belief/conjecture will/would

Mam pytanie odnośnie dwóch zdań. Ogólnie, rozumiem, co one oznaczają. Pochodzą z Gravera. Przejdźmy do konkretów:
(1) You will already be familiar with the subject
Jak najlepiej je przetłumaczyć? Graver piszę, że zdanie ma znaczenie present. Dlaczego?
Zapewne znasz temat (??)

Nie rozumiem tego użycia would:
you haven't (by any chance) seen my gloves, I suppose?
= (2)You wouldn't have seen my gloves, I suppose?
Co tutaj robi 'would'?
Jak zdanie najlepiej przetł?

cheers in advance for every feedback.

1 tak
2 nie widziales

(1) Given the present situation and my perception of it, the situation to which I am referring must be true. Will, like every other modal verb, carries a sense of non-factuality; it refers to two states: one factual, at the moment "NOW", and one to which I am referring. There is a strong link between the two states. Most of the time the state being referred to is in Future Time, but sometimes when the speaker doesn't have the actual knowledge of the second state, will refers to logical inevitability.

In your example, a professor could say "Given the fact you have attented my classes, studied the notes and passed your mid-term with flying colours, it must be true that you are familiar with the subject". By using will, however, the speaker suggests he or she can be wrong.

dziękuję.

>>"Given the fact you have attented my classes, studied the notes and passed your mid-term with flying colours, it must be true that you are familiar with the subject". By using will, however, the speaker suggests he or she can be wrong"

That explains everything. You got it across. That was what I wanted to get. Thanks.

(2) Not much too explain, I think. Would refers to Past Time (hence the have), and expresses a remoteness of possibility.

"it refers to two states: one factual, at the moment "NOW", and one to which I am referring. "

Explain. Exemplify.

I didn't mean to write factual, but rather non-factual; it's my perception of NOW that matters.

and which one were you referring to?

Thanks. However, it wasn't what I meant anybody to explain. I already know 'would' can reflect the past.
Backing to my sentence, Graver calls this usage of 'would' as belief/conjecture. It is not obliged that 'would' should be used with perfect infinitive.
Here it's an example referring to the present, performing the same functions as above, but with will also in the past:

Don't call on them just now. They won't have finished their evenign mean yet.
on't call on them just now. They wouldn't have finished their evenign mean yet.
When all is said and done, will would be more 'certain' here rather than would, that is to say, ...won't have finished (more probable on the part ofthe speaker), wouldn't have finished (less probable on the part of the speaker)?

I hope I made it plain what I am asking about.

also a non-factual one, but different :D :D

Okay, I might not have expressed myself clearly. The way I worded my initial post might suggest that the two states are different in terms of factuality (is factuality a word?).

and please skip the typos.;)

@Bednar
I understood that you were NOT referring to the present, and, as you happened to write, that whenver WILL refers to the present, it refers to a present fact. There was something seriously wrong about that part of your explanation.
Fortunately, the rest of it, and particularly the definition you began it with and then re-worded, was lucid - and correct. I actually thought you were quoting Michael (?) Lewis (his book about verbs).

I read Lewis a long time ago and was heavily influenced by his book. Might be why I often use his phrasing when I explain something to somebody. Lewis made me understand (kind of) how the tenses actually work. I especially like the preface in which (?) he compares grammar to a model - a simplified version of reality. Not to be treated as a bible, but as a guide. A real eye-opener for me ;-)