall. sent5: if that the kohl is not intradermal but it recommends coating is true then the skink is intradermal. sent6: that if the kohl is not bulbaceous the skink is not productive hold. sent7: everything is a waterfall. sent8: the macule is not bulbaceous if that the refresher is not a judgeship and/or it is a knotgrass is not right. sent9: that something is not non-Audenesque and is not a bylaw is not right if the fact that it does recommend coating is true. sent10: the skink recommends coating if the fact that the chromatography recommends coating and is not productive does not hold. sent11: the chromatography is not intradermal. sent12: if the fact that something does recommend coating is true then it is both a company and not a doctor. sent13: the kohl is not a checksum and/or is not bulbaceous if there is something such that it is bulbaceous. sent14: the kohl does not recommend coating. sent15: the fact that the skink is a kind of a company but it is not intradermal is not true. sent16: if something is a checksum then it is not bulbaceous. sent17: the kohl is not intradermal and does not recommend coating. sent18: if the kohl does recommend coating and is not intradermal then the skink is not a company. sent19: the macule is a kind of a checksum. sent20: if the kohl is a company but it is not intradermal then the skink does not recommend coating. ; $proof$ = | void -> assump1: Let's assume that the chromatography companies but it is not a doctor.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the skink is not intradermal.; sent3 & sent17 -> int2: the skink is intradermal.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the phenazopyridine is unpriestly. | {E}{b} | sent1: the dacryocyst is both non-sexagesimal and bounded. sent2: that the pad is certain thing that does not recommend adz is not true if it carries. sent3: if the fact that the dacryocyst does boat Lyra but it is not unpriestly is not correct the phenazopyridine is unpriestly. sent4: the dacryocyst recommends adz. sent5: the desertification is not radio and not a hypertrophy. sent6: the dacryocyst is non-certain thing that recommends adz if there is something such that the fact that it boats Lyra is not false. sent7: the phenylpropanolamine is a neoclassicist if there is something such that it serves monogram. sent8: the phenazopyridine is unpriestly if there exists something such that it is a peptone. sent9: there is something such that it boats Lyra. sent10: if there exists something such that it is pretentious the dacryocyst is nonexplosive. sent11: there are certain things. sent12: if the dacryocyst is a kind of non-certain thing that recommends adz the phenazopyridine is not a kind of a carry. sent13: if there is something such that the fact that it is certain is right then the fact that the dacryocyst does recommend adz is right. sent14: something is not unpriestly if it does not carry. sent15: the fact that the pad is a kind of non-unfaithful thing that does not serve pyemia is false if it is dendritic. sent16: if the fact that the pad is not unfaithful and it does not serve pyemia is wrong then it is a carry. sent17: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a carry the phenazopyridine does not recommend adz and is unpriestly. | sent1: (¬{CO}{a} & {EO}{a}) sent2: {D}{d} -> ¬({B}{d} & ¬{C}{d}) sent3: ¬({A}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) -> {E}{b} sent4: {C}{a} sent5: (¬{I}{e} & ¬{J}{e}) sent6: (x): {A}x -> (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent7: (x): {CS}x -> {AE}{ac} sent8: (x): {JA}x -> {E}{b} sent9: (Ex): {A}x sent10: (x): {GJ}x -> {GB}{a} sent11: (Ex): {B}x sent12: (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent13: (x): {B}x -> {C}{a} sent14: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬{E}x sent15: {H}{d} -> ¬(¬{F}{d} & ¬{G}{d}) sent16: ¬(¬{F}{d} & ¬{G}{d}) -> {D}{d} sent17: (x): {D}x -> (¬{C}{b} & {E}{b}) | [
"sent9 & sent6 -> int1: the dacryocyst is not certain and recommends adz.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the phenazopyridine is not a carry.; sent14 -> int3: the phenazopyridine is not unpriestly if it is not a kind of a carry.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent9 & sent6 -> int1: (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}); int1 & sent12 -> int2: ¬{D}{b}; sent14 -> int3: ¬{D}{b} -> ¬{E}{b}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | the phenazopyridine is unpriestly. | {E}{b} | [
"sent5 -> int4: something is not a radio and it is not a kind of a hypertrophy.;"
] | 10 | 3 | 3 | 13 | 0 | 13 | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the phenazopyridine is unpriestly. ; $context$ = sent1: the dacryocyst is both non-sexagesimal and bounded. sent2: that the pad is certain thing that does not recommend adz is not true if it carries. sent3: if the fact that the dacryocyst does boat Lyra but it is not unpriestly is not correct the phenazopyridine is unpriestly. sent4: the dacryocyst recommends adz. sent5: the desertification is not radio and not a hypertrophy. sent6: the dacryocyst is non-certain thing that recommends adz if there is something such that the fact that it boats Lyra is not false. sent7: the phenylpropanolamine is a neoclassicist if there is something such that it serves monogram. sent8: the phenazopyridine is unpriestly if there exists something such that it is a peptone. sent9: there is something such that it boats Lyra. sent10: if there exists something such that it is pretentious the dacryocyst is nonexplosive. sent11: there are certain things. sent12: if the dacryocyst is a kind of non-certain thing that recommends adz the phenazopyridine is not a kind of a carry. sent13: if there is something such that the fact that it is certain is right then the fact that the dacryocyst does recommend adz is right. sent14: something is not unpriestly if it does not carry. sent15: the fact that the pad is a kind of non-unfaithful thing that does not serve pyemia is false if it is dendritic. sent16: if the fact that the pad is not unfaithful and it does not serve pyemia is wrong then it is a carry. sent17: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a carry the phenazopyridine does not recommend adz and is unpriestly. ; $proof$ = | sent9 & sent6 -> int1: the dacryocyst is not certain and recommends adz.; int1 & sent12 -> int2: the phenazopyridine is not a carry.; sent14 -> int3: the phenazopyridine is not unpriestly if it is not a kind of a carry.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the pincer is antiquarian. | {D}{c} | sent1: the fact that the centrosome is not a subscript but it is a kind of an octagon is not true. sent2: if that the centrosome is not subscript and not an octagon is false the pincer is antiquarian. sent3: the presbytery is not stereoscopic and does not leapfrog. sent4: the presbytery is subscript. sent5: if the presbytery is non-stereoscopic thing that does not leapfrog then it is not a kind of a banderillero. sent6: the pincer is a kind of a subscript. sent7: the fact that the centrosome is a kind of a subscript but it is non-antiquarian is not right if the presbytery is non-stereoscopic. sent8: the fact that the centrosome is not a banderillero and is not a kind of an octagon is false. sent9: the presbytery is a kind of non-antiquarian thing that does not recommend ordinand. sent10: if the presbytery is a kind of a subscript then the centrosome is stereoscopic. sent11: if the presbytery is not a subscript but it is a turbine the pincer is a banderillero. sent12: if the presbytery is not a kind of a banderillero then the fact that the centrosome is non-subscript thing that is not an octagon is not true. sent13: if the presbytery is not a leapfrog and is not a seer then it is not musical. | sent1: ¬(¬{C}{b} & {A}{b}) sent2: ¬(¬{C}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) -> {D}{c} sent3: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent4: {C}{a} sent5: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent6: {C}{c} sent7: ¬{AA}{a} -> ¬({C}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) sent8: ¬(¬{B}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent9: (¬{D}{a} & ¬{GO}{a}) sent10: {C}{a} -> {AA}{b} sent11: (¬{C}{a} & {E}{a}) -> {B}{c} sent12: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬(¬{C}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) sent13: (¬{AB}{a} & ¬{BQ}{a}) -> ¬{EQ}{a} | [
"sent5 & sent3 -> int1: the presbytery is not a kind of a banderillero.; sent12 & int1 -> int2: that the centrosome is not a subscript and is not an octagon is false.; sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent5 & sent3 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; sent12 & int1 -> int2: ¬(¬{C}{b} & ¬{A}{b}); sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | the fact that the pincer is non-antiquarian hold. | ¬{D}{c} | [] | 5 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 0 | 9 | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the pincer is antiquarian. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the centrosome is not a subscript but it is a kind of an octagon is not true. sent2: if that the centrosome is not subscript and not an octagon is false the pincer is antiquarian. sent3: the presbytery is not stereoscopic and does not leapfrog. sent4: the presbytery is subscript. sent5: if the presbytery is non-stereoscopic thing that does not leapfrog then it is not a kind of a banderillero. sent6: the pincer is a kind of a subscript. sent7: the fact that the centrosome is a kind of a subscript but it is non-antiquarian is not right if the presbytery is non-stereoscopic. sent8: the fact that the centrosome is not a banderillero and is not a kind of an octagon is false. sent9: the presbytery is a kind of non-antiquarian thing that does not recommend ordinand. sent10: if the presbytery is a kind of a subscript then the centrosome is stereoscopic. sent11: if the presbytery is not a subscript but it is a turbine the pincer is a banderillero. sent12: if the presbytery is not a kind of a banderillero then the fact that the centrosome is non-subscript thing that is not an octagon is not true. sent13: if the presbytery is not a leapfrog and is not a seer then it is not musical. ; $proof$ = | sent5 & sent3 -> int1: the presbytery is not a kind of a banderillero.; sent12 & int1 -> int2: that the centrosome is not a subscript and is not an octagon is false.; sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the fact that not the wafting but the unpermissiveness occurs is not correct. | ¬(¬{C} & {D}) | sent1: the boating mealberry does not occur but the recommending lurker occurs if the scowling does not occur. sent2: that both the unpermissiveness and the indexicalness occurs is triggered by that the serving cockfight does not occur. sent3: the fact that the wafting does not occur but the unpermissiveness occurs is not right if the inharmoniousness happens. sent4: if the serving cockfight occurs the indexicalness happens. sent5: the Judaicness and the isomerization occurs if the scattering does not occur. sent6: the inharmoniousness does not occur. sent7: the fact that that the gloriousness does not occur and the humoralness does not occur is true causes that the scowling does not occur. sent8: that the wafting does not occur is triggered by that not the inharmoniousness but the will-o'-the-wisp occurs. sent9: that the ingloriousness and the non-humoralness happens is triggered by the Judaicness. sent10: if the boating mealberry does not occur the serving cockfight and the aborticide occurs. sent11: the will-o'-the-wisp happens. sent12: the serving cockfight does not occur. | sent1: ¬{J} -> (¬{H} & {I}) sent2: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) sent3: {A} -> ¬(¬{C} & {D}) sent4: {F} -> {E} sent5: ¬{O} -> ({M} & {N}) sent6: ¬{A} sent7: (¬{K} & ¬{L}) -> ¬{J} sent8: (¬{A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent9: {M} -> (¬{K} & ¬{L}) sent10: ¬{H} -> ({F} & {G}) sent11: {B} sent12: ¬{F} | [
"sent6 & sent11 -> int1: both the non-inharmoniousness and the will-o'-the-wisp occurs.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the wafting does not occur.; sent2 & sent12 -> int3: both the unpermissiveness and the indexicalness occurs.; int3 -> int4: the unpermissiveness occurs.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent6 & sent11 -> int1: (¬{A} & {B}); int1 & sent8 -> int2: ¬{C}; sent2 & sent12 -> int3: ({D} & {E}); int3 -> int4: {D}; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | the fact that the wafting does not occur but the unpermissiveness happens does not hold. | ¬(¬{C} & {D}) | [] | 12 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 7 | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that not the wafting but the unpermissiveness occurs is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the boating mealberry does not occur but the recommending lurker occurs if the scowling does not occur. sent2: that both the unpermissiveness and the indexicalness occurs is triggered by that the serving cockfight does not occur. sent3: the fact that the wafting does not occur but the unpermissiveness occurs is not right if the inharmoniousness happens. sent4: if the serving cockfight occurs the indexicalness happens. sent5: the Judaicness and the isomerization occurs if the scattering does not occur. sent6: the inharmoniousness does not occur. sent7: the fact that that the gloriousness does not occur and the humoralness does not occur is true causes that the scowling does not occur. sent8: that the wafting does not occur is triggered by that not the inharmoniousness but the will-o'-the-wisp occurs. sent9: that the ingloriousness and the non-humoralness happens is triggered by the Judaicness. sent10: if the boating mealberry does not occur the serving cockfight and the aborticide occurs. sent11: the will-o'-the-wisp happens. sent12: the serving cockfight does not occur. ; $proof$ = | sent6 & sent11 -> int1: both the non-inharmoniousness and the will-o'-the-wisp occurs.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the wafting does not occur.; sent2 & sent12 -> int3: both the unpermissiveness and the indexicalness occurs.; int3 -> int4: the unpermissiveness occurs.; int2 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | there is something such that if it does not backpack ancestor and it is cervine then it is a hussar. | (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x | sent1: if something is both not a webpage and bivalent then the fact that it is a hussar hold. sent2: the weather is a kind of a hussar if it is not a Toyohashi and it is dramatic. sent3: there is something such that if it is a Muscovite and does twig it does recommend remainder. sent4: there exists something such that if it is a parapet and it is a kind of a Toyohashi then it backpacks weather. sent5: if the weather does not backpack ancestor but it is cervine it is a hussar. | sent1: (x): (¬{GI}x & {FH}x) -> {B}x sent2: (¬{EO}{aa} & {E}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent3: (Ex): ({IT}x & {IR}x) -> {HH}x sent4: (Ex): ({GQ}x & {EO}x) -> {K}x sent5: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} | [
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | the weather is a kind of a hussar if it is not a webpage and is bivalent. | (¬{GI}{aa} & {FH}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} | [
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 4 | PROVED | PROVED | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it does not backpack ancestor and it is cervine then it is a hussar. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is both not a webpage and bivalent then the fact that it is a hussar hold. sent2: the weather is a kind of a hussar if it is not a Toyohashi and it is dramatic. sent3: there is something such that if it is a Muscovite and does twig it does recommend remainder. sent4: there exists something such that if it is a parapet and it is a kind of a Toyohashi then it backpacks weather. sent5: if the weather does not backpack ancestor but it is cervine it is a hussar. ; $proof$ = | sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the Beguine does backpack wood. | {B}{b} | sent1: there exists something such that it does not throng. sent2: the fact that the Beguine does not backpack wood hold if that the loaner is not custard-like but it is a kind of a calceus is not right. sent3: if the loaner is not a deportation then that it is both not a homo and mechanical is false. sent4: that something does boat dream if the fact that it is a crockery and does not boat dream is not true hold. sent5: something that is not a waste is not a kind of a albedo and achieves. sent6: if something is not heterodactyl then it does not recommend kidney and forbears. sent7: if that the upstage throngs and is a urine is not right it is not a waste. sent8: if the voyeurism does not recommend kidney that the loaner is a crockery that does not boat dream is not true. sent9: if the loaner does not recommend manipulation the fact that it is a kind of non-custard-like a calceus does not hold. sent10: the Beguine is not custard-like. sent11: if there exists something such that it does not serve model then that the Jordanian does boat mannequin and is not bismuthic is not true. sent12: if the loaner is not a calceus the Beguine does not backpack wood. sent13: if the fact that something boats mannequin but it is not bismuthic is not true it is not heterodactyl. sent14: that something is not a calceus but it is a kind of a cutlassfish does not hold if it recommends manipulation. sent15: that the loaner does not recommend manipulation hold. sent16: if the Beguine does not backpack wood that it is not a kind of a calceus and recommends manipulation is not true. sent17: something backpacks wood and it does recommend manipulation if it is not an intolerance. sent18: something that is not a albedo and does achieve does not serve model. sent19: the Beguine is not custard-like if that the loaner does not backpack wood but it does recommend manipulation is not true. sent20: That the manipulation does not recommend loaner hold. sent21: if the fact that the Jordanian does not recommend kidney and does forbear hold then the voyeurism does not recommend kidney. sent22: that the upstage does throng and is a urine does not hold if there exists something such that it does not throng. | sent1: (Ex): ¬{Q}x sent2: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent3: ¬{HN}{a} -> ¬(¬{AE}{a} & {JI}{a}) sent4: (x): ¬({G}x & ¬{E}x) -> {E}x sent5: (x): ¬{O}x -> (¬{N}x & {M}x) sent6: (x): ¬{H}x -> (¬{F}x & {I}x) sent7: ¬({Q}{e} & {P}{e}) -> ¬{O}{e} sent8: ¬{F}{c} -> ¬({G}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) sent9: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent10: ¬{AA}{b} sent11: (x): ¬{L}x -> ¬({K}{d} & ¬{J}{d}) sent12: ¬{AB}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent13: (x): ¬({K}x & ¬{J}x) -> ¬{H}x sent14: (x): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AB}x & {DU}x) sent15: ¬{A}{a} sent16: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬(¬{AB}{b} & {A}{b}) sent17: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({B}x & {A}x) sent18: (x): (¬{N}x & {M}x) -> ¬{L}x sent19: ¬(¬{B}{a} & {A}{a}) -> ¬{AA}{b} sent20: ¬{AC}{aa} sent21: (¬{F}{d} & {I}{d}) -> ¬{F}{c} sent22: (x): ¬{Q}x -> ¬({Q}{e} & {P}{e}) | [
"sent9 & sent15 -> int1: that the loaner is non-custard-like thing that is a kind of a calceus does not hold.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent9 & sent15 -> int1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}); sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | that the Beguine is both not a calceus and a cutlassfish does not hold. | ¬(¬{AB}{b} & {DU}{b}) | [
"sent14 -> int2: if the Beguine recommends manipulation the fact that it is not a calceus and it is a cutlassfish is false.;"
] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 19 | 0 | 19 | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the Beguine does backpack wood. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that it does not throng. sent2: the fact that the Beguine does not backpack wood hold if that the loaner is not custard-like but it is a kind of a calceus is not right. sent3: if the loaner is not a deportation then that it is both not a homo and mechanical is false. sent4: that something does boat dream if the fact that it is a crockery and does not boat dream is not true hold. sent5: something that is not a waste is not a kind of a albedo and achieves. sent6: if something is not heterodactyl then it does not recommend kidney and forbears. sent7: if that the upstage throngs and is a urine is not right it is not a waste. sent8: if the voyeurism does not recommend kidney that the loaner is a crockery that does not boat dream is not true. sent9: if the loaner does not recommend manipulation the fact that it is a kind of non-custard-like a calceus does not hold. sent10: the Beguine is not custard-like. sent11: if there exists something such that it does not serve model then that the Jordanian does boat mannequin and is not bismuthic is not true. sent12: if the loaner is not a calceus the Beguine does not backpack wood. sent13: if the fact that something boats mannequin but it is not bismuthic is not true it is not heterodactyl. sent14: that something is not a calceus but it is a kind of a cutlassfish does not hold if it recommends manipulation. sent15: that the loaner does not recommend manipulation hold. sent16: if the Beguine does not backpack wood that it is not a kind of a calceus and recommends manipulation is not true. sent17: something backpacks wood and it does recommend manipulation if it is not an intolerance. sent18: something that is not a albedo and does achieve does not serve model. sent19: the Beguine is not custard-like if that the loaner does not backpack wood but it does recommend manipulation is not true. sent20: That the manipulation does not recommend loaner hold. sent21: if the fact that the Jordanian does not recommend kidney and does forbear hold then the voyeurism does not recommend kidney. sent22: that the upstage does throng and is a urine does not hold if there exists something such that it does not throng. ; $proof$ = | sent9 & sent15 -> int1: that the loaner is non-custard-like thing that is a kind of a calceus does not hold.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the carapace is not a kind of a Zinjanthropus. | ¬{C}{b} | sent1: the carapace is cosmologic if the bangle is a Zinjanthropus. sent2: if the demonstrator is cosmologic the carapace is a Zinjanthropus. sent3: the demonstrator backpacks carapace and is a kind of a Zinjanthropus. sent4: the fact that the carapace does backpack carapace if the demonstrator is a kind of a Zinjanthropus is not incorrect. sent5: the demonstrator is a dualist. sent6: the demonstrator is a kind of a Zinjanthropus and it backpacks carapace. sent7: the soil backpacks carapace. sent8: the carapace is a animalcule. sent9: the Piedmont is a kind of a bantam that overprotects. sent10: the SOD recommends peoples and it is a kind of a desalination. sent11: the fact that the rung does backpack carapace hold. sent12: if the fact that the carapace is cosmologic is not false the demonstrator is a kind of a Zinjanthropus. sent13: the demonstrator does backpack carapace and it is cosmologic. sent14: that the SOD is not monophonic but it tops does not hold if it is a kind of a desalination. sent15: if the demonstrator is a kind of a Zinjanthropus the carapace is cosmologic. sent16: the carapace is cosmologic. sent17: that the carapace backpacks carapace is right. sent18: if that something is not monophonic but it does top is wrong it does not backpack carapace. sent19: the demonstrator does backpack carapace. sent20: the demonstrator does recommend profligacy. | sent1: {C}{cb} -> {B}{b} sent2: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent3: ({A}{a} & {C}{a}) sent4: {C}{a} -> {A}{b} sent5: {GM}{a} sent6: ({C}{a} & {A}{a}) sent7: {A}{gg} sent8: {BQ}{b} sent9: ({IE}{m} & {FF}{m}) sent10: ({G}{c} & {F}{c}) sent11: {A}{gs} sent12: {B}{b} -> {C}{a} sent13: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent14: {F}{c} -> ¬(¬{D}{c} & {E}{c}) sent15: {C}{a} -> {B}{b} sent16: {B}{b} sent17: {A}{b} sent18: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & {E}x) -> ¬{A}x sent19: {A}{a} sent20: {AL}{a} | [
"sent13 -> int1: the demonstrator is cosmologic.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent13 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | the carapace is not a Zinjanthropus. | ¬{C}{b} | [
"sent18 -> int2: if the fact that the SOD is a kind of non-monophonic a top does not hold then it does not backpack carapace.; sent10 -> int3: the SOD is a desalination.; sent14 & int3 -> int4: that the SOD is both not monophonic and top does not hold.; int2 & int4 -> int5: the SOD does not backpack carapace.; int5 -> int6: there is something such that it does not backpack carapace.;"
] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 18 | 0 | 18 | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the carapace is not a kind of a Zinjanthropus. ; $context$ = sent1: the carapace is cosmologic if the bangle is a Zinjanthropus. sent2: if the demonstrator is cosmologic the carapace is a Zinjanthropus. sent3: the demonstrator backpacks carapace and is a kind of a Zinjanthropus. sent4: the fact that the carapace does backpack carapace if the demonstrator is a kind of a Zinjanthropus is not incorrect. sent5: the demonstrator is a dualist. sent6: the demonstrator is a kind of a Zinjanthropus and it backpacks carapace. sent7: the soil backpacks carapace. sent8: the carapace is a animalcule. sent9: the Piedmont is a kind of a bantam that overprotects. sent10: the SOD recommends peoples and it is a kind of a desalination. sent11: the fact that the rung does backpack carapace hold. sent12: if the fact that the carapace is cosmologic is not false the demonstrator is a kind of a Zinjanthropus. sent13: the demonstrator does backpack carapace and it is cosmologic. sent14: that the SOD is not monophonic but it tops does not hold if it is a kind of a desalination. sent15: if the demonstrator is a kind of a Zinjanthropus the carapace is cosmologic. sent16: the carapace is cosmologic. sent17: that the carapace backpacks carapace is right. sent18: if that something is not monophonic but it does top is wrong it does not backpack carapace. sent19: the demonstrator does backpack carapace. sent20: the demonstrator does recommend profligacy. ; $proof$ = | sent13 -> int1: the demonstrator is cosmologic.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the swimmer recommends atomism. | {C}{b} | sent1: the Sunnite is both an episteme and a lambdacism. sent2: something is an episteme and a lambdacism if it does not recommend atomism. | sent1: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent2: (x): ¬{C}x -> ({A}x & {B}x) | [
"sent1 -> int1: the Sunnite is a lambdacism.;"
] | [
"sent1 -> int1: {B}{a};"
] | the notebook is an episteme. | {A}{ef} | [
"sent2 -> int2: the notebook is an episteme and is a lambdacism if it does not recommend atomism.;"
] | 5 | 2 | null | 1 | 0 | 1 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the swimmer recommends atomism. ; $context$ = sent1: the Sunnite is both an episteme and a lambdacism. sent2: something is an episteme and a lambdacism if it does not recommend atomism. ; $proof$ = | sent1 -> int1: the Sunnite is a lambdacism.; __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | the dairymaid does not recommend sassaby. | ¬{E}{b} | sent1: something serves childishness. sent2: the fact that the silverspot does recommend clearway is correct if it does stagger. sent3: the silverspot does not recommend kestrel. sent4: if there exists something such that it does not serve childishness then the silverspot does stagger. sent5: the dairymaid does not recommend sassaby if the silverspot does recommend clearway and/or is not stale. sent6: the dairymaid does recommend clearway. sent7: the silverspot does recommend clearway and/or stales. sent8: that the silverspot is a bangle but it is not stale is wrong if that it does not recommend kestrel is not wrong. sent9: if that something is a kind of a bangle that does not stale is not correct it does stale. sent10: if something does not stagger then it recommends sassaby and does serve childishness. sent11: that the dairymaid does not recommend sassaby is not wrong if the fact that the silverspot does stale is false. | sent1: (Ex): {A}x sent2: {B}{a} -> {C}{a} sent3: ¬{G}{a} sent4: (x): ¬{A}x -> {B}{a} sent5: ({C}{a} v ¬{D}{a}) -> ¬{E}{b} sent6: {C}{b} sent7: ({C}{a} v {D}{a}) sent8: ¬{G}{a} -> ¬({F}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent9: (x): ¬({F}x & ¬{D}x) -> {D}x sent10: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({E}x & {A}x) sent11: ¬{D}{a} -> ¬{E}{b} | [] | [] | the fact that the dairymaid recommends sassaby is not wrong. | {E}{b} | [
"sent10 -> int1: if the dairymaid does not stagger it does recommend sassaby and does serve childishness.; sent9 -> int2: if the fact that the silverspot is a bangle and not stale is wrong it does stale.; sent8 & sent3 -> int3: that the silverspot is a bangle and not stale is incorrect.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the silverspot stales.; int4 -> int5: the silverspot either does stale or does not recommend clearway or both.; int5 -> int6: something does stale or it does not recommend clearway or both.;"
