Consider the following premises. exists x_17: U_1(x_17) or W_3(x_17). forall x_17: U_1(x_17) -> Q_10(x_17). forall x_17: Q(x_17) <-> W_3(x_17). forall x_17: R(x_17). forall x_17: Q_10(x_17) -> Q(x_17). Can we infer forall x_17: ~(R(x_17) and Q(x_17)) from them?
 From forall x_17: Q(x_17) <-> W_3(x_17) we can infer forall x_17: W_3(x_17) -> Q(x_17). From forall x_17: U_1(x_17) -> Q_10(x_17), forall x_17: Q_10(x_17) -> Q(x_17) we can infer forall x_17: U_1(x_17) -> Q(x_17). From forall x_17: U_1(x_17) -> Q(x_17), forall x_17: W_3(x_17) -> Q(x_17), exists x_17: U_1(x_17) or W_3(x_17) we can infer exists x_17: Q(x_17). Finally, from forall x_17: R(x_17), exists x_17: Q(x_17) we can infer exists x_17: R(x_17) and Q(x_17), which contradicts forall x_17: ~(R(x_17) and Q(x_17)). Therefore, the answer is no.