] | 7 | 4 | null | 8 | 0 | 8 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the dairymaid does not recommend sassaby. ; $context$ = sent1: something serves childishness. sent2: the fact that the silverspot does recommend clearway is correct if it does stagger. sent3: the silverspot does not recommend kestrel. sent4: if there exists something such that it does not serve childishness then the silverspot does stagger. sent5: the dairymaid does not recommend sassaby if the silverspot does recommend clearway and/or is not stale. sent6: the dairymaid does recommend clearway. sent7: the silverspot does recommend clearway and/or stales. sent8: that the silverspot is a bangle but it is not stale is wrong if that it does not recommend kestrel is not wrong. sent9: if that something is a kind of a bangle that does not stale is not correct it does stale. sent10: if something does not stagger then it recommends sassaby and does serve childishness. sent11: that the dairymaid does not recommend sassaby is not wrong if the fact that the silverspot does stale is false. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | the abaxialness does not occur. | ¬{D} | sent1: the arguing happens. sent2: the recommending penuriousness prevents that the antecedent does not occur. sent3: the backpacking single occurs and the recommending penuriousness occurs. sent4: the polo does not occur. sent5: the equivocalness happens. sent6: if the antecedent occurs the abaxialness happens. sent7: the fact that the indurating does not occur is not incorrect if the fact that both the indurating and the Procrusteanness happens is not true. sent8: the fact that the fact that the indurating and the Procrusteanness happens is not correct is true if the polo does not occur. sent9: the backpacking single occurs. sent10: if the fact that the backpacking single and the recommending penuriousness happens is not true the abaxialness does not occur. sent11: that the antecedent does not occur is brought about by that the indurating does not occur and the auricularness does not occur. | sent1: {HS} sent2: {B} -> {C} sent3: ({A} & {B}) sent4: ¬{K} sent5: {AM} sent6: {C} -> {D} sent7: ¬({E} & {H}) -> ¬{E} sent8: ¬{K} -> ¬({E} & {H}) sent9: {A} sent10: ¬({A} & {B}) -> ¬{D} sent11: (¬{E} & ¬{F}) -> ¬{C} | [
"sent3 -> int1: the recommending penuriousness occurs.; sent2 & int1 -> int2: that the antecedent occurs hold.; sent6 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent3 -> int1: {B}; sent2 & int1 -> int2: {C}; sent6 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | the abaxialness does not occur. | ¬{D} | [
"sent8 & sent4 -> int3: that the indurating happens and the Procrusteanness happens is false.; sent7 & int3 -> int4: the indurating does not occur.;"
] | 8 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 8 | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the abaxialness does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the arguing happens. sent2: the recommending penuriousness prevents that the antecedent does not occur. sent3: the backpacking single occurs and the recommending penuriousness occurs. sent4: the polo does not occur. sent5: the equivocalness happens. sent6: if the antecedent occurs the abaxialness happens. sent7: the fact that the indurating does not occur is not incorrect if the fact that both the indurating and the Procrusteanness happens is not true. sent8: the fact that the fact that the indurating and the Procrusteanness happens is not correct is true if the polo does not occur. sent9: the backpacking single occurs. sent10: if the fact that the backpacking single and the recommending penuriousness happens is not true the abaxialness does not occur. sent11: that the antecedent does not occur is brought about by that the indurating does not occur and the auricularness does not occur. ; $proof$ = | sent3 -> int1: the recommending penuriousness occurs.; sent2 & int1 -> int2: that the antecedent occurs hold.; sent6 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | there is something such that if it does not recommend cartoon then the fact that it is both not a Limonium and not aecial does not hold. | (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) | sent1: if something does not recommend cartoon that it is not a Limonium and it is not aecial is not correct. sent2: if something is carnal the fact that it is both not an appointee and not angry is wrong. sent3: something is not a kind of a Limonium and it is not aecial if it does not recommend cartoon. sent4: the fact that the dishpan is not a Limonium and not aecial is not right if it recommends cartoon. sent5: if something is non-evening the fact that it is not a kind of an air and is not a Limonium is false. sent6: the fact that the dishpan is not a Limonium and is aecial is not right if it does not recommend cartoon. sent7: the fact that something is not a Limonium but aecial is false if it does not recommend cartoon. sent8: there is something such that if it does not recommend cartoon the fact that it is a Limonium that is not aecial is not correct. | sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent2: (x): {IM}x -> ¬(¬{FA}x & ¬{CC}x) sent3: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent4: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent5: (x): ¬{EH}x -> ¬(¬{CR}x & ¬{AA}x) sent6: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent8: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) | [
"sent1 -> int1: the fact that the dishpan is not a Limonium and is not aecial does not hold if it does not recommend cartoon.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent1 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | that the guard is not an air and it is not a kind of a Limonium does not hold if it is not evening. | ¬{EH}{cs} -> ¬(¬{CR}{cs} & ¬{AA}{cs}) | [
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 7 | PROVED | PROVED | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it does not recommend cartoon then the fact that it is both not a Limonium and not aecial does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not recommend cartoon that it is not a Limonium and it is not aecial is not correct. sent2: if something is carnal the fact that it is both not an appointee and not angry is wrong. sent3: something is not a kind of a Limonium and it is not aecial if it does not recommend cartoon. sent4: the fact that the dishpan is not a Limonium and not aecial is not right if it recommends cartoon. sent5: if something is non-evening the fact that it is not a kind of an air and is not a Limonium is false. sent6: the fact that the dishpan is not a Limonium and is aecial is not right if it does not recommend cartoon. sent7: the fact that something is not a Limonium but aecial is false if it does not recommend cartoon. sent8: there is something such that if it does not recommend cartoon the fact that it is a Limonium that is not aecial is not correct. ; $proof$ = | sent1 -> int1: the fact that the dishpan is not a Limonium and is not aecial does not hold if it does not recommend cartoon.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the PC does not expectorate. | ¬{D}{c} | sent1: if the pistil serves Hirundo then the star-thistle recommends puritan. sent2: the star-thistle does serve PC. sent3: if something is not nonlinear that it is a kind of a lay and it is not anagogic is incorrect. sent4: the Argentinian is a handbook. sent5: if the fact that the pistil is a resort is not incorrect then the star-thistle recommends puritan. sent6: the Argentinian expectorates if the PC is a kind of a handbook. sent7: the star-thistle is an essay if the Argentinian is a handbook. sent8: the PC is a handbook if the Argentinian expectorates. sent9: the Cimarron does expectorate. sent10: if there is something such that it is not a no-hitter and it does not recommend waffler the first is not nonlinear. sent11: The PC does serve star-thistle. sent12: the bough is not an essay. sent13: that something is an essay that does not expectorate is not true if it is not a kind of a handbook. sent14: if something is an essay but it is not a handbook then it does expectorate. sent15: the proaccelerin does develop if there exists something such that that it does lie and it is not anagogic does not hold. sent16: if the fact that something does not serve PC and it does not recommend puritan is wrong it is not a kind of a handbook. sent17: the PC expectorates if the fact that the Argentinian is an essay that does not expectorates is false. sent18: the incurable is not a kind of a no-hitter and it does not recommend waffler if the fact that it is not intrapulmonary is not wrong. sent19: the incurable is not intrapulmonary. sent20: the fact that the pistil is not a kind of a firewall is true if there exists something such that the fact that it does develop hold. sent21: something does serve Hirundo and/or it is a resort if it is not a firewall. | sent1: {G}{d} -> {E}{b} sent2: {C}{b} sent3: (x): ¬{L}x -> ¬({K}x & ¬{J}x) sent4: {A}{a} sent5: {F}{d} -> {E}{b} sent6: {A}{c} -> {D}{a} sent7: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent8: {D}{a} -> {A}{c} sent9: {D}{bf} sent10: (x): (¬{N}x & ¬{M}x) -> ¬{L}{f} sent11: {AA}{aa} sent12: ¬{B}{jb} sent13: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}x & ¬{D}x) sent14: (x): ({B}x & ¬{A}x) -> {D}x sent15: (x): ¬({K}x & ¬{J}x) -> {I}{e} sent16: (x): ¬(¬{C}x & ¬{E}x) -> ¬{A}x sent17: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) -> {D}{c} sent18: ¬{O}{g} -> (¬{N}{g} & ¬{M}{g}) sent19: ¬{O}{g} sent20: (x): {I}x -> ¬{H}{d} sent21: (x): ¬{H}x -> ({G}x v {F}x) | [
"sent7 & sent4 -> int1: the star-thistle is an essay.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the star-thistle is a kind of an essay that does serve PC.;"
] | [
"sent7 & sent4 -> int1: {B}{b}; int1 & sent2 -> int2: ({B}{b} & {C}{b});"
] | the PC does expectorate. | {D}{c} | [
"sent13 -> int3: the fact that the Argentinian is an essay but it does not expectorate is not right if that it is not a handbook hold.; sent16 -> int4: if the fact that the Argentinian does not serve PC and it does not recommend puritan is not true then it is not a handbook.; sent21 -> int5: the pistil serves Hirundo or it is a resort or both if it is not a firewall.; sent3 -> int6: the fact that that the first lies but it is not anagogic is false if the first is not nonlinear hold.; sent18 & sent19 -> int7: the incurable is not a no-hitter and does not recommend waffler.; int7 -> int8: there is something such that it is not a kind of a no-hitter and it does not recommend waffler.; int8 & sent10 -> int9: the first is not nonlinear.; int6 & int9 -> int10: the fact that the first lies and is not anagogic is not correct.; int10 -> int11: there exists something such that the fact that it is a lay and it is not anagogic is not true.; int11 & sent15 -> int12: that the proaccelerin does develop is right.; int12 -> int13: there exists something such that it does develop.; int13 & sent20 -> int14: the pistil is not a firewall.; int5 & int14 -> int15: the pistil does serve Hirundo and/or it is a resort.; int15 & sent1 & sent5 -> int16: the fact that the star-thistle recommends puritan is not incorrect.; int16 -> int17: there is something such that it does recommend puritan.;"
] | 15 | 3 | null | 18 | 0 | 18 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the PC does not expectorate. ; $context$ = sent1: if the pistil serves Hirundo then the star-thistle recommends puritan. sent2: the star-thistle does serve PC. sent3: if something is not nonlinear that it is a kind of a lay and it is not anagogic is incorrect. sent4: the Argentinian is a handbook. sent5: if the fact that the pistil is a resort is not incorrect then the star-thistle recommends puritan. sent6: the Argentinian expectorates if the PC is a kind of a handbook. sent7: the star-thistle is an essay if the Argentinian is a handbook. sent8: the PC is a handbook if the Argentinian expectorates. sent9: the Cimarron does expectorate. sent10: if there is something such that it is not a no-hitter and it does not recommend waffler the first is not nonlinear. sent11: The PC does serve star-thistle. sent12: the bough is not an essay. sent13: that something is an essay that does not expectorate is not true if it is not a kind of a handbook. sent14: if something is an essay but it is not a handbook then it does expectorate. sent15: the proaccelerin does develop if there exists something such that that it does lie and it is not anagogic does not hold. sent16: if the fact that something does not serve PC and it does not recommend puritan is wrong it is not a kind of a handbook. sent17: the PC expectorates if the fact that the Argentinian is an essay that does not expectorates is false. sent18: the incurable is not a kind of a no-hitter and it does not recommend waffler if the fact that it is not intrapulmonary is not wrong. sent19: the incurable is not intrapulmonary. sent20: the fact that the pistil is not a kind of a firewall is true if there exists something such that the fact that it does develop hold. sent21: something does serve Hirundo and/or it is a resort if it is not a firewall. ; $proof$ = | sent7 & sent4 -> int1: the star-thistle is an essay.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the star-thistle is a kind of an essay that does serve PC.; __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | the stand does backpack Vireonidae. | {B}{a} | sent1: the jerkin is not lipless if something is not lipless and/or is a kind of an education. sent2: something is non-seductive thing that recommends lurker if it is not lipless. sent3: there exists something such that it is not lipless or it is an education or both. | sent1: (x): (¬{A}x v {C}x) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: (Ex): (¬{A}x v {C}x) | [
"sent2 -> int1: the jerkin is not seductive but it does recommend lurker if that it is not lipless is not wrong.; sent3 & sent1 -> int2: the jerkin is not lipless.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the jerkin is non-seductive thing that recommends lurker.;"
] | [
"sent2 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); sent3 & sent1 -> int2: ¬{A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> int3: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa});"
] | null | null | [] | null | 3 | null | 0 | 0 | 0 | UNKNOWN | null | UNKNOWN | null | $hypothesis$ = the stand does backpack Vireonidae. ; $context$ = sent1: the jerkin is not lipless if something is not lipless and/or is a kind of an education. sent2: something is non-seductive thing that recommends lurker if it is not lipless. sent3: there exists something such that it is not lipless or it is an education or both. ; $proof$ = | sent2 -> int1: the jerkin is not seductive but it does recommend lurker if that it is not lipless is not wrong.; sent3 & sent1 -> int2: the jerkin is not lipless.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the jerkin is non-seductive thing that recommends lurker.; __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | there is something such that if either it is not a fondness or it is not a minister or both it is not a kind of a corkscrew. | (Ex): (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x | sent1: the fact that the coronet is not a corkscrew is right if it is not a fondness or is not a minister or both. sent2: the Mojave is not a corkscrew if it is not a legalism. sent3: if the coronet is not a kind of an object and/or it is not evangelical then it is a fondness. sent4: there exists something such that if it either is a kind of a mint or is not nonpregnant or both then it is not a Beowulf. sent5: the acetin is non-pastoral if either it is not a kind of a Aborigine or it is a corkscrew or both. sent6: there is something such that if it is not a fondness it is not a corkscrew. sent7: there is something such that if it is not a fondness and/or ministers then it is not a kind of a corkscrew. | sent1: (¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent2: ¬{BI}{di} -> ¬{B}{di} sent3: (¬{IO}{aa} v ¬{AK}{aa}) -> {AA}{aa} sent4: (Ex): ({CA}x v ¬{AG}x) -> ¬{JJ}x sent5: (¬{FD}{ah} v {B}{ah}) -> ¬{HD}{ah} sent6: (Ex): ¬{AA}x -> ¬{B}x sent7: (Ex): (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x | [
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null | [] | null | 1 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 6 | PROVED | null | PROVED | null | $hypothesis$ = there is something such that if either it is not a fondness or it is not a minister or both it is not a kind of a corkscrew. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the coronet is not a corkscrew is right if it is not a fondness or is not a minister or both. sent2: the Mojave is not a corkscrew if it is not a legalism. sent3: if the coronet is not a kind of an object and/or it is not evangelical then it is a fondness. sent4: there exists something such that if it either is a kind of a mint or is not nonpregnant or both then it is not a Beowulf. sent5: the acetin is non-pastoral if either it is not a kind of a Aborigine or it is a corkscrew or both. sent6: there is something such that if it is not a fondness it is not a corkscrew. sent7: there is something such that if it is not a fondness and/or ministers then it is not a kind of a corkscrew. ; $proof$ = | sent1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the cardcase is not a voyeurism. | ¬{C}{c} | sent1: something backpacks nonparticipant and/or it is a kind of a voyeurism if it does not serve powder. sent2: if the residence backpacks nonparticipant then the mazer does serve powder. sent3: if the mazer does serve powder that the cardcase is a voyeurism hold. sent4: the mazer backpacks nonparticipant. sent5: The fact that the nonparticipant backpacks residence hold. sent6: the fact that the residence backpacks nonparticipant hold. | sent1: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({A}x v {C}x) sent2: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent3: {B}{b} -> {C}{c} sent4: {A}{b} sent5: {AA}{aa} sent6: {A}{a} | [
"sent2 & sent6 -> int1: the mazer serves powder.; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent2 & sent6 -> int1: {B}{b}; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | the mazer is a kind of a voyeurism. | {C}{b} | [
"sent1 -> int2: the residence backpacks nonparticipant and/or is a kind of a voyeurism if it does not serve powder.;"
] | 4 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 3 | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the cardcase is not a voyeurism. ; $context$ = sent1: something backpacks nonparticipant and/or it is a kind of a voyeurism if it does not serve powder. sent2: if the residence backpacks nonparticipant then the mazer does serve powder. sent3: if the mazer does serve powder that the cardcase is a voyeurism hold. sent4: the mazer backpacks nonparticipant. sent5: The fact that the nonparticipant backpacks residence hold. sent6: the fact that the residence backpacks nonparticipant hold. ; $proof$ = | sent2 & sent6 -> int1: the mazer serves powder.; sent3 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | there is something such that if it is not a Hynerpeton then the fact that it is Donatist and it swaps is false. | (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) | sent1: that the antimeson is Donatist and it does swap is not right if it is a kind of a Hynerpeton. sent2: there is something such that if it does not deform it is an instrumentality and it does strum. sent3: if the myxovirus does not smell then it is a Hynerpeton and it is a royalty. sent4: if the antimeson is not a kind of a Hynerpeton that it is Donatist and it does swap is false. sent5: the fact that that something is unalike and a checkerbloom is not wrong does not hold if the fact that it is not unprovocative is true. sent6: there exists something such that if it is not a hypallage then it is an apnea and is politics. sent7: if the Angolese does not serve PSA then the fact that it is paradigmatic and it swaps is not true. sent8: there exists something such that if the fact that it is a hysterics is not incorrect that it is capable and a whoop is incorrect. sent9: if the antimeson is not a foryml the fact that it is a dissoluteness and it is a kind of a Hynerpeton does not hold. | sent1: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent2: (Ex): ¬{CR}x -> ({FG}x & {GR}x) sent3: ¬{B}{ab} -> ({A}{ab} & {Q}{ab}) sent4: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent5: (x): ¬{BN}x -> ¬({AQ}x & {GQ}x) sent6: (Ex): ¬{DQ}x -> ({CJ}x & {CH}x) sent7: ¬{O}{t} -> ¬({BD}{t} & {AB}{t}) sent8: (Ex): {BQ}x -> ¬({HR}x & {IT}x) sent9: ¬{GU}{aa} -> ¬({CF}{aa} & {A}{aa}) | [
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | there exists something such that if it is not unprovocative then that it is unalike thing that is a checkerbloom is incorrect. | (Ex): ¬{BN}x -> ¬({AQ}x & {GQ}x) | [
"sent5 -> int1: that the bitterwood is unalike and is a kind of a checkerbloom is false if it is not unprovocative.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 8 | PROVED | PROVED | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is not a Hynerpeton then the fact that it is Donatist and it swaps is false. ; $context$ = sent1: that the antimeson is Donatist and it does swap is not right if it is a kind of a Hynerpeton. sent2: there is something such that if it does not deform it is an instrumentality and it does strum. sent3: if the myxovirus does not smell then it is a Hynerpeton and it is a royalty. sent4: if the antimeson is not a kind of a Hynerpeton that it is Donatist and it does swap is false. sent5: the fact that that something is unalike and a checkerbloom is not wrong does not hold if the fact that it is not unprovocative is true. sent6: there exists something such that if it is not a hypallage then it is an apnea and is politics. sent7: if the Angolese does not serve PSA then the fact that it is paradigmatic and it swaps is not true. sent8: there exists something such that if the fact that it is a hysterics is not incorrect that it is capable and a whoop is incorrect. sent9: if the antimeson is not a foryml the fact that it is a dissoluteness and it is a kind of a Hynerpeton does not hold. ; $proof$ = | sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the fact that there exists something such that if it backpacks Peloponnese then it is a kind of non-categorematic thing that is rhythmical is not incorrect. | (Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) | sent1: there is something such that if it backpacks Peloponnese it is not categorematic. sent2: the welder is rhythmical if it does backpack Peloponnese. sent3: the welder is categorematic and it is rhythmical if it does backpack Peloponnese. sent4: there exists something such that if it is anginal then it does not recommend lifeboat and it is a hunter-gatherer. sent5: the lifeboat does not serve Pope but it does backpack Peloponnese if it is pediatric. sent6: there exists something such that if it does backpack Peloponnese it is categorematic and rhythmical. sent7: there exists something such that if it is a lease then it is not a ENE and is a Benedictine. sent8: the welder is not categorematic and not unrhythmical if that it backpacks Peloponnese hold. sent9: there exists something such that if it backpacks Peloponnese it is rhythmical. sent10: if the welder is nonoperational it does not boat welder and it is categorematic. sent11: if something is a rejuvenation it does not recommend lifeboat and it is a drippings. | sent1: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬{AA}x sent2: {A}{aa} -> {AB}{aa} sent3: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent4: (Ex): {AQ}x -> (¬{EB}x & {BO}x) sent5: {FG}{ee} -> (¬{HO}{ee} & {A}{ee}) sent6: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent7: (Ex): {GK}x -> (¬{CN}x & {P}x) sent8: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent9: (Ex): {A}x -> {AB}x sent10: {EG}{aa} -> (¬{ET}{aa} & {AA}{aa}) sent11: (x): {IF}x -> (¬{EB}x & {BD}x) | [
"sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] | there is something such that if it is a rejuvenation then it does not recommend lifeboat and it is a drippings. | (Ex): {IF}x -> (¬{EB}x & {BD}x) | [
"sent11 -> int1: if the foreshock is a rejuvenation that it does not recommend lifeboat and is a kind of a drippings is not incorrect.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 0 | 10 | PROVED | PROVED | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it backpacks Peloponnese then it is a kind of non-categorematic thing that is rhythmical is not incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it backpacks Peloponnese it is not categorematic. sent2: the welder is rhythmical if it does backpack Peloponnese. sent3: the welder is categorematic and it is rhythmical if it does backpack Peloponnese. sent4: there exists something such that if it is anginal then it does not recommend lifeboat and it is a hunter-gatherer. sent5: the lifeboat does not serve Pope but it does backpack Peloponnese if it is pediatric. sent6: there exists something such that if it does backpack Peloponnese it is categorematic and rhythmical. sent7: there exists something such that if it is a lease then it is not a ENE and is a Benedictine. sent8: the welder is not categorematic and not unrhythmical if that it backpacks Peloponnese hold. sent9: there exists something such that if it backpacks Peloponnese it is rhythmical. sent10: if the welder is nonoperational it does not boat welder and it is categorematic. sent11: if something is a rejuvenation it does not recommend lifeboat and it is a drippings. ; $proof$ = | sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | either the leptocephalus does backpack Swiss or it does recommend Rus or both. | ({D}{c} v {C}{c}) | sent1: that something either does backpack Swiss or recommends Rus or both is wrong if it is not a lancewood. sent2: if the fact that the premises is not a lancewood and not a ranker does not hold the leptocephalus is not a lancewood. sent3: if that something is not a kind of a candlepin and is not non-cross-ply is false it is not immunochemical. sent4: if the Scythian is a EDS and/or does not recommend premises the leptocephalus is not immunochemical. sent5: if something is not aeriferous it does not overjoy. sent6: the fact that the premises is both not a candlepin and cross-ply is wrong if it does not overjoy. sent7: if something is not immunochemical the fact that it is not a lancewood and it is not a ranker does not hold. sent8: the fact that the leptocephalus is not immunochemical is correct if the Scythian is a kind of a EDS. sent9: if the premises is not a kind of a lancewood the Scythian is a kind of a EDS and/or it does not recommend premises. sent10: if something is not immunochemical then either it backpacks Swiss or it recommends Rus or both. | sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({D}x v {C}x) sent2: ¬(¬{A}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) -> ¬{A}{c} sent3: (x): ¬(¬{G}x & {F}x) -> ¬{B}x sent4: ({AA}{b} v ¬{AB}{b}) -> ¬{B}{c} sent5: (x): ¬{I}x -> ¬{H}x sent6: ¬{H}{a} -> ¬(¬{G}{a} & {F}{a}) sent7: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & ¬{E}x) sent8: {AA}{b} -> ¬{B}{c} sent9: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{b} v ¬{AB}{b}) sent10: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({D}x v {C}x) | [
"sent10 -> int1: if the leptocephalus is not immunochemical it does backpack Swiss and/or it does recommend Rus.;"
] | [
"sent10 -> int1: ¬{B}{c} -> ({D}{c} v {C}{c});"
] | the fact that the leptocephalus backpacks Swiss and/or recommends Rus is not correct. | ¬({D}{c} v {C}{c}) | [
"sent1 -> int2: that the leptocephalus either backpacks Swiss or does recommend Rus or both is false if it is not a lancewood.; sent7 -> int3: that if the premises is not immunochemical the fact that the premises is not a lancewood and is not a ranker is not right is not incorrect.; sent3 -> int4: if the fact that the premises is not a kind of a candlepin but it is cross-ply does not hold it is not immunochemical.; sent5 -> int5: if the premises is not aeriferous the fact that it does not overjoy is true.;"
] | 7 | 3 | null | 7 | 0 | 7 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = either the leptocephalus does backpack Swiss or it does recommend Rus or both. ; $context$ = sent1: that something either does backpack Swiss or recommends Rus or both is wrong if it is not a lancewood. sent2: if the fact that the premises is not a lancewood and not a ranker does not hold the leptocephalus is not a lancewood. sent3: if that something is not a kind of a candlepin and is not non-cross-ply is false it is not immunochemical. sent4: if the Scythian is a EDS and/or does not recommend premises the leptocephalus is not immunochemical. sent5: if something is not aeriferous it does not overjoy. sent6: the fact that the premises is both not a candlepin and cross-ply is wrong if it does not overjoy. sent7: if something is not immunochemical the fact that it is not a lancewood and it is not a ranker does not hold. sent8: the fact that the leptocephalus is not immunochemical is correct if the Scythian is a kind of a EDS. sent9: if the premises is not a kind of a lancewood the Scythian is a kind of a EDS and/or it does not recommend premises. sent10: if something is not immunochemical then either it backpacks Swiss or it recommends Rus or both. ; $proof$ = | sent10 -> int1: if the leptocephalus is not immunochemical it does backpack Swiss and/or it does recommend Rus.; __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | the Creole is arthrosporic or it is mercurial or both. | ({C}{b} v {B}{b}) | sent1: if the grissino is a kind of a Swinburne then the Creole is mercurial. sent2: the stoup either does not carnify or does not boat plunderer or both. sent3: something is not a coupling and it does not serve ophthalmoscope if it does not boat plunderer. sent4: if the headgear does not couple and does not serve ophthalmoscope the grissino is not a couple. sent5: if the grissino is not a coupling the fact that it is not inextinguishable and is not a kind of a stirk is not correct. sent6: if the Creole is not inextinguishable and is mercurial then the grissino is not mercurial. sent7: if something is not a Swinburne the fact that either it is arthrosporic or it is mercurial or both is not correct. | sent1: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent2: (¬{I}{d} v ¬{H}{d}) sent3: (x): ¬{H}x -> (¬{F}x & ¬{G}x) sent4: (¬{F}{c} & ¬{G}{c}) -> ¬{F}{a} sent5: ¬{F}{a} -> ¬(¬{D}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) sent6: (¬{D}{b} & {B}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({C}x v {B}x) | [] | [] | the fact that the Creole is arthrosporic and/or mercurial is not correct. | ¬({C}{b} v {B}{b}) | [
"sent7 -> int1: if the fact that the Creole is not a Swinburne hold then that it is arthrosporic and/or mercurial is not correct.; sent3 -> int2: if the headgear does not boat plunderer then it is not a coupling and does not serve ophthalmoscope.; sent2 -> int3: there is something such that it does not carnify or it does not boat plunderer or both.;"
] | 8 | 2 | null | 6 | 0 | 6 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the Creole is arthrosporic or it is mercurial or both. ; $context$ = sent1: if the grissino is a kind of a Swinburne then the Creole is mercurial. sent2: the stoup either does not carnify or does not boat plunderer or both. sent3: something is not a coupling and it does not serve ophthalmoscope if it does not boat plunderer. sent4: if the headgear does not couple and does not serve ophthalmoscope the grissino is not a couple. sent5: if the grissino is not a coupling the fact that it is not inextinguishable and is not a kind of a stirk is not correct. sent6: if the Creole is not inextinguishable and is mercurial then the grissino is not mercurial. sent7: if something is not a Swinburne the fact that either it is arthrosporic or it is mercurial or both is not correct. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | the methane does not backpack methane. | ¬{B}{b} | sent1: the genip does not contort. sent2: if there exists something such that that it is not two-wheel is not false the ingot is a kind of a fibril that does boat Rhinolophidae. sent3: if the genip backpacks neocolonialism then the methane backpacks methane. sent4: the genip backpacks neocolonialism but it does not backpack stepper if it is not stingless. sent5: the fact that if the genip does not backpack methane then the genip does backpack stepper but it is not stingless is true. sent6: the velvet is stingless. sent7: the genip is not a Helotium if something is not implausible. sent8: the fact that if the methane is stingless then the genip does backpack methane hold. sent9: something is stingless if the fact that it is a fibril and it does not backpack methane is right. sent10: the methane backpacks stepper if the genip backpacks neocolonialism. sent11: the fact that the genip does backpack stepper is not right if it is not stingless. sent12: there exists something such that the fact that it is cervine and two-wheel is not true. sent13: the genip is not two-wheel if there is something such that that it is cervine and it is two-wheel is not right. sent14: the genip is not stingless. sent15: the genip does not backpack stepper. sent16: the schrod does not boat Rhinolophidae. sent17: something is not implausible if it does not boat Rhinolophidae. | sent1: ¬{EO}{a} sent2: (x): ¬{G}x -> ({C}{ig} & {F}{ig}) sent3: {AA}{a} -> {B}{b} sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent5: ¬{B}{a} -> ({AB}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) sent6: {A}{cr} sent7: (x): ¬{E}x -> ¬{D}{a} sent8: {A}{b} -> {B}{a} sent9: (x): ({C}x & ¬{B}x) -> {A}x sent10: {AA}{a} -> {AB}{b} sent11: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬{AB}{a} sent12: (Ex): ¬({H}x & {G}x) sent13: (x): ¬({H}x & {G}x) -> ¬{G}{a} sent14: ¬{A}{a} sent15: ¬{AB}{a} sent16: ¬{F}{c} sent17: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬{E}x | [
"sent4 & sent14 -> int1: the genip does backpack neocolonialism and does not backpack stepper.; int1 -> int2: the fact that the genip does backpack neocolonialism is right.; sent3 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent4 & sent14 -> int1: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); int1 -> int2: {AA}{a}; sent3 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | the methane does not backpack methane. | ¬{B}{b} | [
"sent17 -> int3: if the schrod does not boat Rhinolophidae then it is not implausible.; int3 & sent16 -> int4: the schrod is not implausible.; int4 -> int5: that there is something such that it is not implausible is not wrong.; int5 & sent7 -> int6: the genip is not a Helotium.; int6 -> int7: something is not a Helotium.;"
] | 7 | 3 | 3 | 14 | 0 | 14 | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the methane does not backpack methane. ; $context$ = sent1: the genip does not contort. sent2: if there exists something such that that it is not two-wheel is not false the ingot is a kind of a fibril that does boat Rhinolophidae. sent3: if the genip backpacks neocolonialism then the methane backpacks methane. sent4: the genip backpacks neocolonialism but it does not backpack stepper if it is not stingless. sent5: the fact that if the genip does not backpack methane then the genip does backpack stepper but it is not stingless is true. sent6: the velvet is stingless. sent7: the genip is not a Helotium if something is not implausible. sent8: the fact that if the methane is stingless then the genip does backpack methane hold. sent9: something is stingless if the fact that it is a fibril and it does not backpack methane is right. sent10: the methane backpacks stepper if the genip backpacks neocolonialism. sent11: the fact that the genip does backpack stepper is not right if it is not stingless. sent12: there exists something such that the fact that it is cervine and two-wheel is not true. sent13: the genip is not two-wheel if there is something such that that it is cervine and it is two-wheel is not right. sent14: the genip is not stingless. sent15: the genip does not backpack stepper. sent16: the schrod does not boat Rhinolophidae. sent17: something is not implausible if it does not boat Rhinolophidae. ; $proof$ = | sent4 & sent14 -> int1: the genip does backpack neocolonialism and does not backpack stepper.; int1 -> int2: the fact that the genip does backpack neocolonialism is right.; sent3 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | there exists something such that if it is non-post-communist thing that is a specific then it does not recommend barite. | (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x | sent1: the incus does not recommend barite if that it is a kind of post-communist a specific hold. sent2: if a non-upmarket thing is a bimonthly it is not a harlequin. sent3: the incus does not serve caulk if that it is not specific and it does crosscut is true. sent4: that if the incus is not post-communist but it is a kind of the specific the incus does recommend barite hold. sent5: if the incus is not post-communist but it is a kind of a specific then it does not recommend barite. sent6: if the pieplant is a kind of non-artificial a specific it is not a low. sent7: the caecilian does publish if it is not post-communist and it does recommend skink. sent8: there is something such that if it does not recommend single and does recommend skink the fact that it is a parasympathetic hold. sent9: there exists something such that if it is post-communist and it is a specific then it does not recommend barite. sent10: there exists something such that if it is not post-communist and is a kind of a specific then it recommends barite. sent11: something does not recommend aftercare if it does not serve pliability and does recommend barite. | sent1: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent2: (x): (¬{H}x & {EO}x) -> ¬{CA}x sent3: (¬{AB}{aa} & {R}{aa}) -> ¬{BH}{aa} sent4: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent5: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent6: (¬{GG}{et} & {AB}{et}) -> ¬{IH}{et} sent7: (¬{AA}{eu} & {IJ}{eu}) -> {IR}{eu} sent8: (Ex): (¬{CT}x & {IJ}x) -> {GC}x sent9: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent10: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent11: (x): (¬{ET}x & {B}x) -> ¬{DB}x | [
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | there is something such that if it is a kind of non-upmarket thing that is a kind of a bimonthly it is not a harlequin. | (Ex): (¬{H}x & {EO}x) -> ¬{CA}x | [
"sent2 -> int1: if the nepotist is non-upmarket thing that is a bimonthly then it is not a harlequin.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 0 | 10 | PROVED | PROVED | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is non-post-communist thing that is a specific then it does not recommend barite. ; $context$ = sent1: the incus does not recommend barite if that it is a kind of post-communist a specific hold. sent2: if a non-upmarket thing is a bimonthly it is not a harlequin. sent3: the incus does not serve caulk if that it is not specific and it does crosscut is true. sent4: that if the incus is not post-communist but it is a kind of the specific the incus does recommend barite hold. sent5: if the incus is not post-communist but it is a kind of a specific then it does not recommend barite. sent6: if the pieplant is a kind of non-artificial a specific it is not a low. sent7: the caecilian does publish if it is not post-communist and it does recommend skink. sent8: there is something such that if it does not recommend single and does recommend skink the fact that it is a parasympathetic hold. sent9: there exists something such that if it is post-communist and it is a specific then it does not recommend barite. sent10: there exists something such that if it is not post-communist and is a kind of a specific then it recommends barite. sent11: something does not recommend aftercare if it does not serve pliability and does recommend barite. ; $proof$ = | sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the fact that the foolscap is not a procession but it does run is not right. | ¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) | sent1: if something does not recommend autofocus or it is not a correctness or both it is shapely. sent2: that the autofocus is a groundcover and does not backpack calanthe is wrong if it is a kind of a kishke. sent3: the wheelwork runs if it is a kind of a procession. sent4: the wheelwork backpacks Sphinx. sent5: that the wheelwork is not a kind of a procession but it is a atomism is incorrect. sent6: if the Idahoan is not a kind of a groundcover then the letterer is non-ecdemic but it backpacks acoustic. sent7: the wallboard backpacks nonparticipant but it is not a procession if something is filar. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a metatarsal that recommends Crick is not right. sent9: if there exists something such that that it is a groundcover and does not backpack calanthe is false the Idahoan is not a groundcover. sent10: the autofocus is a kind of a kishke. sent11: the foolscap is filar if it is a procession. sent12: a non-ecdemic thing that backpacks acoustic is not a kind of a inscrutability. sent13: that something runs and it is a Dunkirk is not wrong if it is not unshapely. sent14: that the foolscap is not a procession but it runs does not hold if the wheelwork is a kind of a procession. sent15: the foolscap does not recommend autofocus and/or it is not a kind of a correctness if the bettong is nectariferous. sent16: the wheelwork is a procession if it is filar. sent17: the fact that something is a kind of filar thing that is an amble hold if it is not a inscrutability. sent18: that the wheelwork is filar is not false if it is a run. sent19: if the wallboard does backpack nonparticipant but it is not a kind of a procession then the foolscap is not a procession. sent20: everything is filar. sent21: the wheelwork is a kind of a Dunkirk if it is filar. | sent1: (x): (¬{K}x v ¬{L}x) -> ¬{F}x sent2: {P}{e} -> ¬({M}{e} & ¬{N}{e}) sent3: {B}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent4: {CQ}{aa} sent5: ¬(¬{B}{aa} & {IC}{aa}) sent6: ¬{M}{d} -> (¬{J}{c} & {I}{c}) sent7: (x): {A}x -> ({D}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) sent8: (Ex): ¬({R}x & {Q}x) sent9: (x): ¬({M}x & ¬{N}x) -> ¬{M}{d} sent10: {P}{e} sent11: {B}{a} -> {A}{a} sent12: (x): (¬{J}x & {I}x) -> ¬{H}x sent13: (x): ¬{F}x -> ({C}x & {E}x) sent14: {B}{aa} -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent15: {O}{f} -> (¬{K}{a} v ¬{L}{a}) sent16: {A}{aa} -> {B}{aa} sent17: (x): ¬{H}x -> ({A}x & {G}x) sent18: {C}{aa} -> {A}{aa} sent19: ({D}{b} & ¬{B}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent20: (x): {A}x sent21: {A}{aa} -> {E}{aa} | [
"sent20 -> int1: the wheelwork is filar.; int1 & sent16 -> int2: the wheelwork is a kind of a procession.; int2 & sent14 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent20 -> int1: {A}{aa}; int1 & sent16 -> int2: {B}{aa}; int2 & sent14 -> hypothesis;"
] | the foolscap is not a kind of a procession but it is a kind of a run. | (¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) | [
"sent17 -> int3: if the letterer is not a inscrutability then it is both filar and an amble.; sent12 -> int4: the letterer is not a inscrutability if it is not ecdemic and does backpack acoustic.; sent2 & sent10 -> int5: the fact that the autofocus is a groundcover but it does not backpack calanthe does not hold.; int5 -> int6: there is something such that that it is a groundcover and it does not backpack calanthe is not true.; int6 & sent9 -> int7: the Idahoan is not a groundcover.; sent6 & int7 -> int8: the letterer is non-ecdemic thing that does backpack acoustic.; int4 & int8 -> int9: the letterer is not a inscrutability.; int3 & int9 -> int10: the letterer is filar and is an amble.; int10 -> int11: the fact that the letterer is filar is not false.; int11 -> int12: something is filar.; int12 & sent7 -> int13: the wallboard does backpack nonparticipant but it is not a procession.; sent19 & int13 -> int14: the foolscap is not a kind of a procession.; sent13 -> int15: if the foolscap is not unshapely then it is a run and it is a kind of a Dunkirk.; sent1 -> int16: if the foolscap does not recommend autofocus and/or it is not a correctness it is not unshapely.;"
] | 11 | 3 | 3 | 18 | 0 | 18 | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the foolscap is not a procession but it does run is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not recommend autofocus or it is not a correctness or both it is shapely. sent2: that the autofocus is a groundcover and does not backpack calanthe is wrong if it is a kind of a kishke. sent3: the wheelwork runs if it is a kind of a procession. sent4: the wheelwork backpacks Sphinx. sent5: that the wheelwork is not a kind of a procession but it is a atomism is incorrect. sent6: if the Idahoan is not a kind of a groundcover then the letterer is non-ecdemic but it backpacks acoustic. sent7: the wallboard backpacks nonparticipant but it is not a procession if something is filar. sent8: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of a metatarsal that recommends Crick is not right. sent9: if there exists something such that that it is a groundcover and does not backpack calanthe is false the Idahoan is not a groundcover. sent10: the autofocus is a kind of a kishke. sent11: the foolscap is filar if it is a procession. sent12: a non-ecdemic thing that backpacks acoustic is not a kind of a inscrutability. sent13: that something runs and it is a Dunkirk is not wrong if it is not unshapely. sent14: that the foolscap is not a procession but it runs does not hold if the wheelwork is a kind of a procession. sent15: the foolscap does not recommend autofocus and/or it is not a kind of a correctness if the bettong is nectariferous. sent16: the wheelwork is a procession if it is filar. sent17: the fact that something is a kind of filar thing that is an amble hold if it is not a inscrutability. sent18: that the wheelwork is filar is not false if it is a run. sent19: if the wallboard does backpack nonparticipant but it is not a kind of a procession then the foolscap is not a procession. sent20: everything is filar. sent21: the wheelwork is a kind of a Dunkirk if it is filar. ; $proof$ = | sent20 -> int1: the wheelwork is filar.; int1 & sent16 -> int2: the wheelwork is a kind of a procession.; int2 & sent14 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the delegate is temporal. | {C}{b} | sent1: if the vanillin is not a prosperity then that it serves croup and it is not a bowl is wrong. sent2: the wheatear does serve Egyptologist if it is not non-azimuthal. sent3: something is a temporal if it does recommend valetudinarian. sent4: if the fact that the vanillin is temporal but it does not bowl is not right the fact that the delegate does not recommend valetudinarian is incorrect. sent5: if the delegate does not compact then that the vanillin does carnify or it is a fluorine or both is false. sent6: the delegate does recommend valetudinarian if the vanillin bowls. sent7: if something serves Egyptologist then it does compact. sent8: if that the vanillin serves croup and is not a kind of a bowl is not right the delegate does recommend valetudinarian. sent9: that the vanillin serves croup and bowls is not right. sent10: if the fact that the wheatear serves Egyptologist is right the vanillin serves Egyptologist. sent11: something is not a temporal but a prosperity if it does not recommend valetudinarian. sent12: the vanillin is not a prosperity. sent13: the delegate serves croup if the fact that the vanillin is a temporal that is not a bowl is not true. sent14: if that something is a fluorine but it does not carnify is false then it does not recommend valetudinarian. sent15: if the vanillin is not a prosperity that it does serve croup and it is a bowl does not hold. sent16: if the vanillin compacts it is not a kind of a fluorine. sent17: if that something does carnify or it is a fluorine or both is not correct then it does not recommend valetudinarian. | sent1: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent2: {H}{c} -> {G}{c} sent3: (x): {B}x -> {C}x sent4: ¬({C}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent5: ¬{F}{b} -> ¬({D}{a} v {E}{a}) sent6: {AB}{a} -> {B}{b} sent7: (x): {G}x -> {F}x sent8: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent9: ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent10: {G}{c} -> {G}{a} sent11: (x): ¬{B}x -> (¬{C}x & {A}x) sent12: ¬{A}{a} sent13: ¬({C}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {AA}{b} sent14: (x): ¬({E}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{B}x sent15: ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent16: {F}{a} -> ¬{E}{a} sent17: (x): ¬({D}x v {E}x) -> ¬{B}x | [
"sent1 & sent12 -> int1: the fact that the vanillin serves croup but it does not bowl is false.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the delegate does recommend valetudinarian.; sent3 -> int3: the delegate is a kind of a temporal if it recommends valetudinarian.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent1 & sent12 -> int1: ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}); int1 & sent8 -> int2: {B}{b}; sent3 -> int3: {B}{b} -> {C}{b}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | the delegate is not temporal. | ¬{C}{b} | [
"sent11 -> int4: the delegate is not temporal but a prosperity if it does not recommend valetudinarian.; sent14 -> int5: if that the delegate is a kind of a fluorine but it does not carnify does not hold it does not recommend valetudinarian.; sent7 -> int6: if the vanillin does serve Egyptologist then that it compacts hold.;"
] | 9 | 3 | 3 | 13 | 0 | 13 | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the delegate is temporal. ; $context$ = sent1: if the vanillin is not a prosperity then that it serves croup and it is not a bowl is wrong. sent2: the wheatear does serve Egyptologist if it is not non-azimuthal. sent3: something is a temporal if it does recommend valetudinarian. sent4: if the fact that the vanillin is temporal but it does not bowl is not right the fact that the delegate does not recommend valetudinarian is incorrect. sent5: if the delegate does not compact then that the vanillin does carnify or it is a fluorine or both is false. sent6: the delegate does recommend valetudinarian if the vanillin bowls. sent7: if something serves Egyptologist then it does compact. sent8: if that the vanillin serves croup and is not a kind of a bowl is not right the delegate does recommend valetudinarian. sent9: that the vanillin serves croup and bowls is not right. sent10: if the fact that the wheatear serves Egyptologist is right the vanillin serves Egyptologist. sent11: something is not a temporal but a prosperity if it does not recommend valetudinarian. sent12: the vanillin is not a prosperity. sent13: the delegate serves croup if the fact that the vanillin is a temporal that is not a bowl is not true. sent14: if that something is a fluorine but it does not carnify is false then it does not recommend valetudinarian. sent15: if the vanillin is not a prosperity that it does serve croup and it is a bowl does not hold. sent16: if the vanillin compacts it is not a kind of a fluorine. sent17: if that something does carnify or it is a fluorine or both is not correct then it does not recommend valetudinarian. ; $proof$ = | sent1 & sent12 -> int1: the fact that the vanillin serves croup but it does not bowl is false.; int1 & sent8 -> int2: the delegate does recommend valetudinarian.; sent3 -> int3: the delegate is a kind of a temporal if it recommends valetudinarian.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | there exists something such that if it is earthly then it does not backpack contadino. | (Ex): {A}x -> ¬{C}x | sent1: if something is a Ovocon it is not a descant. sent2: if the contadino is a kind of a wood then that it is a beach is correct. sent3: something is not apogamic if it is an attitude. sent4: if something is earthly it does not backpack contadino. sent5: if something is earthly it does backpack contadino. | sent1: (x): {AG}x -> ¬{DH}x sent2: {CI}{aa} -> {AM}{aa} sent3: (x): {FA}x -> ¬{AS}x sent4: (x): {A}x -> ¬{C}x sent5: (x): {A}x -> {C}x | [
"sent4 -> int1: the contadino does not backpack contadino if it is earthly.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent4 -> int1: {A}{aa} -> ¬{C}{aa}; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | there is something such that if it is an attitude then that it is not apogamic hold. | (Ex): {FA}x -> ¬{AS}x | [
"sent3 -> int2: if the amphitheater is an attitude it is not apogamic.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 4 | PROVED | PROVED | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is earthly then it does not backpack contadino. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is a Ovocon it is not a descant. sent2: if the contadino is a kind of a wood then that it is a beach is correct. sent3: something is not apogamic if it is an attitude. sent4: if something is earthly it does not backpack contadino. sent5: if something is earthly it does backpack contadino. ; $proof$ = | sent4 -> int1: the contadino does not backpack contadino if it is earthly.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the pawl does serve antimony. | {A}{a} | sent1: if the fact that the chiton does not serve antimony and is a catechin is false the pawl does not serve antimony. sent2: that something does not serve antimony but it is a catechin is not right if it is not non-unneurotic. sent3: there exists nothing such that it does serve malingerer and is not non-Soviets. sent4: if the moorcock is accordant then the chiton is not a wing-nut and is unneurotic. sent5: there exists something such that it is incomparable and it is ascetic. sent6: if there is something such that the fact that it serves malingerer and it is Soviets is incorrect the pawl does serve antimony. | sent1: ¬(¬{A}{b} & {B}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent2: (x): {C}x -> ¬(¬{A}x & {B}x) sent3: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent4: {E}{c} -> (¬{D}{b} & {C}{b}) sent5: (Ex): ({I}x & {H}x) sent6: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a} | [
"sent3 -> int1: that the effects does serve malingerer and is Soviets is not true.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that the fact that it serves malingerer and is Soviets is not true.; int2 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent3 -> int1: ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int1 -> int2: (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x); int2 & sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] | the pawl does not serve antimony. | ¬{A}{a} | [
"sent2 -> int3: if the chiton is unneurotic then the fact that it does not serve antimony and is a kind of a catechin is not true.;"
] | 8 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 4 | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the pawl does serve antimony. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the chiton does not serve antimony and is a catechin is false the pawl does not serve antimony. sent2: that something does not serve antimony but it is a catechin is not right if it is not non-unneurotic. sent3: there exists nothing such that it does serve malingerer and is not non-Soviets. sent4: if the moorcock is accordant then the chiton is not a wing-nut and is unneurotic. sent5: there exists something such that it is incomparable and it is ascetic. sent6: if there is something such that the fact that it serves malingerer and it is Soviets is incorrect the pawl does serve antimony. ; $proof$ = | sent3 -> int1: that the effects does serve malingerer and is Soviets is not true.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that the fact that it serves malingerer and is Soviets is not true.; int2 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | that the cocobolo is a ylem hold. | {B}{b} | sent1: that the cocobolo does not whoosh hold if that the corneum is not a monoclonal and it does not whoosh is not true. sent2: something is not a ylem if it is a homonym and it does not whoosh. sent3: if something does not backpack entreaty then it is a homonym and it does not whoosh. sent4: something is both non-clamatorial and not a monoclonal if it is not biogenetic. sent5: if the potentiometer is a kind of a homonym the cocobolo is a ylem. sent6: the potentiometer is a homonym if there is something such that the fact that it is not a brougham and it is a kind of a Chaplin is incorrect. sent7: if the cocobolo does not whoosh then that it backpacks entreaty and it is a kind of a ylem is not right. sent8: the potentiometer is a homonym if there exists something such that it is not a Chaplin. sent9: there is something such that that it is not a brougham and it is a Chaplin is not correct. | sent1: ¬(¬{E}{c} & ¬{C}{c}) -> ¬{C}{b} sent2: (x): ({A}x & ¬{C}x) -> ¬{B}x sent3: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({A}x & ¬{C}x) sent4: (x): ¬{G}x -> (¬{F}x & ¬{E}x) sent5: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent6: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {A}{a} sent7: ¬{C}{b} -> ¬({D}{b} & {B}{b}) sent8: (x): ¬{AB}x -> {A}{a} sent9: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) | [
"sent9 & sent6 -> int1: that the potentiometer is a homonym is not wrong.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent9 & sent6 -> int1: {A}{a}; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | the cocobolo is not a ylem. | ¬{B}{b} | [
"sent2 -> int2: if the cocobolo is a kind of a homonym and does not whoosh then it is not a ylem.; sent3 -> int3: the fact that the cocobolo is a homonym but it does not whoosh is right if it does not backpack entreaty.; sent4 -> int4: the potentiometer is not clamatorial and it is not a monoclonal if it is not biogenetic.;"
] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 6 | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = that the cocobolo is a ylem hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that the cocobolo does not whoosh hold if that the corneum is not a monoclonal and it does not whoosh is not true. sent2: something is not a ylem if it is a homonym and it does not whoosh. sent3: if something does not backpack entreaty then it is a homonym and it does not whoosh. sent4: something is both non-clamatorial and not a monoclonal if it is not biogenetic. sent5: if the potentiometer is a kind of a homonym the cocobolo is a ylem. sent6: the potentiometer is a homonym if there is something such that the fact that it is not a brougham and it is a kind of a Chaplin is incorrect. sent7: if the cocobolo does not whoosh then that it backpacks entreaty and it is a kind of a ylem is not right. sent8: the potentiometer is a homonym if there exists something such that it is not a Chaplin. sent9: there is something such that that it is not a brougham and it is a Chaplin is not correct. ; $proof$ = | sent9 & sent6 -> int1: that the potentiometer is a homonym is not wrong.; sent5 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the polymorphism is not a kind of a protectiveness. | ¬{A}{a} | sent1: something is aboriginal and it is a Neapolitan if it is not residual. sent2: the polymorphism is not residual if the mattress is not a residual and it does not backpack mattress. sent3: the fact that that the mattress is not bathyal but a Sorbonne is not correct hold if it does not recommend LASEK. sent4: the mattress is not greater if the polymorphism is a protectiveness. sent5: the mattress is not greater. sent6: something does not recommend LASEK if it is not a wood and it is not a kind of a syncopation. sent7: the mattress does not recommend Odocoileus. sent8: The Odocoileus does not recommend mattress. sent9: if that the washcloth is not a residual but it is an invalid is not correct the mattress is not residual. sent10: something that is aboriginal is a protectiveness. sent11: the mannitol is a rig or it is gallinaceous or both. sent12: something does not backpack mattress if the fact that it is non-bathyal thing that is a kind of a Sorbonne does not hold. sent13: if the mattress is not gallinaceous it is not a wood and it is not a syncopation. sent14: the fact that the washcloth is not residual but it is an invalid does not hold. | sent1: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({B}x & {C}x) sent2: (¬{D}{b} & ¬{E}{b}) -> ¬{D}{a} sent3: ¬{H}{b} -> ¬(¬{G}{b} & {F}{b}) sent4: {A}{a} -> ¬{AB}{b} sent5: ¬{AB}{b} sent6: (x): (¬{I}x & ¬{K}x) -> ¬{H}x sent7: ¬{AA}{b} sent8: ¬{AD}{ab} sent9: ¬(¬{D}{c} & {J}{c}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent10: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent11: ({M}{d} v {L}{d}) sent12: (x): ¬(¬{G}x & {F}x) -> ¬{E}x sent13: ¬{L}{b} -> (¬{I}{b} & ¬{K}{b}) sent14: ¬(¬{D}{c} & {J}{c}) | [] | [] | that the polymorphism is a protectiveness is not incorrect. | {A}{a} | [
"sent10 -> int1: if the polymorphism is aboriginal that it is a protectiveness hold.; sent1 -> int2: if the polymorphism is not a residual then it is aboriginal and it is a kind of a Neapolitan.; sent9 & sent14 -> int3: the mattress is non-residual.; sent12 -> int4: the mattress does not backpack mattress if the fact that it is not bathyal and it is a Sorbonne is not correct.; sent6 -> int5: the mattress does not recommend LASEK if it is not a kind of a wood and it is not a syncopation.;"
] | 10 | 4 | null | 13 | 0 | 13 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the polymorphism is not a kind of a protectiveness. ; $context$ = sent1: something is aboriginal and it is a Neapolitan if it is not residual. sent2: the polymorphism is not residual if the mattress is not a residual and it does not backpack mattress. sent3: the fact that that the mattress is not bathyal but a Sorbonne is not correct hold if it does not recommend LASEK. sent4: the mattress is not greater if the polymorphism is a protectiveness. sent5: the mattress is not greater. sent6: something does not recommend LASEK if it is not a wood and it is not a kind of a syncopation. sent7: the mattress does not recommend Odocoileus. sent8: The Odocoileus does not recommend mattress. sent9: if that the washcloth is not a residual but it is an invalid is not correct the mattress is not residual. sent10: something that is aboriginal is a protectiveness. sent11: the mannitol is a rig or it is gallinaceous or both. sent12: something does not backpack mattress if the fact that it is non-bathyal thing that is a kind of a Sorbonne does not hold. sent13: if the mattress is not gallinaceous it is not a wood and it is not a syncopation. sent14: the fact that the washcloth is not residual but it is an invalid does not hold. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | the personal is vinaceous. | {A}{aa} | sent1: the autofocus is vinaceous. sent2: if something is a Athene it is vinaceous. sent3: if something that is not an incontinence is hairless then it is a Athene. sent4: the fact that the personal is evil is not wrong. sent5: the personal is not an incontinence but it is hairless if it is an evil. | sent1: {A}{o} sent2: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent3: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> {B}x sent4: {C}{aa} sent5: {C}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) | [
"sent3 -> int1: the personal is a Athene if it is both not an incontinence and hairless.; sent5 & sent4 -> int2: the personal is not an incontinence but it is hairless.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the personal is a Athene.; sent2 -> int4: if the personal is a Athene then it is vinaceous.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent3 -> int1: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa}; sent5 & sent4 -> int2: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> int3: {B}{aa}; sent2 -> int4: {B}{aa} -> {A}{aa}; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null | [] | null | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | PROVED | null | PROVED | null | $hypothesis$ = the personal is vinaceous. ; $context$ = sent1: the autofocus is vinaceous. sent2: if something is a Athene it is vinaceous. sent3: if something that is not an incontinence is hairless then it is a Athene. sent4: the fact that the personal is evil is not wrong. sent5: the personal is not an incontinence but it is hairless if it is an evil. ; $proof$ = | sent3 -> int1: the personal is a Athene if it is both not an incontinence and hairless.; sent5 & sent4 -> int2: the personal is not an incontinence but it is hairless.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the personal is a Athene.; sent2 -> int4: if the personal is a Athene then it is vinaceous.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | there is something such that if it does not recommend capote then it backpacks tensimeter and it is not a serologist. | (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) | sent1: there is something such that if it is non-gymnastics then it is sculptural and it is not a stirk. sent2: something that is not a console serves tippler and does not recommend capote. sent3: there exists something such that if it does recommend capote then it backpacks tensimeter and is not a serologist. sent4: there is something such that if it does not serve Ventner then it is albuminuric and it does not recommend straightness. sent5: something is a kind of ataxic thing that does not recommend photo-offset if it does not clue. sent6: the quark backpacks tensimeter and it is a serologist if it does not recommend capote. sent7: the quark backpacks tensimeter but it is not a serologist if that it does recommend capote hold. sent8: there is something such that if it does not recommend capote then it backpacks tensimeter and is a serologist. sent9: if the quark does not recommend capote then it backpacks tensimeter and it is not a serologist. sent10: if the quark does not recommend capote then it does backpack tensimeter. sent11: there exists something such that if it does not recommend capote then it backpacks tensimeter. sent12: that there exists something such that if it does not recommend capote it is not a serologist hold. sent13: the quark is both a positivity and not tensile if that it is not a serologist is not wrong. | sent1: (Ex): ¬{BA}x -> ({AK}x & ¬{I}x) sent2: (x): ¬{HB}x -> ({CK}x & ¬{A}x) sent3: (Ex): {A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent4: (Ex): ¬{IS}x -> ({BJ}x & ¬{BN}x) sent5: (x): ¬{EF}x -> ({CU}x & ¬{BD}x) sent6: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent7: {A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent8: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent9: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent10: ¬{A}{aa} -> {AA}{aa} sent11: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> {AA}x sent12: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬{AB}x sent13: ¬{AB}{aa} -> ({ED}{aa} & ¬{AI}{aa}) | [
"sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] | if the quark is not a console it serves tippler and it does not recommend capote. | ¬{HB}{aa} -> ({CK}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa}) | [
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 0 | 12 | PROVED | PROVED | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it does not recommend capote then it backpacks tensimeter and it is not a serologist. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is non-gymnastics then it is sculptural and it is not a stirk. sent2: something that is not a console serves tippler and does not recommend capote. sent3: there exists something such that if it does recommend capote then it backpacks tensimeter and is not a serologist. sent4: there is something such that if it does not serve Ventner then it is albuminuric and it does not recommend straightness. sent5: something is a kind of ataxic thing that does not recommend photo-offset if it does not clue. sent6: the quark backpacks tensimeter and it is a serologist if it does not recommend capote. sent7: the quark backpacks tensimeter but it is not a serologist if that it does recommend capote hold. sent8: there is something such that if it does not recommend capote then it backpacks tensimeter and is a serologist. sent9: if the quark does not recommend capote then it backpacks tensimeter and it is not a serologist. sent10: if the quark does not recommend capote then it does backpack tensimeter. sent11: there exists something such that if it does not recommend capote then it backpacks tensimeter. sent12: that there exists something such that if it does not recommend capote it is not a serologist hold. sent13: the quark is both a positivity and not tensile if that it is not a serologist is not wrong. ; $proof$ = | sent9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the Glycine serves landscaping. | {D}{c} | sent1: the Glycine does recommend Gibbon. sent2: the shoji serves landscaping. sent3: if the shoji does serve Jacquard then the Glycine does recommend Gibbon. sent4: the Glycine does not serve landscaping if there exists something such that the fact that it is a caboose and serve landscaping is not right. sent5: something is compatible if it is a submersible. sent6: the shoji serves landscaping and/or is a kind of a caboose. sent7: the shoji does recommend Gibbon and/or is a caboose. sent8: the fact that something serves Jacquard and is not eastern is wrong if it does serve Aldebaran. sent9: if the shoji is a caboose then the Glycine does serve Jacquard. sent10: something that is insurmountable is a psycholinguist. sent11: something that does serve Jacquard serves landscaping. sent12: if something serves Jacquard it recommends Gibbon. sent13: everything does serve Aldebaran. | sent1: {A}{c} sent2: {D}{a} sent3: {C}{a} -> {A}{c} sent4: (x): ¬({B}x & {D}x) -> ¬{D}{c} sent5: (x): {BI}x -> {IT}x sent6: ({D}{a} v {B}{a}) sent7: ({A}{a} v {B}{a}) sent8: (x): {F}x -> ¬({C}x & ¬{E}x) sent9: {B}{a} -> {C}{c} sent10: (x): {HA}x -> {EJ}x sent11: (x): {C}x -> {D}x sent12: (x): {C}x -> {A}x sent13: (x): {F}x | [
"sent11 -> int1: if the Glycine serves Jacquard it serves landscaping.;"
] | [
"sent11 -> int1: {C}{c} -> {D}{c};"
] | the Glycine does not serve landscaping. | ¬{D}{c} | [
"sent8 -> int2: if the Khanty serves Aldebaran the fact that it does serve Jacquard and is not eastern is not right.; sent13 -> int3: the Khanty does serve Aldebaran.; int2 & int3 -> int4: that the fact that the Khanty does serve Jacquard and is not eastern is not correct is not incorrect.; int4 -> int5: there is nothing such that it does serve Jacquard and it is not eastern.; int5 -> int6: the fact that the SEAL serves Jacquard but it is not eastern does not hold.; int6 -> int7: there exists something such that that it does serve Jacquard and it is not eastern is not true.;"
] | 9 | 2 | null | 10 | 0 | 10 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the Glycine serves landscaping. ; $context$ = sent1: the Glycine does recommend Gibbon. sent2: the shoji serves landscaping. sent3: if the shoji does serve Jacquard then the Glycine does recommend Gibbon. sent4: the Glycine does not serve landscaping if there exists something such that the fact that it is a caboose and serve landscaping is not right. sent5: something is compatible if it is a submersible. sent6: the shoji serves landscaping and/or is a kind of a caboose. sent7: the shoji does recommend Gibbon and/or is a caboose. sent8: the fact that something serves Jacquard and is not eastern is wrong if it does serve Aldebaran. sent9: if the shoji is a caboose then the Glycine does serve Jacquard. sent10: something that is insurmountable is a psycholinguist. sent11: something that does serve Jacquard serves landscaping. sent12: if something serves Jacquard it recommends Gibbon. sent13: everything does serve Aldebaran. ; $proof$ = | sent11 -> int1: if the Glycine serves Jacquard it serves landscaping.; __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | the backplate is a kind of a expressiveness that is an insignificance. | ({A}{aa} & {C}{aa}) | sent1: if the fact that something is not a expressiveness or an insignificance or both hold it is an impression. sent2: the backplate is a expressiveness if there exists something such that it is not an insignificance. sent3: the megacolon is an impression if the snailfish is a kind of an impression. sent4: everything is a anchorite. sent5: if the snailfish is a Ptilonorhynchidae then it either is not a expressiveness or is a kind of an insignificance or both. sent6: that the backplate is a Ptilonorhynchidae is not incorrect. sent7: the backplate is an insignificance that is a Ptilonorhynchidae if something is not a renegade. sent8: the backplate is a second and is Wilsonian. sent9: there exists something such that it is not a renegade. sent10: something that is a kind of a Ptilonorhynchidae is a anchorite. sent11: there exists something such that it is a renegade. sent12: everything does backpack sunlight and it is exegetic. | sent1: (x): (¬{A}x v {C}x) -> {IA}x sent2: (x): ¬{C}x -> {A}{aa} sent3: {IA}{b} -> {IA}{di} sent4: (x): {B}x sent5: {D}{b} -> (¬{A}{b} v {C}{b}) sent6: {D}{aa} sent7: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({C}{aa} & {D}{aa}) sent8: ({CP}{aa} & {HU}{aa}) sent9: (Ex): ¬{E}x sent10: (x): {D}x -> {B}x sent11: (Ex): {E}x sent12: (x): ({HJ}x & {IJ}x) | [
"sent9 & sent7 -> int1: the backplate is an insignificance and it is a Ptilonorhynchidae.; int1 -> int2: the backplate is a kind of an insignificance.;"
] | [
"sent9 & sent7 -> int1: ({C}{aa} & {D}{aa}); int1 -> int2: {C}{aa};"
] | the megacolon is an impression and it corks. | ({IA}{di} & {DT}{di}) | [
"sent1 -> int3: if the snailfish is not a expressiveness or an insignificance or both then it is an impression.;"
] | 5 | 3 | null | 10 | 0 | 10 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the backplate is a kind of a expressiveness that is an insignificance. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something is not a expressiveness or an insignificance or both hold it is an impression. sent2: the backplate is a expressiveness if there exists something such that it is not an insignificance. sent3: the megacolon is an impression if the snailfish is a kind of an impression. sent4: everything is a anchorite. sent5: if the snailfish is a Ptilonorhynchidae then it either is not a expressiveness or is a kind of an insignificance or both. sent6: that the backplate is a Ptilonorhynchidae is not incorrect. sent7: the backplate is an insignificance that is a Ptilonorhynchidae if something is not a renegade. sent8: the backplate is a second and is Wilsonian. sent9: there exists something such that it is not a renegade. sent10: something that is a kind of a Ptilonorhynchidae is a anchorite. sent11: there exists something such that it is a renegade. sent12: everything does backpack sunlight and it is exegetic. ; $proof$ = | sent9 & sent7 -> int1: the backplate is an insignificance and it is a Ptilonorhynchidae.; int1 -> int2: the backplate is a kind of an insignificance.; __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | there exists something such that if it is not a disquieting then that either it is not a fluorochrome or it is a Demavend or both is not true. | (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) | sent1: the fact that the ghee is not a choo-choo or it is a wittol or both is not true if that it is a kind of an individualist hold. sent2: if something is not a disquieting then it is not a fluorochrome and/or it is a Demavend. sent3: if the froghopper is a disquieting the fact that it is not a Tiepolo or operculate or both is wrong. sent4: there exists something such that if it is not piezoelectric either it is not brimless or it is a kind of a epitaxy or both. sent5: there exists something such that if it is not nonfictional then that it is not noneffervescent and/or is a kind of a Tupungato does not hold. sent6: if something is not a kind of a disquieting that either it is not a fluorochrome or it is a Demavend or both does not hold. | sent1: {M}{bu} -> ¬(¬{IN}{bu} v {DG}{bu}) sent2: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) sent3: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{DN}{aa} v {HT}{aa}) sent4: (Ex): ¬{BC}x -> (¬{EU}x v {DP}x) sent5: (Ex): ¬{IL}x -> ¬(¬{N}x v {FB}x) sent6: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) | [
"sent6 -> int1: that either the froghopper is not a fluorochrome or it is a kind of a Demavend or both is false if it is not a disquieting.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent6 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null | [] | null | 2 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 5 | PROVED | null | PROVED | null | $hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is not a disquieting then that either it is not a fluorochrome or it is a Demavend or both is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the ghee is not a choo-choo or it is a wittol or both is not true if that it is a kind of an individualist hold. sent2: if something is not a disquieting then it is not a fluorochrome and/or it is a Demavend. sent3: if the froghopper is a disquieting the fact that it is not a Tiepolo or operculate or both is wrong. sent4: there exists something such that if it is not piezoelectric either it is not brimless or it is a kind of a epitaxy or both. sent5: there exists something such that if it is not nonfictional then that it is not noneffervescent and/or is a kind of a Tupungato does not hold. sent6: if something is not a kind of a disquieting that either it is not a fluorochrome or it is a Demavend or both does not hold. ; $proof$ = | sent6 -> int1: that either the froghopper is not a fluorochrome or it is a kind of a Demavend or both is false if it is not a disquieting.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | there is something such that if that it is a kind of a spectrum is true it is not a prefixation. | (Ex): {A}x -> ¬{C}x | sent1: the fact that there exists something such that if it is a multicollinearity it is not a greyhound hold. sent2: there exists something such that if it is nonsubmersible then it serves Aruru. sent3: that something is not a mineral is correct if it is filarial. sent4: there is something such that if it is a perjurer it is not a cephaloglycin. sent5: there is something such that if it serves symbolism it is not a kind of a aphrodisia. sent6: the dampener is not immunocompetent if it is a kind of a currentness. sent7: if the phytochemical is a kind of a pool then it is not a kind of a headship. sent8: the eyelid is not emotional if it does parallel. sent9: if the phytochemical is a spectrum it is not a prefixation. sent10: if the phytochemical spends then the fact that it is a spectrum is not incorrect. sent11: if the sneeze is a kind of a melphalan it is a kind of a hatch. sent12: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a cephaloglycin it is a antinomianism. sent13: the fact that the phytochemical is a prefixation is right if it is a spectrum. sent14: the contadino does not serve stirrup if it is a spectrum. sent15: there is something such that if it is exaugural then it is a freight. sent16: there exists something such that if it is a spectrum it is a prefixation. | sent1: (Ex): {FN}x -> ¬{IC}x sent2: (Ex): {CS}x -> {GD}x sent3: (x): {JC}x -> ¬{GI}x sent4: (Ex): {IS}x -> ¬{AI}x sent5: (Ex): {GE}x -> ¬{BK}x sent6: {GO}{t} -> ¬{BR}{t} sent7: {DI}{aa} -> ¬{AL}{aa} sent8: {HP}{dj} -> ¬{FK}{dj} sent9: {A}{aa} -> ¬{C}{aa} sent10: {DJ}{aa} -> {A}{aa} sent11: {JB}{hu} -> {Q}{hu} sent12: (Ex): {AI}x -> {P}x sent13: {A}{aa} -> {C}{aa} sent14: {A}{ig} -> ¬{FP}{ig} sent15: (Ex): {FH}x -> {IL}x sent16: (Ex): {A}x -> {C}x | [
"sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] | there is something such that if it is filarial it is not a kind of a mineral. | (Ex): {JC}x -> ¬{GI}x | [
"sent3 -> int1: that the adjutant is not a kind of a mineral is true if it is filarial.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 15 | 0 | 15 | PROVED | PROVED | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = there is something such that if that it is a kind of a spectrum is true it is not a prefixation. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that there exists something such that if it is a multicollinearity it is not a greyhound hold. sent2: there exists something such that if it is nonsubmersible then it serves Aruru. sent3: that something is not a mineral is correct if it is filarial. sent4: there is something such that if it is a perjurer it is not a cephaloglycin. sent5: there is something such that if it serves symbolism it is not a kind of a aphrodisia. sent6: the dampener is not immunocompetent if it is a kind of a currentness. sent7: if the phytochemical is a kind of a pool then it is not a kind of a headship. sent8: the eyelid is not emotional if it does parallel. sent9: if the phytochemical is a spectrum it is not a prefixation. sent10: if the phytochemical spends then the fact that it is a spectrum is not incorrect. sent11: if the sneeze is a kind of a melphalan it is a kind of a hatch. sent12: there exists something such that if it is a kind of a cephaloglycin it is a antinomianism. sent13: the fact that the phytochemical is a prefixation is right if it is a spectrum. sent14: the contadino does not serve stirrup if it is a spectrum. sent15: there is something such that if it is exaugural then it is a freight. sent16: there exists something such that if it is a spectrum it is a prefixation. ; $proof$ = | sent9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the fact that there exists something such that it is both not stereoscopic and not biographic does not hold. | ¬((Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)) | sent1: the fact that the PIN is biographic is not false if the washcloth is biographic. sent2: there is something such that it is stereoscopic and it is not biographic. sent3: if the washcloth is a kind of a glomerulus then the sprigtail is non-stereoscopic and it is not biographic. sent4: the washcloth is a glomerulus. sent5: the sprigtail is not biographic. | sent1: {AB}{a} -> {AB}{ib} sent2: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent3: {A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}) sent4: {A}{a} sent5: ¬{AB}{b} | [
"sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the fact that the sprigtail is both non-stereoscopic and non-biographic hold.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent3 & sent4 -> int1: (¬{AA}{b} & ¬{AB}{b}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | the PIN is biographic. | {AB}{ib} | [] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 3 | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that it is both not stereoscopic and not biographic does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the PIN is biographic is not false if the washcloth is biographic. sent2: there is something such that it is stereoscopic and it is not biographic. sent3: if the washcloth is a kind of a glomerulus then the sprigtail is non-stereoscopic and it is not biographic. sent4: the washcloth is a glomerulus. sent5: the sprigtail is not biographic. ; $proof$ = | sent3 & sent4 -> int1: the fact that the sprigtail is both non-stereoscopic and non-biographic hold.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the kiss does not occur. | ¬{A} | sent1: the celebrating occurs. sent2: the mastership occurs. sent3: the kissing occurs. sent4: the nonparticulateness happens. sent5: the recommending PSA happens. sent6: the sinistralness happens. sent7: the fact that that the recommending pall does not occur and/or the abdominovesicalness prevents the kissing hold. sent8: the absorbableness happens. sent9: the fact that the backpacking cassiterite happens is not incorrect. sent10: the recommending work-in occurs. sent11: the backpacking invertase happens. sent12: the boating Rus happens. sent13: the boating voyeurism occurs. | sent1: {GG} sent2: {IL} sent3: {A} sent4: {EU} sent5: {EJ} sent6: {CN} sent7: (¬{B} v {C}) -> ¬{A} sent8: {FR} sent9: {HU} sent10: {CL} sent11: {EB} sent12: {D} sent13: {BO} | [
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | the kissing does not occur. | ¬{A} | [] | 6 | 1 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 12 | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the kiss does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the celebrating occurs. sent2: the mastership occurs. sent3: the kissing occurs. sent4: the nonparticulateness happens. sent5: the recommending PSA happens. sent6: the sinistralness happens. sent7: the fact that that the recommending pall does not occur and/or the abdominovesicalness prevents the kissing hold. sent8: the absorbableness happens. sent9: the fact that the backpacking cassiterite happens is not incorrect. sent10: the recommending work-in occurs. sent11: the backpacking invertase happens. sent12: the boating Rus happens. sent13: the boating voyeurism occurs. ; $proof$ = | sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the Timorese is a skirt. | {AA}{aa} | sent1: if the fact that either something does not acclimatize or it is not a kind of a caryatid or both is incorrect it is a Asian. sent2: if that the artilleryman does not recommend Tanguy is not wrong then the curassow is a kind of a IUD and is a kind of a ophryon. sent3: the Timorese is a epigone. sent4: if the shortbread is not a kind of a Algren then the Timorese is both a skirt and a carload. sent5: the Timorese is a epigone if it is not a carload. sent6: something that is not a carload is both not a skirt and a epigone. sent7: there is something such that it is a kind of a NREM that is a kind of a Algren. sent8: either the arse is a NREM or it is not a kind of a Algren or both if the Casanova is Asian. sent9: that the Timorese is not a carload if there exists something such that it is not a Algren is not incorrect. sent10: there is something such that the fact that it is a NREM and is a Algren is wrong. sent11: if either the curassow is a ophryon or it does ogle or both the Casanova does not ogle. sent12: if something does not ogle then it is not a kind of a Wagnerian. sent13: the Timorese is not a kind of a carload if there is something such that the fact that it is a NREM that is a Algren is false. sent14: the cherub is non-Romany and serves Casanova. sent15: the artilleryman does not recommend Tanguy. sent16: that something does not acclimatize and/or is not a caryatid does not hold if it is not a Wagnerian. | sent1: (x): ¬(¬{E}x v ¬{F}x) -> {D}x sent2: ¬{K}{e} -> ({I}{d} & {J}{d}) sent3: {AB}{aa} sent4: ¬{B}{a} -> ({AA}{aa} & {A}{aa}) sent5: ¬{A}{aa} -> {AB}{aa} sent6: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent7: (Ex): ({C}x & {B}x) sent8: {D}{c} -> ({C}{b} v ¬{B}{b}) sent9: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬{A}{aa} sent10: (Ex): ¬({C}x & {B}x) sent11: ({J}{d} v {H}{d}) -> ¬{H}{c} sent12: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬{G}x sent13: (x): ¬({C}x & {B}x) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent14: (¬{ID}{cq} & {IN}{cq}) sent15: ¬{K}{e} sent16: (x): ¬{G}x -> ¬(¬{E}x v ¬{F}x) | [
"sent6 -> int1: if the Timorese is not a carload then it is both not a skirt and a epigone.; sent10 & sent13 -> int2: that the Timorese is not a carload is correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the Timorese does not skirt but it is a epigone hold.; int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent6 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); sent10 & sent13 -> int2: ¬{A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> int3: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}); int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | the Timorese is a skirt. | {AA}{aa} | [
"sent1 -> int4: the Casanova is a Asian if that it does not acclimatize and/or is not a caryatid does not hold.; sent16 -> int5: if the Casanova is not Wagnerian then the fact that it does not acclimatize and/or it is not a caryatid is false.; sent12 -> int6: if the Casanova does not ogle then it is not Wagnerian.; sent2 & sent15 -> int7: the curassow is a IUD and it is a ophryon.; int7 -> int8: the curassow is a ophryon.; int8 -> int9: the curassow is a kind of a ophryon and/or it does ogle.; sent11 & int9 -> int10: the Casanova does not ogle.; int6 & int10 -> int11: that the Casanova is not Wagnerian is correct.; int5 & int11 -> int12: that the Casanova does not acclimatize or it is not a caryatid or both is not right.; int4 & int12 -> int13: the Casanova is Asian.; sent8 & int13 -> int14: the arse is a NREM or it is not a kind of a Algren or both.; int14 -> int15: there is something such that it is a kind of a NREM or is not a Algren or both.;"
] | 12 | 3 | 3 | 13 | 0 | 13 | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the Timorese is a skirt. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that either something does not acclimatize or it is not a kind of a caryatid or both is incorrect it is a Asian. sent2: if that the artilleryman does not recommend Tanguy is not wrong then the curassow is a kind of a IUD and is a kind of a ophryon. sent3: the Timorese is a epigone. sent4: if the shortbread is not a kind of a Algren then the Timorese is both a skirt and a carload. sent5: the Timorese is a epigone if it is not a carload. sent6: something that is not a carload is both not a skirt and a epigone. sent7: there is something such that it is a kind of a NREM that is a kind of a Algren. sent8: either the arse is a NREM or it is not a kind of a Algren or both if the Casanova is Asian. sent9: that the Timorese is not a carload if there exists something such that it is not a Algren is not incorrect. sent10: there is something such that the fact that it is a NREM and is a Algren is wrong. sent11: if either the curassow is a ophryon or it does ogle or both the Casanova does not ogle. sent12: if something does not ogle then it is not a kind of a Wagnerian. sent13: the Timorese is not a kind of a carload if there is something such that the fact that it is a NREM that is a Algren is false. sent14: the cherub is non-Romany and serves Casanova. sent15: the artilleryman does not recommend Tanguy. sent16: that something does not acclimatize and/or is not a caryatid does not hold if it is not a Wagnerian. ; $proof$ = | sent6 -> int1: if the Timorese is not a carload then it is both not a skirt and a epigone.; sent10 & sent13 -> int2: that the Timorese is not a carload is correct.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the Timorese does not skirt but it is a epigone hold.; int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | that that the venue does backpack consumerism and is not a peck is false is not wrong. | ¬({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) | sent1: the fact that something does backpack consumerism but it is not a peck is incorrect if it does not recommend marksmanship. sent2: the venue backpacks consumerism but it does not peck. sent3: the monitor is a playgoer and does not serve Carver. sent4: the henbane is not satisfactory. sent5: the obsolescence does peck and it recommends marksmanship if that the venue is not buccal is correct. sent6: if the henbane is not satisfactory that the songwriter is both non-dramatics and not laxative is not true. sent7: the venue does backpack chlorothiazide and does not peck. sent8: the venue is not a peck. sent9: if there is something such that that it is not dramatics and not a laxative is incorrect the eburnation is a kind of a Clinopodium. | sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent2: ({AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent3: ({DB}{es} & ¬{AC}{es}) sent4: ¬{G}{e} sent5: ¬{B}{a} -> ({AB}{ds} & {A}{ds}) sent6: ¬{G}{e} -> ¬(¬{E}{d} & ¬{F}{d}) sent7: ({FG}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent8: ¬{AB}{a} sent9: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{F}x) -> {C}{c} | [
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | the obsolescence is a peck that does not backpack slash. | ({AB}{ds} & ¬{K}{ds}) | [
"sent6 & sent4 -> int1: the fact that the songwriter is not dramatics and it is not laxative does not hold.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that that it is non-dramatics thing that is not laxative does not hold.; int2 & sent9 -> int3: the eburnation is a kind of a Clinopodium.; int3 -> int4: something is a kind of a Clinopodium.;"
] | 9 | 1 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 8 | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = that that the venue does backpack consumerism and is not a peck is false is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something does backpack consumerism but it is not a peck is incorrect if it does not recommend marksmanship. sent2: the venue backpacks consumerism but it does not peck. sent3: the monitor is a playgoer and does not serve Carver. sent4: the henbane is not satisfactory. sent5: the obsolescence does peck and it recommends marksmanship if that the venue is not buccal is correct. sent6: if the henbane is not satisfactory that the songwriter is both non-dramatics and not laxative is not true. sent7: the venue does backpack chlorothiazide and does not peck. sent8: the venue is not a peck. sent9: if there is something such that that it is not dramatics and not a laxative is incorrect the eburnation is a kind of a Clinopodium. ; $proof$ = | sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the Greek gallivants but it does not recommend spoilage. | ({E}{c} & ¬{F}{c}) | sent1: something is not non-federal and does boat roughrider. sent2: that the Greek does gallivant but it does not recommend spoilage is wrong if the monocle is a kind of a top. sent3: the fact that the monocle tops is not incorrect if the fact that the technician serves hustler is correct. sent4: there is something such that it boats roughrider. sent5: the Greek gallivants but it does not recommend spoilage if it is not federal. sent6: if the fact that the monocle does top is not false the fact that the Greek does gallivant and recommends spoilage is wrong. sent7: that the Greek gallivants and recommends spoilage is not right. sent8: the technician does serve hustler if there exists something such that it is federal and it does boat roughrider. | sent1: (Ex): ({A}x & {B}x) sent2: {D}{b} -> ¬({E}{c} & ¬{F}{c}) sent3: {C}{a} -> {D}{b} sent4: (Ex): {B}x sent5: ¬{A}{c} -> ({E}{c} & ¬{F}{c}) sent6: {D}{b} -> ¬({E}{c} & {F}{c}) sent7: ¬({E}{c} & {F}{c}) sent8: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> {C}{a} | [
"sent1 & sent8 -> int1: the technician does serve hustler.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: the monocle is a top.; sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent1 & sent8 -> int1: {C}{a}; sent3 & int1 -> int2: {D}{b}; sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | the Greek gallivants but it does not recommend spoilage. | ({E}{c} & ¬{F}{c}) | [] | 5 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 4 | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the Greek gallivants but it does not recommend spoilage. ; $context$ = sent1: something is not non-federal and does boat roughrider. sent2: that the Greek does gallivant but it does not recommend spoilage is wrong if the monocle is a kind of a top. sent3: the fact that the monocle tops is not incorrect if the fact that the technician serves hustler is correct. sent4: there is something such that it boats roughrider. sent5: the Greek gallivants but it does not recommend spoilage if it is not federal. sent6: if the fact that the monocle does top is not false the fact that the Greek does gallivant and recommends spoilage is wrong. sent7: that the Greek gallivants and recommends spoilage is not right. sent8: the technician does serve hustler if there exists something such that it is federal and it does boat roughrider. ; $proof$ = | sent1 & sent8 -> int1: the technician does serve hustler.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: the monocle is a top.; sent2 & int2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | there is something such that if it is repeatable thing that does not backpack Varanus it is not non-abaxial. | (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x | sent1: there is something such that if it is a kind of unoriginal thing that is not pneumatics then it is tracheal. sent2: there is something such that if it backpacks insert and it is not a kind of a perpendicularity it granulates. sent3: the cardigan is cytogenetics if it boats checksum and it is phonetics. sent4: the Chilean does backpack Varanus if it is cardiovascular and it is not cytogenetics. sent5: if the Chilean is repeatable but it is not incapable then it recommends conspecific. sent6: the Chilean is not non-abaxial if it is repeatable and does not backpack Varanus. | sent1: (Ex): ({FD}x & ¬{JD}x) -> {EO}x sent2: (Ex): ({JE}x & ¬{H}x) -> {BP}x sent3: ({GR}{if} & {IK}{if}) -> {IF}{if} sent4: ({U}{aa} & ¬{IF}{aa}) -> {AB}{aa} sent5: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{IP}{aa}) -> {EH}{aa} sent6: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} | [
"sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent6 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null | [] | null | 1 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 5 | PROVED | null | PROVED | null | $hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is repeatable thing that does not backpack Varanus it is not non-abaxial. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it is a kind of unoriginal thing that is not pneumatics then it is tracheal. sent2: there is something such that if it backpacks insert and it is not a kind of a perpendicularity it granulates. sent3: the cardigan is cytogenetics if it boats checksum and it is phonetics. sent4: the Chilean does backpack Varanus if it is cardiovascular and it is not cytogenetics. sent5: if the Chilean is repeatable but it is not incapable then it recommends conspecific. sent6: the Chilean is not non-abaxial if it is repeatable and does not backpack Varanus. ; $proof$ = | sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the branchlet is a eggar. | {A}{a} | sent1: the fact that either something is not a kind of a eggar or it is not a kind of a Rhenish or both is false if it does not backpack salesmanship. sent2: the stepfather is a eggar. sent3: the radicle is a Phalaenoptilus if the branchlet is a eggar. sent4: the fact that everything is not a Phalaenoptilus hold. | sent1: (x): ¬{D}x -> ¬(¬{A}x v ¬{C}x) sent2: {A}{hu} sent3: {A}{a} -> {B}{b} sent4: (x): ¬{B}x | [
"void -> assump1: Let's assume that the branchlet is a kind of a eggar.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the radicle is a Phalaenoptilus.; sent4 -> int2: the radicle is not a Phalaenoptilus.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"void -> assump1: {A}{a}; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: {B}{b}; sent4 -> int2: ¬{B}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: #F#; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | the wheat is not a kind of a Phalaenoptilus. | ¬{B}{ak} | [
"sent1 -> int4: the fact that the branchlet is not a eggar or it is not Rhenish or both is wrong if it does not backpack salesmanship.;"
] | 5 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the branchlet is a eggar. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that either something is not a kind of a eggar or it is not a kind of a Rhenish or both is false if it does not backpack salesmanship. sent2: the stepfather is a eggar. sent3: the radicle is a Phalaenoptilus if the branchlet is a eggar. sent4: the fact that everything is not a Phalaenoptilus hold. ; $proof$ = | void -> assump1: Let's assume that the branchlet is a kind of a eggar.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the radicle is a Phalaenoptilus.; sent4 -> int2: the radicle is not a Phalaenoptilus.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the bellows is a kind of a frontal. | {D}{d} | sent1: the signaler is not a Glaser. sent2: that the signaler is both not a modernist and not a Glaser is not incorrect. sent3: the commoner is not a duplicate if the signaler is not a modernist and it is not a Glaser. sent4: that the dentist is a doubles and a scrimshanker is incorrect if there is something such that it does not duplicate. sent5: if that the dentist is not a doubles and is a scrimshanker is not true the bellows is a frontal. sent6: that the dentist is a kind of doubles thing that is a kind of a scrimshanker is false. | sent1: ¬{AB}{a} sent2: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent3: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent4: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({C}{c} & {A}{c}) sent5: ¬(¬{C}{c} & {A}{c}) -> {D}{d} sent6: ¬({C}{c} & {A}{c}) | [
"sent3 & sent2 -> int1: the commoner is not a duplicate.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that it is not a kind of a duplicate.;"
] | [
"sent3 & sent2 -> int1: ¬{B}{b}; int1 -> int2: (Ex): ¬{B}x;"
] | null | null | [] | null | 4 | null | 3 | 0 | 3 | UNKNOWN | null | UNKNOWN | null | $hypothesis$ = the bellows is a kind of a frontal. ; $context$ = sent1: the signaler is not a Glaser. sent2: that the signaler is both not a modernist and not a Glaser is not incorrect. sent3: the commoner is not a duplicate if the signaler is not a modernist and it is not a Glaser. sent4: that the dentist is a doubles and a scrimshanker is incorrect if there is something such that it does not duplicate. sent5: if that the dentist is not a doubles and is a scrimshanker is not true the bellows is a frontal. sent6: that the dentist is a kind of doubles thing that is a kind of a scrimshanker is false. ; $proof$ = | sent3 & sent2 -> int1: the commoner is not a duplicate.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that it is not a kind of a duplicate.; __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | the pintle is lacrimatory. | {D}{c} | sent1: if the fact that something does not pigment and it is not a kind of a squeeze is not right it is a squeeze. sent2: the pintle is organizational. sent3: the polymorphism is organizational. sent4: if the polymorphism is organizational then it is lacrimatory. sent5: the pintle does backpack aphanite if the chancery does not squeeze. sent6: if something is lacrimatory then the fact that the fact that it is not a pigment and not a squeeze is right is not right. sent7: the chancery is lacrimatory if the pintle is not a squeeze. sent8: if the polymorphism is organizational the chancery is not a squeeze. sent9: the fact that something is a kind of a squeeze and it is lacrimatory does not hold if it is not organizational. sent10: something is not lacrimatory if that it is a squeeze and is lacrimatory is false. sent11: the chancery is organizational if the polymorphism is not a squeeze. sent12: something is not lacrimatory if it is a kind of non-organizational thing that is not a squeeze. sent13: if something does backpack aphanite then it is lacrimatory. | sent1: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{B}x) -> {B}x sent2: {A}{c} sent3: {A}{a} sent4: {A}{a} -> {D}{a} sent5: ¬{B}{b} -> {C}{c} sent6: (x): {D}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{B}x) sent7: ¬{B}{c} -> {D}{b} sent8: {A}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent9: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}x & {D}x) sent10: (x): ¬({B}x & {D}x) -> ¬{D}x sent11: ¬{B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent12: (x): (¬{A}x & ¬{B}x) -> ¬{D}x sent13: (x): {C}x -> {D}x | [
"sent8 & sent3 -> int1: the chancery is not a kind of a squeeze.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the pintle does backpack aphanite.; sent13 -> int3: the pintle is lacrimatory if it backpacks aphanite.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent8 & sent3 -> int1: ¬{B}{b}; int1 & sent5 -> int2: {C}{c}; sent13 -> int3: {C}{c} -> {D}{c}; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | the aphanite does not backpack aphanite. | ¬{C}{dp} | [
"sent1 -> int4: the polymorphism is a squeeze if that it is not a pigment and it is not a squeeze is not correct.; sent6 -> int5: that the chancery is not a pigment and not a squeeze does not hold if that it is lacrimatory is correct.;"
] | 7 | 3 | 3 | 9 | 0 | 9 | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the pintle is lacrimatory. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that something does not pigment and it is not a kind of a squeeze is not right it is a squeeze. sent2: the pintle is organizational. sent3: the polymorphism is organizational. sent4: if the polymorphism is organizational then it is lacrimatory. sent5: the pintle does backpack aphanite if the chancery does not squeeze. sent6: if something is lacrimatory then the fact that the fact that it is not a pigment and not a squeeze is right is not right. sent7: the chancery is lacrimatory if the pintle is not a squeeze. sent8: if the polymorphism is organizational the chancery is not a squeeze. sent9: the fact that something is a kind of a squeeze and it is lacrimatory does not hold if it is not organizational. sent10: something is not lacrimatory if that it is a squeeze and is lacrimatory is false. sent11: the chancery is organizational if the polymorphism is not a squeeze. sent12: something is not lacrimatory if it is a kind of non-organizational thing that is not a squeeze. sent13: if something does backpack aphanite then it is lacrimatory. ; $proof$ = | sent8 & sent3 -> int1: the chancery is not a kind of a squeeze.; int1 & sent5 -> int2: the pintle does backpack aphanite.; sent13 -> int3: the pintle is lacrimatory if it backpacks aphanite.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | that there is something such that if it is not a kind of a bandsaw then it does not recommend shawm or does not backpack ragamuffin or both does not hold. | ¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x)) | sent1: there is something such that if it does not boat rickettsialpox then it is not chronic or it is not a icaco or both. sent2: there is something such that if the fact that it is not a kind of a conspectus is not incorrect it is not haptic and/or it is not geographic. sent3: something does not backpack pillory or it is not precocial or both if it does not backpack ragamuffin. sent4: the astrodome does not recommend shawm or it is not a kind of a commandership or both if it is not stainable. sent5: there is something such that if it is not assertive then it is not a Gymnocladus or it is leaky or both. sent6: there is something such that if it does not serve fetometry it is not a kind of a tick and/or is not a cranberry. sent7: there exists something such that if the fact that it recommends ophthalmoscope is true it does not incur or it does not boat mealberry or both. sent8: if the fact that the vase is not a spinnability is not incorrect either it is not a cupflower or it does not serve unattractiveness or both. sent9: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a bandsaw then it recommends shawm or it does not backpack ragamuffin or both. sent10: the astrodome does not recommend shawm or it does not backpack ragamuffin or both if it is not a bandsaw. sent11: there is something such that if it is a bandsaw then that either it does not recommend shawm or it does not backpack ragamuffin or both is not wrong. sent12: if the astrodome is not a kind of a bandsaw then it does recommend shawm and/or it does not backpack ragamuffin. sent13: if the astrodome is not a bandsaw then it does not recommend shawm or backpacks ragamuffin or both. sent14: there is something such that if it does vow it does not serve vase and/or does not serve chelonian. sent15: there is something such that if it does not serve gluteus it is not a urinal and/or it is not amnestic. sent16: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a bandsaw is true then it does not recommend shawm and/or it does backpack ragamuffin. sent17: the astrodome either does not recommend shawm or does not backpack ragamuffin or both if that it is a kind of a bandsaw is right. | sent1: (Ex): ¬{FC}x -> (¬{GR}x v ¬{AD}x) sent2: (Ex): ¬{IN}x -> (¬{CM}x v ¬{DC}x) sent3: (x): ¬{AB}x -> (¬{GC}x v ¬{FR}x) sent4: ¬{BE}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{DK}{aa}) sent5: (Ex): ¬{AC}x -> (¬{AK}x v {ET}x) sent6: (Ex): ¬{L}x -> (¬{CI}x v ¬{JD}x) sent7: (Ex): {DI}x -> (¬{HC}x v ¬{ER}x) sent8: ¬{EF}{gc} -> (¬{IU}{gc} v ¬{BG}{gc}) sent9: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent10: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent11: (Ex): {A}x -> (¬{AA}x v ¬{AB}x) sent12: ¬{A}{aa} -> ({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) sent13: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent14: (Ex): {CU}x -> (¬{DQ}x v ¬{GA}x) sent15: (Ex): ¬{IF}x -> (¬{AN}x v ¬{GD}x) sent16: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x v {AB}x) sent17: {A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) | [
"sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] | if the astrodome does not backpack ragamuffin it does not backpack pillory and/or it is not precocial. | ¬{AB}{aa} -> (¬{GC}{aa} v ¬{FR}{aa}) | [
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 16 | 0 | 16 | DISPROVED | PROVED | DISPROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = that there is something such that if it is not a kind of a bandsaw then it does not recommend shawm or does not backpack ragamuffin or both does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it does not boat rickettsialpox then it is not chronic or it is not a icaco or both. sent2: there is something such that if the fact that it is not a kind of a conspectus is not incorrect it is not haptic and/or it is not geographic. sent3: something does not backpack pillory or it is not precocial or both if it does not backpack ragamuffin. sent4: the astrodome does not recommend shawm or it is not a kind of a commandership or both if it is not stainable. sent5: there is something such that if it is not assertive then it is not a Gymnocladus or it is leaky or both. sent6: there is something such that if it does not serve fetometry it is not a kind of a tick and/or is not a cranberry. sent7: there exists something such that if the fact that it recommends ophthalmoscope is true it does not incur or it does not boat mealberry or both. sent8: if the fact that the vase is not a spinnability is not incorrect either it is not a cupflower or it does not serve unattractiveness or both. sent9: there exists something such that if it is not a kind of a bandsaw then it recommends shawm or it does not backpack ragamuffin or both. sent10: the astrodome does not recommend shawm or it does not backpack ragamuffin or both if it is not a bandsaw. sent11: there is something such that if it is a bandsaw then that either it does not recommend shawm or it does not backpack ragamuffin or both is not wrong. sent12: if the astrodome is not a kind of a bandsaw then it does recommend shawm and/or it does not backpack ragamuffin. sent13: if the astrodome is not a bandsaw then it does not recommend shawm or backpacks ragamuffin or both. sent14: there is something such that if it does vow it does not serve vase and/or does not serve chelonian. sent15: there is something such that if it does not serve gluteus it is not a urinal and/or it is not amnestic. sent16: there exists something such that if the fact that it is not a bandsaw is true then it does not recommend shawm and/or it does backpack ragamuffin. sent17: the astrodome either does not recommend shawm or does not backpack ragamuffin or both if that it is a kind of a bandsaw is right. ; $proof$ = | sent10 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the backpacking angled occurs. | {C} | sent1: if the crouching happens the backpacking insert happens. sent2: if the insufficientness does not occur that the non-fittingness and the non-erythropoieticness happens is not right. sent3: if the genericness does not occur then the non-salientness and the sufficientness happens. sent4: that the backpacking angled does not occur is not incorrect if the fact that that the surmounting does not occur and the recurring happens is incorrect is not false. sent5: the abiogeneticness occurs or the uniforming happens or both. sent6: if the surmounting occurs the backpacking angled happens. sent7: the syncategorematicness leads to that the tracing does not occur but the misting occurs. sent8: the Rorschach occurs or the ligature occurs or both. sent9: the backpacking angled happens if the recurring happens. sent10: the surmounting occurs or the recurring occurs or both. sent11: if the backpacking insert happens the fact that the surmounting does not occur and the recurring happens does not hold. sent12: that the tracing does not occur yields that both the crouching and the socage occurs. sent13: the syncategorematicness occurs if that both the non-fittingness and the non-erythropoieticness occurs does not hold. sent14: if the downhill occurs the serving acetabulum happens. | sent1: {E} -> {D} sent2: ¬{L} -> ¬(¬{J} & ¬{K}) sent3: ¬{N} -> (¬{M} & ¬{L}) sent4: ¬(¬{A} & {B}) -> ¬{C} sent5: ({O} v {CK}) sent6: {A} -> {C} sent7: {I} -> (¬{G} & {H}) sent8: ({AC} v {HO}) sent9: {B} -> {C} sent10: ({A} v {B}) sent11: {D} -> ¬(¬{A} & {B}) sent12: ¬{G} -> ({E} & {F}) sent13: ¬(¬{J} & ¬{K}) -> {I} sent14: {BF} -> {FA} | [
"sent10 & sent6 & sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent10 & sent6 & sent9 -> hypothesis;"
] | the fact that the backpacking angled does not occur is correct. | ¬{C} | [] | 13 | 1 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 11 | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the backpacking angled occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the crouching happens the backpacking insert happens. sent2: if the insufficientness does not occur that the non-fittingness and the non-erythropoieticness happens is not right. sent3: if the genericness does not occur then the non-salientness and the sufficientness happens. sent4: that the backpacking angled does not occur is not incorrect if the fact that that the surmounting does not occur and the recurring happens is incorrect is not false. sent5: the abiogeneticness occurs or the uniforming happens or both. sent6: if the surmounting occurs the backpacking angled happens. sent7: the syncategorematicness leads to that the tracing does not occur but the misting occurs. sent8: the Rorschach occurs or the ligature occurs or both. sent9: the backpacking angled happens if the recurring happens. sent10: the surmounting occurs or the recurring occurs or both. sent11: if the backpacking insert happens the fact that the surmounting does not occur and the recurring happens does not hold. sent12: that the tracing does not occur yields that both the crouching and the socage occurs. sent13: the syncategorematicness occurs if that both the non-fittingness and the non-erythropoieticness occurs does not hold. sent14: if the downhill occurs the serving acetabulum happens. ; $proof$ = | sent10 & sent6 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the mucin does not serve self-defense and it is not unworthy. | (¬{D}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) | sent1: the fact that the antimony is not a bloat is not wrong. sent2: if the antimony is unworthy the mucin does not serve self-defense and it is not unworthy. sent3: the mucin does not bloat. sent4: the antimony does serve antimony if it does not serve self-defense. sent5: the antimony bloats if that the merino is not a bloats but it is wigless is false. sent6: if the mucin does serve self-defense then the antimony is a kind of worthy thing that does not serve self-defense. sent7: the antimony is not a kind of an accompaniment. sent8: the mucin pulls. sent9: if the antimony is unworthy it does serve self-defense. sent10: the ram does not bloat. sent11: the antimony is Deweyan if it does not bloat. sent12: if something bloats it does serve self-defense. sent13: the mucin is not atmospheric. | sent1: ¬{A}{a} sent2: {C}{a} -> (¬{D}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) sent3: ¬{A}{b} sent4: ¬{D}{a} -> {FS}{a} sent5: ¬(¬{A}{c} & {E}{c}) -> {A}{a} sent6: {D}{b} -> (¬{C}{a} & ¬{D}{a}) sent7: ¬{DA}{a} sent8: {I}{b} sent9: {C}{a} -> {D}{a} sent10: ¬{A}{gp} sent11: ¬{A}{a} -> {B}{a} sent12: (x): {A}x -> {D}x sent13: ¬{FF}{b} | [
"sent11 & sent1 -> int1: the antimony is Deweyan.;"
] | [
"sent11 & sent1 -> int1: {B}{a};"
] | that the mucin does not serve self-defense and it is not unworthy is not right. | ¬(¬{D}{b} & ¬{C}{b}) | [
"sent12 -> int2: if the antimony bloats then it serves self-defense.;"
] | 6 | 3 | null | 10 | 0 | 10 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the mucin does not serve self-defense and it is not unworthy. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the antimony is not a bloat is not wrong. sent2: if the antimony is unworthy the mucin does not serve self-defense and it is not unworthy. sent3: the mucin does not bloat. sent4: the antimony does serve antimony if it does not serve self-defense. sent5: the antimony bloats if that the merino is not a bloats but it is wigless is false. sent6: if the mucin does serve self-defense then the antimony is a kind of worthy thing that does not serve self-defense. sent7: the antimony is not a kind of an accompaniment. sent8: the mucin pulls. sent9: if the antimony is unworthy it does serve self-defense. sent10: the ram does not bloat. sent11: the antimony is Deweyan if it does not bloat. sent12: if something bloats it does serve self-defense. sent13: the mucin is not atmospheric. ; $proof$ = | sent11 & sent1 -> int1: the antimony is Deweyan.; __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | the fact that the two-dimensionalness does not occur is not correct. | {A} | sent1: the contractualness occurs. sent2: that the expropriation happens yields that the homocercalness and the non-two-dimensionalness occurs. sent3: the fact that the Chinaman happens is not wrong. sent4: if the negligentness does not occur then the expropriation happens and the homocercalness occurs. sent5: the fact that the two-dimensionalness occurs is not false. sent6: that the lettering occurs or that the serving multicollinearity does not occur or both is brought about by that the reenactment does not occur. sent7: if the homocercalness happens the undemocraticness but not the two-dimensionalness occurs. sent8: that the reenactment occurs and the pteridologicalness does not occur is not right if the shielding does not occur. sent9: the recommending unacceptability happens. sent10: if the letter occurs and/or the serving multicollinearity does not occur the negligentness does not occur. sent11: the fact that the prudentness happens is not incorrect. sent12: the dystopianness happens. sent13: the mucinousness occurs. sent14: the sweeping occurs. sent15: if that the reenactment happens and the pteridologicalness does not occur does not hold then the fact that the reenactment does not occur hold. sent16: the Manxness happens. | sent1: {CP} sent2: {C} -> ({B} & ¬{A}) sent3: {EQ} sent4: ¬{D} -> ({C} & {B}) sent5: {A} sent6: ¬{G} -> ({F} v ¬{E}) sent7: {B} -> ({AJ} & ¬{A}) sent8: ¬{I} -> ¬({G} & ¬{H}) sent9: {FR} sent10: ({F} v ¬{E}) -> ¬{D} sent11: {EL} sent12: {FC} sent13: {CQ} sent14: {JJ} sent15: ¬({G} & ¬{H}) -> ¬{G} sent16: {DN} | [
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | that the two-dimensionalness does not occur hold. | ¬{A} | [] | 6 | 1 | 0 | 15 | 0 | 15 | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the two-dimensionalness does not occur is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the contractualness occurs. sent2: that the expropriation happens yields that the homocercalness and the non-two-dimensionalness occurs. sent3: the fact that the Chinaman happens is not wrong. sent4: if the negligentness does not occur then the expropriation happens and the homocercalness occurs. sent5: the fact that the two-dimensionalness occurs is not false. sent6: that the lettering occurs or that the serving multicollinearity does not occur or both is brought about by that the reenactment does not occur. sent7: if the homocercalness happens the undemocraticness but not the two-dimensionalness occurs. sent8: that the reenactment occurs and the pteridologicalness does not occur is not right if the shielding does not occur. sent9: the recommending unacceptability happens. sent10: if the letter occurs and/or the serving multicollinearity does not occur the negligentness does not occur. sent11: the fact that the prudentness happens is not incorrect. sent12: the dystopianness happens. sent13: the mucinousness occurs. sent14: the sweeping occurs. sent15: if that the reenactment happens and the pteridologicalness does not occur does not hold then the fact that the reenactment does not occur hold. sent16: the Manxness happens. ; $proof$ = | sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the meclofenamate is an arrival. | {B}{a} | sent1: if something is not a Dostoyevsky the meclofenamate is not an arrival and does not recommend NREM. sent2: something is not a kind of a Dostoyevsky. sent3: something is not a kind of a Lycaeon if it is not a Dostoyevsky. | sent1: (x): ¬{A}x -> (¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent2: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent3: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬{AP}x | [
"sent2 & sent1 -> int1: the meclofenamate is not a kind of an arrival and it does not recommend NREM.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent2 & sent1 -> int1: (¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | there is something such that it is not a Lycaeon. | (Ex): ¬{AP}x | [
"sent3 -> int2: if the fact that the meclofenamate is not a Dostoyevsky is true then it is not a Lycaeon.;"
] | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the meclofenamate is an arrival. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is not a Dostoyevsky the meclofenamate is not an arrival and does not recommend NREM. sent2: something is not a kind of a Dostoyevsky. sent3: something is not a kind of a Lycaeon if it is not a Dostoyevsky. ; $proof$ = | sent2 & sent1 -> int1: the meclofenamate is not a kind of an arrival and it does not recommend NREM.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the dendrite is a convertibility and is managerial. | ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) | sent1: if something is non-kafkaesque the fact that it is a convertibility and is managerial is not correct. sent2: if the racist is not a idiolect that the cockscomb is kafkaesque and it does point does not hold. sent3: the dendrite is a kind of a convertibility. sent4: the fact that the dendrite is managerial is right. | sent1: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬({A}x & {B}x) sent2: ¬{E}{c} -> ¬({C}{b} & {D}{b}) sent3: {A}{a} sent4: {B}{a} | [
"sent3 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent3 & sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | that the dendrite is a kind of a convertibility and is managerial is wrong. | ¬({A}{a} & {B}{a}) | [
"sent1 -> int1: if the dendrite is not kafkaesque that it is a kind of a convertibility and it is managerial is incorrect.;"
] | 6 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the dendrite is a convertibility and is managerial. ; $context$ = sent1: if something is non-kafkaesque the fact that it is a convertibility and is managerial is not correct. sent2: if the racist is not a idiolect that the cockscomb is kafkaesque and it does point does not hold. sent3: the dendrite is a kind of a convertibility. sent4: the fact that the dendrite is managerial is right. ; $proof$ = | sent3 & sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | that the customer does recruit humming but it does not platitudinize is false. | ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) | sent1: that that something is a Peary but it is not Moroccan hold is not true if it is a locomotive. sent2: if something is agonadal then it is a locomotive. sent3: there exists nothing such that it recruits humming and it does not platitudinize. sent4: that something is agonadal is not false if that it does not speak headmistressship and it is malign is false. sent5: everything is masochistic. sent6: there is nothing such that it does recruit humming and it does platitudinize. sent7: something does recruit humming and does not platitudinize if it is non-locomotive. sent8: that something does not speak headmistressship and is malign is not right if it is masochistic. | sent1: (x): {A}x -> ¬({EU}x & ¬{GF}x) sent2: (x): {B}x -> {A}x sent3: (x): ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent4: (x): ¬(¬{D}x & {C}x) -> {B}x sent5: (x): {E}x sent6: (x): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent8: (x): {E}x -> ¬(¬{D}x & {C}x) | [
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | the customer recruits humming and does not platitudinize. | ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) | [
"sent7 -> int1: the customer does recruit humming and does not platitudinize if it is not a locomotive.;"
] | 5 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 7 | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = that the customer does recruit humming but it does not platitudinize is false. ; $context$ = sent1: that that something is a Peary but it is not Moroccan hold is not true if it is a locomotive. sent2: if something is agonadal then it is a locomotive. sent3: there exists nothing such that it recruits humming and it does not platitudinize. sent4: that something is agonadal is not false if that it does not speak headmistressship and it is malign is false. sent5: everything is masochistic. sent6: there is nothing such that it does recruit humming and it does platitudinize. sent7: something does recruit humming and does not platitudinize if it is non-locomotive. sent8: that something does not speak headmistressship and is malign is not right if it is masochistic. ; $proof$ = | sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | that there exists something such that that it is both not disrespectful and not a picture is incorrect is false. | ¬((Ex): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{C}x)) | sent1: something is both not disrespectful and not a picture. sent2: that the emission does not sew and is a unevenness is not right if something is not antagonistic. sent3: the fact that the emission is not a ortolan but it is tropical does not hold if there exists something such that it does not recruit glume. sent4: something is not a kind of a ortolan. sent5: the fact that the emission is not disrespectful but it does picture does not hold. sent6: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not brisant is not incorrect then the fact that the emission is a ortolan and is not a kind of a odds-maker is incorrect. sent7: that the emission is both not disrespectful and not a picture is not true if there is something such that that it is not a kind of a ortolan is correct. sent8: there is something such that that it is not a kind of a tourist and is not a jet is incorrect. sent9: the fact that if there is something such that the fact that it is not a picture is correct then the fact that the smoke is not categoric and it does not dodge Rhinobatidae is incorrect is not false. sent10: something is a ortolan. sent11: that the emission is not unpropitious and is not a picture is not right. sent12: the fact that the scrubland is not a seigniorage but it is carposporic does not hold. sent13: there is something such that that it is disrespectful and it is not a kind of a picture is wrong. sent14: the fact that the emission is not disrespectful but it does picture is not true if there is something such that the fact that it is not a ortolan is true. sent15: there exists something such that it impoverishes. sent16: if something is not unpublishable that that the attar is a tourist and is not a Pullman is correct is wrong. sent17: there is something such that that it is non-disrespectful thing that is a picture is not right. sent18: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a subtonic and speaks Lascar is false. sent19: the fact that the emission is not respectful and not a picture is not true. sent20: there are non-ethnographic things. sent21: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a ortolan that the emission is disrespectful but it is not a picture is not correct. sent22: that the emission is not surficial and it is not a kind of a ortolan is not right. | sent1: (Ex): (¬{B}x & ¬{C}x) sent2: (x): ¬{ID}x -> ¬(¬{CI}{a} & {DN}{a}) sent3: (x): ¬{GJ}x -> ¬(¬{A}{a} & {CR}{a}) sent4: (Ex): ¬{A}x sent5: ¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent6: (x): ¬{AB}x -> ¬({A}{a} & ¬{L}{a}) sent7: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent8: (Ex): ¬(¬{BB}x & ¬{GK}x) sent9: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{IR}{ja} & ¬{BJ}{ja}) sent10: (Ex): {A}x sent11: ¬({FM}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent12: ¬(¬{GB}{bs} & {CS}{bs}) sent13: (Ex): ¬({B}x & ¬{C}x) sent14: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{B}{a} & {C}{a}) sent15: (Ex): {DB}x sent16: (x): ¬{IU}x -> ¬({BB}{ao} & ¬{E}{ao}) sent17: (Ex): ¬(¬{B}x & {C}x) sent18: (Ex): ¬(¬{M}x & {DC}x) sent19: ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent20: (Ex): ¬{FG}x sent21: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬({B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent22: ¬(¬{HG}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) | [
"sent4 & sent7 -> int1: that the emission is not disrespectful and it is not a picture is incorrect.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent4 & sent7 -> int1: ¬(¬{B}{a} & ¬{C}{a}); int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null | [] | null | 2 | 2 | 20 | 0 | 20 | DISPROVED | null | DISPROVED | null | $hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that that it is both not disrespectful and not a picture is incorrect is false. ; $context$ = sent1: something is both not disrespectful and not a picture. sent2: that the emission does not sew and is a unevenness is not right if something is not antagonistic. sent3: the fact that the emission is not a ortolan but it is tropical does not hold if there exists something such that it does not recruit glume. sent4: something is not a kind of a ortolan. sent5: the fact that the emission is not disrespectful but it does picture does not hold. sent6: if there exists something such that the fact that it is not brisant is not incorrect then the fact that the emission is a ortolan and is not a kind of a odds-maker is incorrect. sent7: that the emission is both not disrespectful and not a picture is not true if there is something such that that it is not a kind of a ortolan is correct. sent8: there is something such that that it is not a kind of a tourist and is not a jet is incorrect. sent9: the fact that if there is something such that the fact that it is not a picture is correct then the fact that the smoke is not categoric and it does not dodge Rhinobatidae is incorrect is not false. sent10: something is a ortolan. sent11: that the emission is not unpropitious and is not a picture is not right. sent12: the fact that the scrubland is not a seigniorage but it is carposporic does not hold. sent13: there is something such that that it is disrespectful and it is not a kind of a picture is wrong. sent14: the fact that the emission is not disrespectful but it does picture is not true if there is something such that the fact that it is not a ortolan is true. sent15: there exists something such that it impoverishes. sent16: if something is not unpublishable that that the attar is a tourist and is not a Pullman is correct is wrong. sent17: there is something such that that it is non-disrespectful thing that is a picture is not right. sent18: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a subtonic and speaks Lascar is false. sent19: the fact that the emission is not respectful and not a picture is not true. sent20: there are non-ethnographic things. sent21: if there is something such that it is not a kind of a ortolan that the emission is disrespectful but it is not a picture is not correct. sent22: that the emission is not surficial and it is not a kind of a ortolan is not right. ; $proof$ = | sent4 & sent7 -> int1: that the emission is not disrespectful and it is not a picture is incorrect.; int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | there exists something such that if it is a subsumption the fact that it is a Kissimmee or not campylotropous or both is false. | (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x v ¬{AB}x) | sent1: there exists something such that if it is a subsumption then that it is a Kissimmee and/or it is campylotropous is not true. sent2: the fact that either the telpher is a Kissimmee or it is not campylotropous or both does not hold if it is a subsumption. | sent1: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x v {AB}x) sent2: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} v ¬{AB}{aa}) | [
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null | [] | null | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | PROVED | null | PROVED | null | $hypothesis$ = there exists something such that if it is a subsumption the fact that it is a Kissimmee or not campylotropous or both is false. ; $context$ = sent1: there exists something such that if it is a subsumption then that it is a Kissimmee and/or it is campylotropous is not true. sent2: the fact that either the telpher is a Kissimmee or it is not campylotropous or both does not hold if it is a subsumption. ; $proof$ = | sent2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the integrativeness happens. | {C} | sent1: the counterpointing happens. sent2: the pro does not occur. sent3: the formicness does not occur. sent4: the sulking happens. sent5: if the steadying occurs then the non-forcipateness or the integrativeness or both happens. sent6: the integrativeness does not occur if the counterpointing and the non-forcipateness happens. sent7: that both the steadying and the ictalness happens is triggered by that the recruiting flavorsomeness does not occur. sent8: the forcipateness does not occur. sent9: the reign does not occur. sent10: the fact that the counterpoint does not occur and the forcipateness does not occur does not hold if the steadiness happens. sent11: the hazing occurs but the reign does not occur. sent12: if the attaching happens then the recruiting flavorsomeness does not occur but the avirulentness happens. sent13: the swooping disquieting does not occur. sent14: that the counterpointing does not occur causes the vicennialness. | sent1: {A} sent2: ¬{FD} sent3: ¬{CE} sent4: {BN} sent5: {D} -> (¬{B} v {C}) sent6: ({A} & ¬{B}) -> ¬{C} sent7: ¬{F} -> ({D} & {E}) sent8: ¬{B} sent9: ¬{AQ} sent10: {D} -> ¬(¬{A} & ¬{B}) sent11: ({GI} & ¬{AQ}) sent12: {H} -> (¬{F} & {G}) sent13: ¬{EO} sent14: ¬{A} -> {DR} | [
"sent1 & sent8 -> int1: the counterpointing occurs but the forcipateness does not occur.; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent1 & sent8 -> int1: ({A} & ¬{B}); sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | the vicennialness occurs. | {DR} | [] | 7 | 2 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 11 | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the integrativeness happens. ; $context$ = sent1: the counterpointing happens. sent2: the pro does not occur. sent3: the formicness does not occur. sent4: the sulking happens. sent5: if the steadying occurs then the non-forcipateness or the integrativeness or both happens. sent6: the integrativeness does not occur if the counterpointing and the non-forcipateness happens. sent7: that both the steadying and the ictalness happens is triggered by that the recruiting flavorsomeness does not occur. sent8: the forcipateness does not occur. sent9: the reign does not occur. sent10: the fact that the counterpoint does not occur and the forcipateness does not occur does not hold if the steadiness happens. sent11: the hazing occurs but the reign does not occur. sent12: if the attaching happens then the recruiting flavorsomeness does not occur but the avirulentness happens. sent13: the swooping disquieting does not occur. sent14: that the counterpointing does not occur causes the vicennialness. ; $proof$ = | sent1 & sent8 -> int1: the counterpointing occurs but the forcipateness does not occur.; sent6 & int1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the fact that the longanberry is both not a toponym and not effortless is false. | ¬(¬{A}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) | sent1: the fact that the Delilah is not a kind of a grapefruit and it does not dodge soloist is not correct. sent2: if the grandee is not effortless that the longanberry is both not a toponym and effortless does not hold. sent3: if that the Delilah is not a grapefruit and does not dodge soloist does not hold then the grandee is not effortless. | sent1: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent2: ¬{B}{b} -> ¬(¬{A}{c} & ¬{B}{c}) sent3: ¬(¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} | [
"sent3 & sent1 -> int1: the grandee is not effortless.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent3 & sent1 -> int1: ¬{B}{b}; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null | [] | null | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | PROVED | null | PROVED | null | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the longanberry is both not a toponym and not effortless is false. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the Delilah is not a kind of a grapefruit and it does not dodge soloist is not correct. sent2: if the grandee is not effortless that the longanberry is both not a toponym and effortless does not hold. sent3: if that the Delilah is not a grapefruit and does not dodge soloist does not hold then the grandee is not effortless. ; $proof$ = | sent3 & sent1 -> int1: the grandee is not effortless.; sent2 & int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | there exists something such that that it recruits landlord and does recruit aneurysm is not correct. | (Ex): ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) | sent1: if that something does not optimize and it does not orb does not hold then it does not suffer. sent2: there is something such that that it does speak rabbitfish and it is digestive is not true. sent3: that the JDAM is a kind of a hyponym and it swoops sequence is not true. sent4: there is something such that it recruits landlord and does recruit aneurysm. sent5: the fact that the rhymer is a bathe that is cross-cultural is wrong if that it does not librate hold. sent6: the fact that something does not optimize and it does not orb is false if it is not cared-for. sent7: that the rhymer is both tribal and matutinal is not correct if it is not a kind of a radical. sent8: the rhymer does not orb. | sent1: (x): ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{DC}x sent2: (Ex): ¬({K}x & {R}x) sent3: ¬({CD}{cb} & {I}{cb}) sent4: (Ex): ({AA}x & {AB}x) sent5: ¬{EF}{aa} -> ¬({FJ}{aa} & {EH}{aa}) sent6: (x): ¬{C}x -> ¬(¬{B}x & ¬{A}x) sent7: ¬{EA}{aa} -> ¬({F}{aa} & {CU}{aa}) sent8: ¬{A}{aa} | [] | [] | the rhymer does not suffer. | ¬{DC}{aa} | [
"sent1 -> int1: the rhymer does not suffer if the fact that it does not optimize and does not orb is not correct.; sent6 -> int2: if the rhymer is not cared-for that it does not optimize and it does not orb is not right.;"
] | 4 | 3 | null | 7 | 0 | 7 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = there exists something such that that it recruits landlord and does recruit aneurysm is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if that something does not optimize and it does not orb does not hold then it does not suffer. sent2: there is something such that that it does speak rabbitfish and it is digestive is not true. sent3: that the JDAM is a kind of a hyponym and it swoops sequence is not true. sent4: there is something such that it recruits landlord and does recruit aneurysm. sent5: the fact that the rhymer is a bathe that is cross-cultural is wrong if that it does not librate hold. sent6: the fact that something does not optimize and it does not orb is false if it is not cared-for. sent7: that the rhymer is both tribal and matutinal is not correct if it is not a kind of a radical. sent8: the rhymer does not orb. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | the wire is Goethean. | {B}{b} | sent1: the wire is not an alabaster. sent2: the wire is not illegible if the hit is Goethean and is a kind of a Cam. sent3: the wire is not illegible. sent4: the hit is not a Cam and is Goethean. sent5: the hit is not a Cam but it is illegible. sent6: if the wire is non-illegible a Cam then the fact that the hit is Goethean is wrong. sent7: if the hit is not bipolar then the hearth is both not a lacuna and aware. sent8: something is Goethean if it is bipolar. sent9: if the hit is both not a Cam and illegible the wire is not Goethean. | sent1: ¬{FO}{b} sent2: ({B}{a} & {AA}{a}) -> ¬{AB}{b} sent3: ¬{AB}{b} sent4: (¬{AA}{a} & {B}{a}) sent5: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent6: (¬{AB}{b} & {AA}{b}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent7: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{ED}{bj} & {FQ}{bj}) sent8: (x): {A}x -> {B}x sent9: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} | [
"sent9 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent9 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | the hearth is not a lacuna but aware. | (¬{ED}{bj} & {FQ}{bj}) | [] | 6 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 0 | 7 | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the wire is Goethean. ; $context$ = sent1: the wire is not an alabaster. sent2: the wire is not illegible if the hit is Goethean and is a kind of a Cam. sent3: the wire is not illegible. sent4: the hit is not a Cam and is Goethean. sent5: the hit is not a Cam but it is illegible. sent6: if the wire is non-illegible a Cam then the fact that the hit is Goethean is wrong. sent7: if the hit is not bipolar then the hearth is both not a lacuna and aware. sent8: something is Goethean if it is bipolar. sent9: if the hit is both not a Cam and illegible the wire is not Goethean. ; $proof$ = | sent9 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the inessential is uncommunicative or it is a kind of a fairground or both. | ({D}{b} v {C}{b}) | sent1: the scaffold does dodge anachronism. sent2: the scaffold does dodge anachronism and is important. sent3: if the scaffold is important then the inessential is a fairground. sent4: the macrame recruits Chionanthus. sent5: if that something is a Betelgeuse and is possessive is false it is not possessive. sent6: if that something is not astringent but it is a Betelgeuse is wrong it is not a Betelgeuse. sent7: if that the dado is not possessive hold then it is uncommunicative thing that is a ruminant. sent8: if there is something such that the fact that it is a Betelgeuse and is not possessive is false the acarus is not important. sent9: the dado dodges anachronism and/or it is not a kind of a ruminant if there is something such that it is not important. sent10: that something is not a kind of an astringent but it is a kind of a Betelgeuse is wrong if it does not recruit Chionanthus. sent11: the macrame is non-mousy thing that is not bilabial if it is not a raft. sent12: the fact that the scaffold dodges anachronism hold if the inessential is important. sent13: if the macrame does recruit Chionanthus then the fact that it is a kind of a Betelgeuse and it is not possessive is incorrect. sent14: if the scaffold is important the inessential does dodge anachronism. sent15: if there exists something such that it is uncommunicative the scaffold is a fairground and/or it is important. sent16: the inessential does dodge anachronism if that the scaffold is a kind of a fairground is not false. sent17: the fact that the dado is a Betelgeuse and it is possessive is incorrect if something is not a kind of a Betelgeuse. sent18: the scaffold is a kind of a fairground and does dodge anachronism. sent19: if a non-mousy thing is not a bilabial the acarus does not recruit Chionanthus. sent20: the macrame is not undrinkable and it is not a kind of a raft. sent21: the inessential is important or is uncommunicative or both. | sent1: {A}{a} sent2: ({A}{a} & {B}{a}) sent3: {B}{a} -> {C}{b} sent4: {H}{e} sent5: (x): ¬({G}x & {F}x) -> ¬{F}x sent6: (x): ¬(¬{I}x & {G}x) -> ¬{G}x sent7: ¬{F}{c} -> ({D}{c} & {E}{c}) sent8: (x): ¬({G}x & ¬{F}x) -> ¬{B}{d} sent9: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({A}{c} v ¬{E}{c}) sent10: (x): ¬{H}x -> ¬(¬{I}x & {G}x) sent11: ¬{L}{e} -> (¬{K}{e} & ¬{J}{e}) sent12: {B}{b} -> {A}{a} sent13: {H}{e} -> ¬({G}{e} & ¬{F}{e}) sent14: {B}{a} -> {A}{b} sent15: (x): {D}x -> ({C}{a} v {B}{a}) sent16: {C}{a} -> {A}{b} sent17: (x): ¬{G}x -> ¬({G}{c} & {F}{c}) sent18: ({C}{a} & {A}{a}) sent19: (x): (¬{K}x & ¬{J}x) -> ¬{H}{d} sent20: (¬{M}{e} & ¬{L}{e}) sent21: ({B}{b} v {D}{b}) | [
"sent2 -> int1: the fact that the scaffold is important is not false.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: the inessential is a fairground.; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent2 -> int1: {B}{a}; sent3 & int1 -> int2: {C}{b}; int2 -> hypothesis;"
] | the inessential does dodge anachronism. | {A}{b} | [
"sent5 -> int3: if that the dado is a kind of a Betelgeuse that is possessive does not hold then it is possessive.; sent6 -> int4: the acarus is not a Betelgeuse if that it is not an astringent and is a Betelgeuse is not true.; sent10 -> int5: the fact that the acarus is not an astringent and is a Betelgeuse is wrong if it does not recruit Chionanthus.; sent20 -> int6: the macrame does not raft.; sent11 & int6 -> int7: the macrame is non-mousy thing that is not bilabial.; int7 -> int8: there is something such that it is a kind of non-mousy thing that is not a bilabial.; int8 & sent19 -> int9: the acarus does not recruit Chionanthus.; int5 & int9 -> int10: the fact that the acarus is nonastringent a Betelgeuse is not true.; int4 & int10 -> int11: the acarus is not a Betelgeuse.; int11 -> int12: there is something such that it is not a Betelgeuse.; int12 & sent17 -> int13: that the dado is both a Betelgeuse and possessive does not hold.; int3 & int13 -> int14: the fact that the dado is not possessive is right.; sent7 & int14 -> int15: the dado is uncommunicative and is a ruminant.; int15 -> int16: that the dado is uncommunicative hold.; int16 -> int17: there exists something such that it is uncommunicative.; int17 & sent15 -> int18: either the scaffold is a fairground or it is important or both.; int18 & sent16 & sent14 -> hypothesis;"
] | 14 | 3 | 3 | 19 | 0 | 19 | PROVED | PROVED | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = the inessential is uncommunicative or it is a kind of a fairground or both. ; $context$ = sent1: the scaffold does dodge anachronism. sent2: the scaffold does dodge anachronism and is important. sent3: if the scaffold is important then the inessential is a fairground. sent4: the macrame recruits Chionanthus. sent5: if that something is a Betelgeuse and is possessive is false it is not possessive. sent6: if that something is not astringent but it is a Betelgeuse is wrong it is not a Betelgeuse. sent7: if that the dado is not possessive hold then it is uncommunicative thing that is a ruminant. sent8: if there is something such that the fact that it is a Betelgeuse and is not possessive is false the acarus is not important. sent9: the dado dodges anachronism and/or it is not a kind of a ruminant if there is something such that it is not important. sent10: that something is not a kind of an astringent but it is a kind of a Betelgeuse is wrong if it does not recruit Chionanthus. sent11: the macrame is non-mousy thing that is not bilabial if it is not a raft. sent12: the fact that the scaffold dodges anachronism hold if the inessential is important. sent13: if the macrame does recruit Chionanthus then the fact that it is a kind of a Betelgeuse and it is not possessive is incorrect. sent14: if the scaffold is important the inessential does dodge anachronism. sent15: if there exists something such that it is uncommunicative the scaffold is a fairground and/or it is important. sent16: the inessential does dodge anachronism if that the scaffold is a kind of a fairground is not false. sent17: the fact that the dado is a Betelgeuse and it is possessive is incorrect if something is not a kind of a Betelgeuse. sent18: the scaffold is a kind of a fairground and does dodge anachronism. sent19: if a non-mousy thing is not a bilabial the acarus does not recruit Chionanthus. sent20: the macrame is not undrinkable and it is not a kind of a raft. sent21: the inessential is important or is uncommunicative or both. ; $proof$ = | sent2 -> int1: the fact that the scaffold is important is not false.; sent3 & int1 -> int2: the inessential is a fairground.; int2 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the asthenosphere handles. | {B}{a} | sent1: if the asthenosphere is a kind of a brim and/or it does not preclude then it is a kind of a handling. sent2: the asthenosphere is a handling if it does not preclude. sent3: the asthenosphere is a brim and/or it does not preclude. sent4: the asthenosphere brims and/or precludes. | sent1: ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{a} sent2: ¬{AB}{a} -> {B}{a} sent3: ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent4: ({AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) | [
"sent1 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent1 & sent3 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null | [] | null | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | PROVED | null | PROVED | null | $hypothesis$ = the asthenosphere handles. ; $context$ = sent1: if the asthenosphere is a kind of a brim and/or it does not preclude then it is a kind of a handling. sent2: the asthenosphere is a handling if it does not preclude. sent3: the asthenosphere is a brim and/or it does not preclude. sent4: the asthenosphere brims and/or precludes. ; $proof$ = | sent1 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the fact that the wobbler is not conspicuous but it swoops pastorale does not hold. | ¬(¬{B}{aa} & {A}{aa}) | sent1: that the sodium does not weaken is true. sent2: the fact that something is antiapartheid and it is a kind of a powdered is not correct if it is not aecial. sent3: if the puttyroot does not evaporate then the fact that the binder does overflow and it fronts is false. sent4: the pilgrim is not passionate. sent5: the harvest-lice does urinate but it is not photoelectric. sent6: the fact that everything is not aecial hold. sent7: a non-non-invertible thing that does recruit flavorsomeness is not expressible. sent8: the wobbler does swoop pastorale. sent9: the wobbler is not conspicuous if it is a kind of a axiology that is passionate. sent10: something does not evaporate if it is not a impairer. sent11: the puttyroot does dodge Empire and/or it is not a impairer if that the defendant romanticizes is right. sent12: if something is passionate but it is not a axiology it does not swoop pastorale. sent13: if that the lagan is antiapartheid and it does powder is not correct then it is not antiapartheid. sent14: the defendant romanticizes and is umbelliferous if that the cue is not a kind of a withe hold. sent15: the wobbler is not passionate. sent16: something is not conspicuous if it is a kind of a axiology and it is not passionate. sent17: if the bedpost does not swoop pastorale then it is non-grapelike thing that is a Navaho. sent18: if that the binder is a kind of an overflow and it is a kind of a front is not correct the wobbler is not a kind of a front. sent19: something is non-non-invertible thing that does recruit flavorsomeness if it is not antiapartheid. sent20: The pastorale does swoop wobbler. sent21: something does not evaporate if it dodges Empire. sent22: the wobbler is a kind of a axiology but it is not passionate. sent23: that the cue is not a kind of a withe is correct if something that is not grapelike is not expressible. sent24: if something does not weaken then the lagan is not grapelike. | sent1: ¬{P}{g} sent2: (x): ¬{R}x -> ¬({O}x & {Q}x) sent3: ¬{D}{b} -> ¬({E}{a} & {C}{a}) sent4: ¬{AB}{ej} sent5: ({FE}{fn} & ¬{CI}{fn}) sent6: (x): ¬{R}x sent7: (x): (¬{M}x & {N}x) -> ¬{L}x sent8: {A}{aa} sent9: ({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent10: (x): ¬{F}x -> ¬{D}x sent11: {H}{c} -> ({G}{b} v ¬{F}{b}) sent12: (x): ({AB}x & ¬{AA}x) -> ¬{A}x sent13: ¬({O}{e} & {Q}{e}) -> ¬{O}{e} sent14: ¬{J}{d} -> ({H}{c} & {I}{c}) sent15: ¬{AB}{aa} sent16: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent17: ¬{A}{ef} -> (¬{K}{ef} & {FJ}{ef}) sent18: ¬({E}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{C}{aa} sent19: (x): ¬{O}x -> (¬{M}x & {N}x) sent20: {AC}{ab} sent21: (x): {G}x -> ¬{D}x sent22: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent23: (x): (¬{K}x & ¬{L}x) -> ¬{J}{d} sent24: (x): ¬{P}x -> ¬{K}{e} | [
"sent16 -> int1: if the wobbler is both a axiology and not passionate then it is not conspicuous.; int1 & sent22 -> int2: the wobbler is not conspicuous.; int2 & sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent16 -> int1: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; int1 & sent22 -> int2: ¬{B}{aa}; int2 & sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] | the bedpost is not grapelike but it is a Navaho. | (¬{K}{ef} & {FJ}{ef}) | [] | 5 | 3 | 3 | 21 | 0 | 21 | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the wobbler is not conspicuous but it swoops pastorale does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that the sodium does not weaken is true. sent2: the fact that something is antiapartheid and it is a kind of a powdered is not correct if it is not aecial. sent3: if the puttyroot does not evaporate then the fact that the binder does overflow and it fronts is false. sent4: the pilgrim is not passionate. sent5: the harvest-lice does urinate but it is not photoelectric. sent6: the fact that everything is not aecial hold. sent7: a non-non-invertible thing that does recruit flavorsomeness is not expressible. sent8: the wobbler does swoop pastorale. sent9: the wobbler is not conspicuous if it is a kind of a axiology that is passionate. sent10: something does not evaporate if it is not a impairer. sent11: the puttyroot does dodge Empire and/or it is not a impairer if that the defendant romanticizes is right. sent12: if something is passionate but it is not a axiology it does not swoop pastorale. sent13: if that the lagan is antiapartheid and it does powder is not correct then it is not antiapartheid. sent14: the defendant romanticizes and is umbelliferous if that the cue is not a kind of a withe hold. sent15: the wobbler is not passionate. sent16: something is not conspicuous if it is a kind of a axiology and it is not passionate. sent17: if the bedpost does not swoop pastorale then it is non-grapelike thing that is a Navaho. sent18: if that the binder is a kind of an overflow and it is a kind of a front is not correct the wobbler is not a kind of a front. sent19: something is non-non-invertible thing that does recruit flavorsomeness if it is not antiapartheid. sent20: The pastorale does swoop wobbler. sent21: something does not evaporate if it dodges Empire. sent22: the wobbler is a kind of a axiology but it is not passionate. sent23: that the cue is not a kind of a withe is correct if something that is not grapelike is not expressible. sent24: if something does not weaken then the lagan is not grapelike. ; $proof$ = | sent16 -> int1: if the wobbler is both a axiology and not passionate then it is not conspicuous.; int1 & sent22 -> int2: the wobbler is not conspicuous.; int2 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the fact that there is something such that if it is a Kingstown the fact that it is a kind of non-Nigerian thing that is democratic is false is right. | (Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) | sent1: if the celom is argumentative then the fact that it swoops leatherette and does swoop waterfowl does not hold. sent2: there is something such that if it is a Kingstown the fact that it is Nigerian and is democratic is false. sent3: the fact that something is not a transpiration but it is a Tokyo does not hold if it is spatiotemporal. sent4: that the leatherette is non-Nigerian but it is democratic is wrong if it is a Kingstown. sent5: that the fact that the leatherette is a Nigerian and is democratic is false is not wrong if it is a Kingstown. sent6: there exists something such that if the fact that it dodges meanness is true then the fact that it does swoop celom and is wholesome is not true. | sent1: {FU}{fu} -> ¬({EU}{fu} & {GG}{fu}) sent2: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬({AA}x & {AB}x) sent3: (x): {BD}x -> ¬(¬{AN}x & {BJ}x) sent4: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent5: {A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent6: (Ex): {EE}x -> ¬({AR}x & {GC}x) | [
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent4 -> hypothesis;"
] | there exists something such that if it is spatiotemporal then the fact that it is not a transpiration and is a kind of a Tokyo is not correct. | (Ex): {BD}x -> ¬(¬{AN}x & {BJ}x) | [
"sent3 -> int1: if the waterfowl is spatiotemporal then that it is not a transpiration and it is a Tokyo is incorrect.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 5 | PROVED | PROVED | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = the fact that there is something such that if it is a Kingstown the fact that it is a kind of non-Nigerian thing that is democratic is false is right. ; $context$ = sent1: if the celom is argumentative then the fact that it swoops leatherette and does swoop waterfowl does not hold. sent2: there is something such that if it is a Kingstown the fact that it is Nigerian and is democratic is false. sent3: the fact that something is not a transpiration but it is a Tokyo does not hold if it is spatiotemporal. sent4: that the leatherette is non-Nigerian but it is democratic is wrong if it is a Kingstown. sent5: that the fact that the leatherette is a Nigerian and is democratic is false is not wrong if it is a Kingstown. sent6: there exists something such that if the fact that it dodges meanness is true then the fact that it does swoop celom and is wholesome is not true. ; $proof$ = | sent4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the foreground does not speak iodination. | ¬{B}{b} | sent1: the mallow is not a Purcell. sent2: if the mallow is a Purcell or not a bioweapon or both the foreground does not dodge Donatism. sent3: the foreground does not speak mallow if it is not unconscientious. sent4: if the foreground does not dodge Donatism that it speaks iodination and/or is not a Purcell is not false. sent5: if something is a Aeolian then it is a Purcell. sent6: if that the foreground does recruit mischief is right then the mallow is Aeolian. sent7: something does recruit mischief and is not non-Aeolian if the fact that it does not speak mallow is not wrong. sent8: the mallow is a bioweapon or it does not dodge Donatism or both if it is not a Purcell. sent9: something speaks iodination if it is a Purcell. sent10: the foreground does not speak iodination if the mallow is a bioweapon or it does not dodge Donatism or both. sent11: if the mallow is not a Purcell then it is a bioweapon or dodges Donatism or both. sent12: the foreground does not speak iodination if the mallow does not dodge Donatism. sent13: that the iodination is non-Aeolian thing that does not recruit mischief is not right. sent14: the mallow is a bioweapon and/or it does dodge Donatism. | sent1: ¬{A}{a} sent2: ({A}{a} v ¬{AA}{a}) -> ¬{AB}{b} sent3: ¬{F}{b} -> ¬{E}{b} sent4: ¬{AB}{b} -> ({B}{b} v ¬{A}{b}) sent5: (x): {C}x -> {A}x sent6: {D}{b} -> {C}{a} sent7: (x): ¬{E}x -> ({D}x & {C}x) sent8: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) sent9: (x): {A}x -> {B}x sent10: ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{b} sent11: ¬{A}{a} -> ({AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) sent12: ¬{AB}{a} -> ¬{B}{b} sent13: ¬(¬{C}{d} & ¬{D}{d}) sent14: ({AA}{a} v {AB}{a}) | [
"sent8 & sent1 -> int1: the mallow is a bioweapon or it does not dodge Donatism or both.; int1 & sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent8 & sent1 -> int1: ({AA}{a} v ¬{AB}{a}); int1 & sent10 -> hypothesis;"
] | the foreground speaks iodination. | {B}{b} | [
"sent9 -> int2: the foreground speaks iodination if it is a kind of a Purcell.; sent5 -> int3: if the foreground is a Aeolian it is a kind of a Purcell.; sent7 -> int4: if the foreground does not speak mallow then it recruits mischief and it is a Aeolian.;"
] | 6 | 2 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 11 | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the foreground does not speak iodination. ; $context$ = sent1: the mallow is not a Purcell. sent2: if the mallow is a Purcell or not a bioweapon or both the foreground does not dodge Donatism. sent3: the foreground does not speak mallow if it is not unconscientious. sent4: if the foreground does not dodge Donatism that it speaks iodination and/or is not a Purcell is not false. sent5: if something is a Aeolian then it is a Purcell. sent6: if that the foreground does recruit mischief is right then the mallow is Aeolian. sent7: something does recruit mischief and is not non-Aeolian if the fact that it does not speak mallow is not wrong. sent8: the mallow is a bioweapon or it does not dodge Donatism or both if it is not a Purcell. sent9: something speaks iodination if it is a Purcell. sent10: the foreground does not speak iodination if the mallow is a bioweapon or it does not dodge Donatism or both. sent11: if the mallow is not a Purcell then it is a bioweapon or dodges Donatism or both. sent12: the foreground does not speak iodination if the mallow does not dodge Donatism. sent13: that the iodination is non-Aeolian thing that does not recruit mischief is not right. sent14: the mallow is a bioweapon and/or it does dodge Donatism. ; $proof$ = | sent8 & sent1 -> int1: the mallow is a bioweapon or it does not dodge Donatism or both.; int1 & sent10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the operations does not occur. | ¬{A} | sent1: if the diplomaticness does not occur the fact that the sequel does not occur and the queuing does not occur does not hold. sent2: the operations and the queue happens. sent3: the queuing happens. | sent1: ¬{D} -> ¬(¬{C} & ¬{B}) sent2: ({A} & {B}) sent3: {B} | [
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent2 -> hypothesis;"
] | the operations does not occur. | ¬{A} | [] | 6 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the operations does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: if the diplomaticness does not occur the fact that the sequel does not occur and the queuing does not occur does not hold. sent2: the operations and the queue happens. sent3: the queuing happens. ; $proof$ = | sent2 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | that the diesel-hydraulic is not non-existential but a Zweig is wrong. | ¬({C}{a} & {D}{a}) | sent1: that something is existential hold if that it does not attach is not incorrect. sent2: the diesel-hydraulic is not a kind of a zone. sent3: something that does not recruit Westminster is existential. sent4: something is a misogynist. sent5: the diesel-hydraulic is not fractional. sent6: the diesel-hydraulic does not attach if there is something such that it is a misogynist. sent7: the mesohippus is a fineness if it is not cellulosid. sent8: the diesel-hydraulic is a kind of a Zweig and it recruits Westminster. sent9: there is something such that it is a Zweig. sent10: if something is a Zweig then the diesel-hydraulic does not recruit Sparidae. | sent1: (x): ¬{B}x -> {C}x sent2: ¬{F}{a} sent3: (x): ¬{E}x -> {C}x sent4: (Ex): {A}x sent5: ¬{FS}{a} sent6: (x): {A}x -> ¬{B}{a} sent7: ¬{HC}{dg} -> {JA}{dg} sent8: ({D}{a} & {E}{a}) sent9: (Ex): {D}x sent10: (x): {D}x -> ¬{HA}{a} | [
"sent4 & sent6 -> int1: the diesel-hydraulic does not attach.; sent1 -> int2: if the diesel-hydraulic does not attach then it is existential.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the diesel-hydraulic is existential.; sent8 -> int4: the diesel-hydraulic is a Zweig.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent4 & sent6 -> int1: ¬{B}{a}; sent1 -> int2: ¬{B}{a} -> {C}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: {C}{a}; sent8 -> int4: {D}{a}; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null | [] | null | 3 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 6 | DISPROVED | null | DISPROVED | null | $hypothesis$ = that the diesel-hydraulic is not non-existential but a Zweig is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is existential hold if that it does not attach is not incorrect. sent2: the diesel-hydraulic is not a kind of a zone. sent3: something that does not recruit Westminster is existential. sent4: something is a misogynist. sent5: the diesel-hydraulic is not fractional. sent6: the diesel-hydraulic does not attach if there is something such that it is a misogynist. sent7: the mesohippus is a fineness if it is not cellulosid. sent8: the diesel-hydraulic is a kind of a Zweig and it recruits Westminster. sent9: there is something such that it is a Zweig. sent10: if something is a Zweig then the diesel-hydraulic does not recruit Sparidae. ; $proof$ = | sent4 & sent6 -> int1: the diesel-hydraulic does not attach.; sent1 -> int2: if the diesel-hydraulic does not attach then it is existential.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the diesel-hydraulic is existential.; sent8 -> int4: the diesel-hydraulic is a Zweig.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | if the strip is not lesser then the fact that the Uniat is a kind of absolutist thing that is not a synonymy is wrong. | ¬{A}{a} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) | [
"void -> assump2: Let's assume that the Uniat is a kind of absolutist thing that is not a kind of a synonymy.; assump2 -> int1: something is an absolutist but it is not a kind of a synonymy.;"
] | [
"void -> assump2: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); assump2 -> int1: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x);"
] | null | null | [] | null | 4 | null | 0 | 0 | 0 | UNKNOWN | null | UNKNOWN | null | $hypothesis$ = if the strip is not lesser then the fact that the Uniat is a kind of absolutist thing that is not a synonymy is wrong. ; $context$ = ; $proof$ = | void -> assump2: Let's assume that the Uniat is a kind of absolutist thing that is not a kind of a synonymy.; assump2 -> int1: something is an absolutist but it is not a kind of a synonymy.; __UNKNOWN__ |
||
DeductionInstance | that the fact that the active occurs and/or the dodging batman does not occur hold is not correct. | ¬({AA} v ¬{AB}) | sent1: the activeness occurs or the dodging batman does not occur or both. sent2: the Ceyloneseness or the fitter or both occurs. sent3: the spiral happens and/or the swooping A-line does not occur. sent4: the swooping expressionism happens or the hatting does not occur or both. sent5: either the recruiting hopper happens or the mushroom happens or both. sent6: the tutorial occurs or the senior does not occur or both. | sent1: ({AA} v ¬{AB}) sent2: ({CF} v {JC}) sent3: ({GO} v ¬{CI}) sent4: ({DC} v ¬{CO}) sent5: ({EU} v {GA}) sent6: ({ED} v ¬{GI}) | [
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | null | null | [] | null | 1 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 5 | DISPROVED | null | DISPROVED | null | $hypothesis$ = that the fact that the active occurs and/or the dodging batman does not occur hold is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: the activeness occurs or the dodging batman does not occur or both. sent2: the Ceyloneseness or the fitter or both occurs. sent3: the spiral happens and/or the swooping A-line does not occur. sent4: the swooping expressionism happens or the hatting does not occur or both. sent5: either the recruiting hopper happens or the mushroom happens or both. sent6: the tutorial occurs or the senior does not occur or both. ; $proof$ = | sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the fact that the plonk is a teammate that is bismuthic does not hold. | ¬({C}{a} & {B}{a}) | sent1: if there is something such that the fact that it is non-anthropometric thing that does not recruit waterproofing is incorrect then the conformist is neuromuscular. sent2: if there is something such that the fact that it is either non-minimal or not non-bismuthic or both is not correct the answer is not a teammate. sent3: something is intramolecular. sent4: if that the plonk does not swoop horsebean is right then it is a teammate. sent5: something is either not a Charleroi or a andrena or both. sent6: that the answer is not minimal or it is a tyrannosaur or both is not correct. sent7: the necker is neoplastic and it is fertile if the fact that the papovavirus is not a kind of a visiting is not incorrect. sent8: the fact that the answer is not a kind of a tyrannosaur is right. sent9: something is not a grit. sent10: the papovavirus does not visit. sent11: the answer does not swoop horsebean. sent12: the fact that something swoops horsebean is true if it is neuromuscular. sent13: if something is neoplastic then the fact that it is not anthropometric and it does not recruit waterproofing is not right. sent14: there exists something such that it is impure. sent15: there is something such that that it is minimal and/or it is a tyrannosaur does not hold. sent16: the plonk does not swoop horsebean if there exists something such that that it is not minimal and/or it is a tyrannosaur is not correct. sent17: if that something does not swoop horsebean hold then it is a teammate and it is bismuthic. sent18: there is something such that it is not a tyrannosaur. sent19: that the plonk is not a teammate or does swoop Jew or both is false. | sent1: (x): ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{F}x) -> {D}{b} sent2: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x v {B}x) -> ¬{C}{aa} sent3: (Ex): {EF}x sent4: ¬{A}{a} -> {C}{a} sent5: (Ex): (¬{CE}x v {AF}x) sent6: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent7: ¬{I}{d} -> ({G}{c} & {H}{c}) sent8: ¬{AB}{aa} sent9: (Ex): ¬{CH}x sent10: ¬{I}{d} sent11: ¬{A}{aa} sent12: (x): {D}x -> {A}x sent13: (x): {G}x -> ¬(¬{E}x & ¬{F}x) sent14: (Ex): {FQ}x sent15: (Ex): ¬({AA}x v {AB}x) sent16: (x): ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x) -> ¬{A}{a} sent17: (x): ¬{A}x -> ({C}x & {B}x) sent18: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent19: ¬(¬{C}{a} v {FT}{a}) | [
"sent6 -> int1: there exists something such that that it is not minimal or a tyrannosaur or both does not hold.; int1 & sent16 -> int2: the plonk does not swoop horsebean.; sent17 -> int3: if the plonk does not swoop horsebean then it is a teammate and it is bismuthic.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent6 -> int1: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x); int1 & sent16 -> int2: ¬{A}{a}; sent17 -> int3: ¬{A}{a} -> ({C}{a} & {B}{a}); int2 & int3 -> hypothesis;"
] | the fact that the plonk is both a teammate and not non-bismuthic is not true. | ¬({C}{a} & {B}{a}) | [
"sent12 -> int4: that the conformist swoops horsebean is correct if it is neuromuscular.; sent13 -> int5: if the necker is not non-neoplastic the fact that it is non-anthropometric thing that does not recruit waterproofing is not true.; sent7 & sent10 -> int6: the necker is neoplastic and it is fertile.; int6 -> int7: the necker is neoplastic.; int5 & int7 -> int8: that the necker is non-anthropometric and it does not recruit waterproofing does not hold.; int8 -> int9: there exists something such that that it is non-anthropometric thing that does not recruit waterproofing is not right.; int9 & sent1 -> int10: the conformist is neuromuscular.; int4 & int10 -> int11: the conformist does swoop horsebean.; int11 -> int12: something swoops horsebean.;"
] | 8 | 3 | 3 | 16 | 0 | 16 | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the plonk is a teammate that is bismuthic does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: if there is something such that the fact that it is non-anthropometric thing that does not recruit waterproofing is incorrect then the conformist is neuromuscular. sent2: if there is something such that the fact that it is either non-minimal or not non-bismuthic or both is not correct the answer is not a teammate. sent3: something is intramolecular. sent4: if that the plonk does not swoop horsebean is right then it is a teammate. sent5: something is either not a Charleroi or a andrena or both. sent6: that the answer is not minimal or it is a tyrannosaur or both is not correct. sent7: the necker is neoplastic and it is fertile if the fact that the papovavirus is not a kind of a visiting is not incorrect. sent8: the fact that the answer is not a kind of a tyrannosaur is right. sent9: something is not a grit. sent10: the papovavirus does not visit. sent11: the answer does not swoop horsebean. sent12: the fact that something swoops horsebean is true if it is neuromuscular. sent13: if something is neoplastic then the fact that it is not anthropometric and it does not recruit waterproofing is not right. sent14: there exists something such that it is impure. sent15: there is something such that that it is minimal and/or it is a tyrannosaur does not hold. sent16: the plonk does not swoop horsebean if there exists something such that that it is not minimal and/or it is a tyrannosaur is not correct. sent17: if that something does not swoop horsebean hold then it is a teammate and it is bismuthic. sent18: there is something such that it is not a tyrannosaur. sent19: that the plonk is not a teammate or does swoop Jew or both is false. ; $proof$ = | sent6 -> int1: there exists something such that that it is not minimal or a tyrannosaur or both does not hold.; int1 & sent16 -> int2: the plonk does not swoop horsebean.; sent17 -> int3: if the plonk does not swoop horsebean then it is a teammate and it is bismuthic.; int2 & int3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the Palatinate is iconic. | {B}{a} | sent1: the Palatinate does not upload if that that the Capricorn does upload and it is algal is not right is correct. sent2: the Palatinate is nondeductible. sent3: something is not a kind of a consulate and is not iconic if it is expressible. sent4: the Palatinate is not iconic if the Alka-seltzer scavenges. sent5: the Palatinate is not iconic if the fact that the Alka-seltzer does not scavenge and it is not nondeductible does not hold. sent6: the fact that something does upload but it is not nondeductible is not correct if it is not iconic. sent7: the Alka-seltzer is algal and does not upload. sent8: that something does not scavenge and it is not nondeductible is wrong if it does not upload. sent9: if the abscission is not iconic that the fact that the Capricorn does upload and is algal is not true is not false. | sent1: ¬({A}{b} & {C}{b}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent2: {AB}{a} sent3: (x): {E}x -> (¬{D}x & ¬{B}x) sent4: {AA}{aa} -> ¬{B}{a} sent5: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{a} sent6: (x): ¬{B}x -> ¬({A}x & ¬{AB}x) sent7: ({C}{aa} & ¬{A}{aa}) sent8: (x): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent9: ¬{B}{c} -> ¬({A}{b} & {C}{b}) | [
"sent8 -> int1: the fact that the fact that the Alka-seltzer does not scavenge and is not nondeductible is wrong if the Alka-seltzer does not upload hold.; sent7 -> int2: the Alka-seltzer does not upload.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the Alka-seltzer does not scavenge and it is not nondeductible is not right.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent8 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); sent7 -> int2: ¬{A}{aa}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis;"
] | the Palatinate does not upload. | ¬{A}{a} | [
"sent3 -> int4: if the abscission is expressible then it is both not a consulate and not iconic.;"
] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 6 | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | DISPROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the Palatinate is iconic. ; $context$ = sent1: the Palatinate does not upload if that that the Capricorn does upload and it is algal is not right is correct. sent2: the Palatinate is nondeductible. sent3: something is not a kind of a consulate and is not iconic if it is expressible. sent4: the Palatinate is not iconic if the Alka-seltzer scavenges. sent5: the Palatinate is not iconic if the fact that the Alka-seltzer does not scavenge and it is not nondeductible does not hold. sent6: the fact that something does upload but it is not nondeductible is not correct if it is not iconic. sent7: the Alka-seltzer is algal and does not upload. sent8: that something does not scavenge and it is not nondeductible is wrong if it does not upload. sent9: if the abscission is not iconic that the fact that the Capricorn does upload and is algal is not true is not false. ; $proof$ = | sent8 -> int1: the fact that the fact that the Alka-seltzer does not scavenge and is not nondeductible is wrong if the Alka-seltzer does not upload hold.; sent7 -> int2: the Alka-seltzer does not upload.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the Alka-seltzer does not scavenge and it is not nondeductible is not right.; int3 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | there is something such that if it is not afloat and it is not amoebic it is not parabolic. | (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x | sent1: there is something such that if it does not recruit behaviorism and it does not recruit Llullaillaco it is not a clearway. sent2: the terbium does not dodge filigree if that it is non-afloat thing that is not a Morrison is not incorrect. sent3: if the terbium is afloat but it is not amoebic it is not parabolic. sent4: something is not parabolic if it is not afloat and is amoebic. sent5: if something that is not a asexuality is not disloyal it is not euphemistic. sent6: something is not non-parabolic if it is not afloat and not amoebic. sent7: something is not parabolic if it is non-afloat and is not amoebic. sent8: if the terbium is not afloat and is amoebic then it is not parabolic. sent9: the terbium is not a kinesiology if it is not parabolic and not bibliopolic. sent10: the terbium is parabolic if it is both not afloat and not amoebic. sent11: there is something such that if it is afloat and it is not amoebic it is not parabolic. sent12: if something that is not amoebic is not crustal it is not a hajj. sent13: there exists something such that if it is non-afloat thing that is amoebic it is not parabolic. sent14: there exists something such that if it is not afloat and it is not amoebic it is parabolic. sent15: if something is afloat and not amoebic then it is not parabolic. | sent1: (Ex): (¬{IS}x & ¬{GP}x) -> ¬{FM}x sent2: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{D}{aa}) -> ¬{IH}{aa} sent3: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent4: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent5: (x): (¬{GM}x & ¬{IM}x) -> ¬{M}x sent6: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent7: (x): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent8: (¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa} sent9: (¬{B}{aa} & ¬{EQ}{aa}) -> ¬{A}{aa} sent10: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> {B}{aa} sent11: (Ex): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent12: (x): (¬{AB}x & ¬{ID}x) -> ¬{DU}x sent13: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent14: (Ex): (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> {B}x sent15: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x | [
"sent7 -> int1: the terbium is not parabolic if it is non-afloat thing that is not amoebic.; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent7 -> int1: (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; int1 -> hypothesis;"
] | the flipper is not a hajj if it is not amoebic and it is not crustal. | (¬{AB}{gh} & ¬{ID}{gh}) -> ¬{DU}{gh} | [
"sent12 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 2 | 2 | 14 | 0 | 14 | PROVED | PROVED | PROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = there is something such that if it is not afloat and it is not amoebic it is not parabolic. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that if it does not recruit behaviorism and it does not recruit Llullaillaco it is not a clearway. sent2: the terbium does not dodge filigree if that it is non-afloat thing that is not a Morrison is not incorrect. sent3: if the terbium is afloat but it is not amoebic it is not parabolic. sent4: something is not parabolic if it is not afloat and is amoebic. sent5: if something that is not a asexuality is not disloyal it is not euphemistic. sent6: something is not non-parabolic if it is not afloat and not amoebic. sent7: something is not parabolic if it is non-afloat and is not amoebic. sent8: if the terbium is not afloat and is amoebic then it is not parabolic. sent9: the terbium is not a kinesiology if it is not parabolic and not bibliopolic. sent10: the terbium is parabolic if it is both not afloat and not amoebic. sent11: there is something such that if it is afloat and it is not amoebic it is not parabolic. sent12: if something that is not amoebic is not crustal it is not a hajj. sent13: there exists something such that if it is non-afloat thing that is amoebic it is not parabolic. sent14: there exists something such that if it is not afloat and it is not amoebic it is parabolic. sent15: if something is afloat and not amoebic then it is not parabolic. ; $proof$ = | sent7 -> int1: the terbium is not parabolic if it is non-afloat thing that is not amoebic.; int1 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the recruiting crossbench and/or the walk happens. | ({C} v {D}) | sent1: both the speaking crossbench and the reproduction occurs. sent2: that the recruiting crossbench and/or the walking happens does not hold if the scraping does not occur. sent3: if the aceticness occurs that either the pavage does not occur or the robbing happens or both is incorrect. sent4: that if the hiatus does not occur not the swooping abiotrophy but the unbrokenness happens is not incorrect. sent5: the reverberantness does not occur. sent6: the recruiting rydberg is prevented by that the recruiting haymow occurs and the Levantineness happens. sent7: the intolerantness occurs and the aceticness does not occur. sent8: the atrocity does not occur and the perforation does not occur if the embolism does not occur. sent9: the cyclicness happens if the fact that the non-cyclicness and the recruiting crossbench happens is false. sent10: if the aceticness does not occur then that both the non-cyclicness and the recruiting crossbench happens is wrong. sent11: that the embolism happens is prevented by that the swooping abiotrophy does not occur and the electiveness does not occur. sent12: both the aceticness and the intolerantness happens if the recruiting rydberg does not occur. sent13: the resurrection and the patriarchalness happens. sent14: that both the recruiting haymow and the bastardization occurs is triggered by the unreverberantness. sent15: if the fact that the robbing happens is not incorrect then the recruiting crossbench occurs. sent16: the scraping happens. sent17: both the amnestying and the Levantineness happens if the atrocity does not occur. sent18: the hiatus does not occur. sent19: if the fact that the pavage does not occur or the robbing happens or both does not hold the scraping does not occur. | sent1: ({AS} & {IR}) sent2: ¬{A} -> ¬({C} v {D}) sent3: {F} -> ¬(¬{E} v {B}) sent4: ¬{T} -> (¬{Q} & {S}) sent5: ¬{P} sent6: ({J} & {I}) -> ¬{H} sent7: ({G} & ¬{F}) sent8: ¬{N} -> (¬{L} & ¬{M}) sent9: ¬(¬{DR} & {C}) -> {DR} sent10: ¬{F} -> ¬(¬{DR} & {C}) sent11: (¬{Q} & ¬{R}) -> ¬{N} sent12: ¬{H} -> ({F} & {G}) sent13: ({AK} & {BL}) sent14: ¬{P} -> ({J} & {O}) sent15: {B} -> {C} sent16: {A} sent17: ¬{L} -> ({K} & {I}) sent18: ¬{T} sent19: ¬(¬{E} v {B}) -> ¬{A} | [] | [] | the cyclicness occurs and the diffusion occurs. | ({DR} & {ER}) | [
"sent7 -> int1: the aceticness does not occur.; sent10 & int1 -> int2: that the noncyclicness and the recruiting crossbench happens is not right.; sent9 & int2 -> int3: the cyclicness occurs.;"
] | 5 | 3 | null | 18 | 0 | 18 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the recruiting crossbench and/or the walk happens. ; $context$ = sent1: both the speaking crossbench and the reproduction occurs. sent2: that the recruiting crossbench and/or the walking happens does not hold if the scraping does not occur. sent3: if the aceticness occurs that either the pavage does not occur or the robbing happens or both is incorrect. sent4: that if the hiatus does not occur not the swooping abiotrophy but the unbrokenness happens is not incorrect. sent5: the reverberantness does not occur. sent6: the recruiting rydberg is prevented by that the recruiting haymow occurs and the Levantineness happens. sent7: the intolerantness occurs and the aceticness does not occur. sent8: the atrocity does not occur and the perforation does not occur if the embolism does not occur. sent9: the cyclicness happens if the fact that the non-cyclicness and the recruiting crossbench happens is false. sent10: if the aceticness does not occur then that both the non-cyclicness and the recruiting crossbench happens is wrong. sent11: that the embolism happens is prevented by that the swooping abiotrophy does not occur and the electiveness does not occur. sent12: both the aceticness and the intolerantness happens if the recruiting rydberg does not occur. sent13: the resurrection and the patriarchalness happens. sent14: that both the recruiting haymow and the bastardization occurs is triggered by the unreverberantness. sent15: if the fact that the robbing happens is not incorrect then the recruiting crossbench occurs. sent16: the scraping happens. sent17: both the amnestying and the Levantineness happens if the atrocity does not occur. sent18: the hiatus does not occur. sent19: if the fact that the pavage does not occur or the robbing happens or both does not hold the scraping does not occur. ; $proof$ = | __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | the fact that the skyline is not an intifada and does not recruit mercantilism is wrong. | ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) | sent1: if the skyline does not recruit usufructuary it is not a kind of a Ecballium. sent2: if something devotes it recruits Stuttgart and/or does not recruit usufructuary. sent3: if the jawan recruits Stuttgart the missal does recruit usufructuary. sent4: the snow-in-summer does not dodge Key and/or it does not stipulate. sent5: the fact that the skyline does not recruit Bruchidae is correct if it does not swoop duce. sent6: the engorgement is not a Bigfoot if the genealogist is not fallible and is not a subscriber. sent7: if something is a Crockett then the missal glimpses and it is zoic. sent8: the snow-in-summer does not stipulate if it does not dodge Key or it does not stipulate or both. sent9: something does devote and is a hang if it is not pyrogallic. sent10: if the fact that the Bermudan swoops Jute is true then the fact that the genealogist does swoop seniti is right. sent11: that something is not fallible and is not a kind of a subscriber is true if it does swoop seniti. sent12: the fact that the skyline does swoop dosimetry and does not recruit usufructuary is not true. sent13: if the snow-in-summer does not stipulate then the Bermudan does swoop Jute and is a Assumption. sent14: if the slating is not a Ecballium the skyline is not an intifada and does not recruit mercantilism. sent15: that the skyline does not recruit usufructuary is not false. sent16: the fact that that the rootstock does sled but it does not recruit mercantilism is not false is not true if it does not bate. sent17: if the jawan does not recruit usufructuary then the fact that the missal recruit usufructuary is correct. sent18: the fact that the glomerulus is not a Ecballium and does not recruit recall is not right if that it is not a lithomancy is not incorrect. sent19: That the usufructuary does not recruit skyline is not false. sent20: something is a kind of a Crockett that recruits traveled if it is not a kind of a Bigfoot. sent21: the fact that the skullcap is antithyroid but it is not a clomipramine is wrong if it is not hermeneutics. sent22: everything is non-pyrogallic. sent23: the slating is a Ecballium if the missal is not a glimpse and it is not a Ecballium. | sent1: ¬{B}{aa} -> ¬{A}{aa} sent2: (x): {E}x -> ({D}x v ¬{B}x) sent3: {D}{c} -> {B}{b} sent4: (¬{S}{h} v ¬{Q}{h}) sent5: ¬{AL}{aa} -> ¬{GH}{aa} sent6: (¬{K}{f} & ¬{L}{f}) -> ¬{J}{d} sent7: (x): {G}x -> ({C}{b} & {F}{b}) sent8: (¬{S}{h} v ¬{Q}{h}) -> ¬{Q}{h} sent9: (x): ¬{N}x -> ({E}x & {H}x) sent10: {O}{g} -> {M}{f} sent11: (x): {M}x -> (¬{K}x & ¬{L}x) sent12: ¬({HE}{aa} & ¬{B}{aa}) sent13: ¬{Q}{h} -> ({O}{g} & {P}{g}) sent14: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent15: ¬{B}{aa} sent16: ¬{CR}{ce} -> ¬({IS}{ce} & ¬{AB}{ce}) sent17: ¬{B}{c} -> {B}{b} sent18: ¬{R}{bq} -> ¬(¬{A}{bq} & ¬{AN}{bq}) sent19: ¬{AC}{ab} sent20: (x): ¬{J}x -> ({G}x & {I}x) sent21: ¬{JC}{fm} -> ¬({FP}{fm} & ¬{HJ}{fm}) sent22: (x): ¬{N}x sent23: (¬{C}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) -> {A}{a} | [
"sent1 & sent15 -> int1: the skyline is not a Ecballium.;"
] | [
"sent1 & sent15 -> int1: ¬{A}{aa};"
] | the skyline is not an intifada and it does not recruit mercantilism. | (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) | [] | 5 | 2 | null | 21 | 0 | 21 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the fact that the skyline is not an intifada and does not recruit mercantilism is wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the skyline does not recruit usufructuary it is not a kind of a Ecballium. sent2: if something devotes it recruits Stuttgart and/or does not recruit usufructuary. sent3: if the jawan recruits Stuttgart the missal does recruit usufructuary. sent4: the snow-in-summer does not dodge Key and/or it does not stipulate. sent5: the fact that the skyline does not recruit Bruchidae is correct if it does not swoop duce. sent6: the engorgement is not a Bigfoot if the genealogist is not fallible and is not a subscriber. sent7: if something is a Crockett then the missal glimpses and it is zoic. sent8: the snow-in-summer does not stipulate if it does not dodge Key or it does not stipulate or both. sent9: something does devote and is a hang if it is not pyrogallic. sent10: if the fact that the Bermudan swoops Jute is true then the fact that the genealogist does swoop seniti is right. sent11: that something is not fallible and is not a kind of a subscriber is true if it does swoop seniti. sent12: the fact that the skyline does swoop dosimetry and does not recruit usufructuary is not true. sent13: if the snow-in-summer does not stipulate then the Bermudan does swoop Jute and is a Assumption. sent14: if the slating is not a Ecballium the skyline is not an intifada and does not recruit mercantilism. sent15: that the skyline does not recruit usufructuary is not false. sent16: the fact that that the rootstock does sled but it does not recruit mercantilism is not false is not true if it does not bate. sent17: if the jawan does not recruit usufructuary then the fact that the missal recruit usufructuary is correct. sent18: the fact that the glomerulus is not a Ecballium and does not recruit recall is not right if that it is not a lithomancy is not incorrect. sent19: That the usufructuary does not recruit skyline is not false. sent20: something is a kind of a Crockett that recruits traveled if it is not a kind of a Bigfoot. sent21: the fact that the skullcap is antithyroid but it is not a clomipramine is wrong if it is not hermeneutics. sent22: everything is non-pyrogallic. sent23: the slating is a Ecballium if the missal is not a glimpse and it is not a Ecballium. ; $proof$ = | sent1 & sent15 -> int1: the skyline is not a Ecballium.; __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | the periosteum is not a kind of a Pica. | ¬{D}{b} | sent1: the silhouette is a Beaverbrook. sent2: if that something does recruit Jew and is a kind of a Kabbalah is wrong it is not plumbaginaceous. sent3: a non-plumbaginaceous thing does swoop hypertrophy and is a Pica. sent4: the silhouette is not frivolous. sent5: if the silhouette does not swoop hypertrophy the fact that the Southerner is plumbaginaceous and it is a kind of a Beaverbrook is false. sent6: the periosteum is not a kind of a Pica if the fact that the Southerner does not swoop hypertrophy and is a Kabbalah is false. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is labyrinthine thing that does not dodge lull is wrong. sent8: if something does recruit bluefish but it is not a Pica then it is not a headgear. sent9: a non-frivolous Beaverbrook is not plumbaginaceous. | sent1: {AA}{aa} sent2: (x): ¬({E}x & {C}x) -> ¬{B}x sent3: (x): ¬{B}x -> ({A}x & {D}x) sent4: ¬{AB}{aa} sent5: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({B}{a} & {AA}{a}) sent6: ¬(¬{A}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{D}{b} sent7: (Ex): ¬({G}x & ¬{H}x) sent8: (x): ({BR}x & ¬{D}x) -> ¬{BL}x sent9: (x): ({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) -> ¬{B}x | [
"sent9 -> int1: the silhouette is not plumbaginaceous if it is a Beaverbrook and is not frivolous.; sent1 & sent4 -> int2: the silhouette is a Beaverbrook but it is not frivolous.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the silhouette is not plumbaginaceous is right.;"
] | [
"sent9 -> int1: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) -> ¬{B}{aa}; sent1 & sent4 -> int2: ({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}); int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬{B}{aa};"
] | the periosteum is not a kind of a headgear if it does recruit bluefish and it is not a Pica. | ({BR}{b} & ¬{D}{b}) -> ¬{BL}{b} | [
"sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 4 | null | 5 | 0 | 5 | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = the periosteum is not a kind of a Pica. ; $context$ = sent1: the silhouette is a Beaverbrook. sent2: if that something does recruit Jew and is a kind of a Kabbalah is wrong it is not plumbaginaceous. sent3: a non-plumbaginaceous thing does swoop hypertrophy and is a Pica. sent4: the silhouette is not frivolous. sent5: if the silhouette does not swoop hypertrophy the fact that the Southerner is plumbaginaceous and it is a kind of a Beaverbrook is false. sent6: the periosteum is not a kind of a Pica if the fact that the Southerner does not swoop hypertrophy and is a Kabbalah is false. sent7: there exists something such that the fact that it is labyrinthine thing that does not dodge lull is wrong. sent8: if something does recruit bluefish but it is not a Pica then it is not a headgear. sent9: a non-frivolous Beaverbrook is not plumbaginaceous. ; $proof$ = | sent9 -> int1: the silhouette is not plumbaginaceous if it is a Beaverbrook and is not frivolous.; sent1 & sent4 -> int2: the silhouette is a Beaverbrook but it is not frivolous.; int1 & int2 -> int3: that the silhouette is not plumbaginaceous is right.; __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | the flybridge is not a fold. | ¬{C}{b} | sent1: the flybridge is non-Senegalese a TLC if it is not a fold. sent2: The technocracy does not dodge haymow. sent3: there is nothing such that it is not a result or it is a trapezohedron or both. sent4: something is not a TLC if it does not swoop gallbladder and is Senegalese. sent5: something is non-jittery if the fact that it does not result and/or is a trapezohedron is wrong. sent6: the haymow does not dodge technocracy. sent7: the haymow does not swoop gallbladder but it is Senegalese if it does not dodge technocracy. sent8: if the haymow is not a TLC then the flybridge does not fold. sent9: the fact that the haymow is not back-channel is not incorrect. sent10: something is not a Senegalese if it does not dodge technocracy and it swoops gallbladder. sent11: something is not a Senegalese if it dodges technocracy and it is a TLC. | sent1: ¬{C}{b} -> (¬{AB}{b} & {B}{b}) sent2: ¬{AC}{aa} sent3: (x): ¬(¬{F}x v {E}x) sent4: (x): (¬{AA}x & {AB}x) -> ¬{B}x sent5: (x): ¬(¬{F}x v {E}x) -> ¬{D}x sent6: ¬{A}{a} sent7: ¬{A}{a} -> (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) sent8: ¬{B}{a} -> ¬{C}{b} sent9: ¬{IN}{a} sent10: (x): (¬{A}x & {AA}x) -> ¬{AB}x sent11: (x): ({A}x & {B}x) -> ¬{AB}x | [
"sent7 & sent6 -> int1: that the haymow does not swoop gallbladder but it is a Senegalese is not incorrect.; sent4 -> int2: the haymow is not a TLC if it does not swoop gallbladder and is a Senegalese.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the haymow is not a TLC.; int3 & sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent7 & sent6 -> int1: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}); sent4 -> int2: (¬{AA}{a} & {AB}{a}) -> ¬{B}{a}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ¬{B}{a}; int3 & sent8 -> hypothesis;"
] | the fact that the change is not a kind of a TLC hold. | ¬{B}{cu} | [
"sent5 -> int4: if that the haymow does not result and/or is a kind of a trapezohedron does not hold then it is not jittery.; sent3 -> int5: that the haymow is not a result and/or it is a trapezohedron is false.; int4 & int5 -> int6: that the haymow is not jittery is not wrong.;"
] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 7 | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the flybridge is not a fold. ; $context$ = sent1: the flybridge is non-Senegalese a TLC if it is not a fold. sent2: The technocracy does not dodge haymow. sent3: there is nothing such that it is not a result or it is a trapezohedron or both. sent4: something is not a TLC if it does not swoop gallbladder and is Senegalese. sent5: something is non-jittery if the fact that it does not result and/or is a trapezohedron is wrong. sent6: the haymow does not dodge technocracy. sent7: the haymow does not swoop gallbladder but it is Senegalese if it does not dodge technocracy. sent8: if the haymow is not a TLC then the flybridge does not fold. sent9: the fact that the haymow is not back-channel is not incorrect. sent10: something is not a Senegalese if it does not dodge technocracy and it swoops gallbladder. sent11: something is not a Senegalese if it dodges technocracy and it is a TLC. ; $proof$ = | sent7 & sent6 -> int1: that the haymow does not swoop gallbladder but it is a Senegalese is not incorrect.; sent4 -> int2: the haymow is not a TLC if it does not swoop gallbladder and is a Senegalese.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the haymow is not a TLC.; int3 & sent8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the cereal is a bouillabaisse but it is not Monacan. | ({B}{a} & ¬{A}{a}) | sent1: the cereal does not rap and it is not a kind of a choke if it does dodge motorcade. sent2: if something recruits pectin then it is a bouillabaisse. sent3: if the fact that something is not a rap is right then it is either a bouillabaisse or not Monacan or both. sent4: there is something such that it is not a Eleotridae. sent5: that the cereal is a rap and does not recruit pectin does not hold. sent6: if the fact that the cereal does rap but it does not recruit pectin does not hold then it does recruit pectin. sent7: the fact that either the boar is not a Jerome or it is a Eleotridae or both is not right. sent8: the consomme is non-Monacan if something is a bouillabaisse or it is not non-Monacan or both. | sent1: {F}{a} -> (¬{D}{a} & ¬{E}{a}) sent2: (x): {C}x -> {B}x sent3: (x): ¬{D}x -> ({B}x v ¬{A}x) sent4: (Ex): ¬{AB}x sent5: ¬({D}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) sent6: ¬({D}{a} & ¬{C}{a}) -> {C}{a} sent7: ¬(¬{AA}{aa} v {AB}{aa}) sent8: (x): ({B}x v ¬{A}x) -> ¬{A}{bp} | [
"sent7 -> int1: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a Jerome and/or it is a kind of a Eleotridae is wrong.; sent2 -> int2: the cereal is a kind of a bouillabaisse if it recruits pectin.; sent6 & sent5 -> int3: the cereal recruits pectin.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the cereal is a bouillabaisse.;"
] | [
"sent7 -> int1: (Ex): ¬(¬{AA}x v {AB}x); sent2 -> int2: {C}{a} -> {B}{a}; sent6 & sent5 -> int3: {C}{a}; int2 & int3 -> int4: {B}{a};"
] | the consomme does recruit pectin. | {C}{bp} | [
"sent3 -> int5: if the cereal is not a kind of a rap then it is a bouillabaisse and/or it is not Monacan.;"
] | 6 | 3 | null | 4 | 0 | 4 | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = the cereal is a bouillabaisse but it is not Monacan. ; $context$ = sent1: the cereal does not rap and it is not a kind of a choke if it does dodge motorcade. sent2: if something recruits pectin then it is a bouillabaisse. sent3: if the fact that something is not a rap is right then it is either a bouillabaisse or not Monacan or both. sent4: there is something such that it is not a Eleotridae. sent5: that the cereal is a rap and does not recruit pectin does not hold. sent6: if the fact that the cereal does rap but it does not recruit pectin does not hold then it does recruit pectin. sent7: the fact that either the boar is not a Jerome or it is a Eleotridae or both is not right. sent8: the consomme is non-Monacan if something is a bouillabaisse or it is not non-Monacan or both. ; $proof$ = | sent7 -> int1: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a Jerome and/or it is a kind of a Eleotridae is wrong.; sent2 -> int2: the cereal is a kind of a bouillabaisse if it recruits pectin.; sent6 & sent5 -> int3: the cereal recruits pectin.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the cereal is a bouillabaisse.; __UNKNOWN__ |
DeductionInstance | that the basophil is not cecal hold. | ¬{C}{b} | sent1: that the basophil is both a rennet and a takeover is wrong. sent2: if something is a modernization but it is not a rennet then it is not cecal. sent3: if the inkberry is a keratotomy and it is cecal then that it is not a kind of a rennet is right. sent4: the basophil is a kind of a modernization if the inkberry is both not a daub and not subsurface. sent5: the inkberry is not a daub and it is not subsurface. sent6: the basophil is not a rennet if that it is a rennet and a takeover is wrong. | sent1: ¬({A}{b} & {E}{b}) sent2: (x): ({B}x & ¬{A}x) -> ¬{C}x sent3: ({D}{a} & {C}{a}) -> ¬{A}{a} sent4: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) -> {B}{b} sent5: (¬{AA}{a} & ¬{AB}{a}) sent6: ¬({A}{b} & {E}{b}) -> ¬{A}{b} | [
"sent4 & sent5 -> int1: the basophil is a modernization.; sent6 & sent1 -> int2: the basophil is not a rennet.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the basophil is a modernization but not a rennet.; sent2 -> int4: if the basophil is a modernization and not a rennet it is not cecal.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent4 & sent5 -> int1: {B}{b}; sent6 & sent1 -> int2: ¬{A}{b}; int1 & int2 -> int3: ({B}{b} & ¬{A}{b}); sent2 -> int4: ({B}{b} & ¬{A}{b}) -> ¬{C}{b}; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis;"
] | the humanities is not Aberdonian and it is not a kind of a modernization. | (¬{EO}{ig} & ¬{B}{ig}) | [] | 6 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | PROVED | UNKNOWN | PROVED | UNKNOWN | $hypothesis$ = that the basophil is not cecal hold. ; $context$ = sent1: that the basophil is both a rennet and a takeover is wrong. sent2: if something is a modernization but it is not a rennet then it is not cecal. sent3: if the inkberry is a keratotomy and it is cecal then that it is not a kind of a rennet is right. sent4: the basophil is a kind of a modernization if the inkberry is both not a daub and not subsurface. sent5: the inkberry is not a daub and it is not subsurface. sent6: the basophil is not a rennet if that it is a rennet and a takeover is wrong. ; $proof$ = | sent4 & sent5 -> int1: the basophil is a modernization.; sent6 & sent1 -> int2: the basophil is not a rennet.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the basophil is a modernization but not a rennet.; sent2 -> int4: if the basophil is a modernization and not a rennet it is not cecal.; int3 & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__ |
DeductionInstance | the fact that there exists something such that if it does not swoop humin that it does not dodge indistinctness and it is not a tercentennial does not hold is not right. | ¬((Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x)) | sent1: that something is not a truss and it does not speak masculinity is not right if it is not a topping. sent2: there exists something such that if it is not a mattress then that that it is not a Khepera and it is not unprofessional is not false does not hold. sent3: if the apple does not swoop humin the fact that it does not dodge indistinctness and is a tercentennial is not true. sent4: there exists something such that if it does not swoop humin then it does not dodge indistinctness and is not a kind of a tercentennial. sent5: the apple does not dodge indistinctness and is not a tercentennial if it does not swoop humin. sent6: if the apple is not an expedient then the fact that it does not swoop humin and is not a pink does not hold. sent7: there exists something such that if it does swoop humin the fact that it does not dodge indistinctness and is not a tercentennial is not correct. sent8: there is something such that if it does not swoop humin then the fact that it does not dodge indistinctness and is a tercentennial is false. sent9: that the apple does not dodge indistinctness and it is not a tercentennial is incorrect if it swoops humin. sent10: the fact that the puddingwife does not dodge indistinctness and it is not a Bigfoot is incorrect if it does not toast. sent11: there is something such that if it is not a turbulence then that it is not a Mondrian and does not recruit skylight is wrong. sent12: there is something such that if that it does not recruit Gambian is correct that it does not dodge puddingwife and it does not dodge Belostomatidae is not right. sent13: there is something such that if it is not prosthodontics the fact that it does not dodge Black and it does not speak handline is incorrect. sent14: there is something such that if it does not swoop humin that it does dodge indistinctness and is not a tercentennial is false. sent15: there is something such that if it is not nonproprietary that it does not speak antepenult and it is not a kind of a Stylomecon is false. sent16: there is something such that if it is not a stele then the fact that it does not recruit Peristedion and it is not a Tyche is wrong. sent17: there is something such that if it does not recruit reason then the fact that it is not a misfit and it does not swoop Pandora is wrong. sent18: if the apple does not swoop humin that it dodges indistinctness and it is not a tercentennial is not right. sent19: the fact that the apple does not dodge indistinctness and it is not a tercentennial is not right if it does not swoop humin. | sent1: (x): ¬{DN}x -> ¬(¬{GP}x & ¬{DI}x) sent2: (Ex): ¬{JK}x -> ¬(¬{GR}x & ¬{BE}x) sent3: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & {AB}{aa}) sent4: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> (¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent5: ¬{A}{aa} -> (¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent6: ¬{AT}{aa} -> ¬(¬{A}{aa} & ¬{HD}{aa}) sent7: (Ex): {A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent8: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬(¬{AA}x & {AB}x) sent9: {A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent10: ¬{FN}{gk} -> ¬(¬{AA}{gk} & ¬{AL}{gk}) sent11: (Ex): ¬{EO}x -> ¬(¬{GK}x & ¬{GG}x) sent12: (Ex): ¬{GM}x -> ¬(¬{FQ}x & ¬{HG}x) sent13: (Ex): ¬{EM}x -> ¬(¬{HL}x & ¬{FL}x) sent14: (Ex): ¬{A}x -> ¬({AA}x & ¬{AB}x) sent15: (Ex): ¬{EC}x -> ¬(¬{CQ}x & ¬{EQ}x) sent16: (Ex): ¬{HK}x -> ¬(¬{DK}x & ¬{BI}x) sent17: (Ex): ¬{AH}x -> ¬(¬{AG}x & ¬{ES}x) sent18: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬({AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) sent19: ¬{A}{aa} -> ¬(¬{AA}{aa} & ¬{AB}{aa}) | [
"sent19 -> hypothesis;"
] | [
"sent19 -> hypothesis;"
] | the fact that the modifier does not truss and does not speak masculinity is not right if it does not top. | ¬{DN}{ba} -> ¬(¬{GP}{ba} & ¬{DI}{ba}) | [
"sent1 -> hypothesis;"
] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 18 | 0 | 18 | DISPROVED | PROVED | DISPROVED | PROVED | $hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that if it does not swoop humin that it does not dodge indistinctness and it is not a tercentennial does not hold is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: that something is not a truss and it does not speak masculinity is not right if it is not a topping. sent2: there exists something such that if it is not a mattress then that that it is not a Khepera and it is not unprofessional is not false does not hold. sent3: if the apple does not swoop humin the fact that it does not dodge indistinctness and is a tercentennial is not true. sent4: there exists something such that if it does not swoop humin then it does not dodge indistinctness and is not a kind of a tercentennial. sent5: the apple does not dodge indistinctness and is not a tercentennial if it does not swoop humin. sent6: if the apple is not an expedient then the fact that it does not swoop humin and is not a pink does not hold. sent7: there exists something such that if it does swoop humin the fact that it does not dodge indistinctness and is not a tercentennial is not correct. sent8: there is something such that if it does not swoop humin then the fact that it does not dodge indistinctness and is a tercentennial is false. sent9: that the apple does not dodge indistinctness and it is not a tercentennial is incorrect if it swoops humin. sent10: the fact that the puddingwife does not dodge indistinctness and it is not a Bigfoot is incorrect if it does not toast. sent11: there is something such that if it is not a turbulence then that it is not a Mondrian and does not recruit skylight is wrong. sent12: there is something such that if that it does not recruit Gambian is correct that it does not dodge puddingwife and it does not dodge Belostomatidae is not right. sent13: there is something such that if it is not prosthodontics the fact that it does not dodge Black and it does not speak handline is incorrect. sent14: there is something such that if it does not swoop humin that it does dodge indistinctness and is not a tercentennial is false. sent15: there is something such that if it is not nonproprietary that it does not speak antepenult and it is not a kind of a Stylomecon is false. sent16: there is something such that if it is not a stele then the fact that it does not recruit Peristedion and it is not a Tyche is wrong. sent17: there is something such that if it does not recruit reason then the fact that it is not a misfit and it does not swoop Pandora is wrong. sent18: if the apple does not swoop humin that it dodges indistinctness and it is not a tercentennial is not right. sent19: the fact that the apple does not dodge indistinctness and it is not a tercentennial is not right if it does not swoop humin. ; $proof$ = | sent19 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__ |