Does divorce take effect with the statement, "Thus you become divorced based on the oath," if the intention was the oath and not divorce?

Scholars differ concerning one who swears an oath regarding something he presumes to be true, and then it becomes clear that it is otherwise. Some scholars hold that the oath is absolutely broken [and thus expiation is due]. Others differentiate between divorce and manumission, holding that the oath is broken in these two cases but not in others. Still others hold that divorce does not occur if the swearer based his oath on what he predominantly presumed. The most preponderant opinion is that the oath is not broken if a person swore an oath relying on certainty or dominant presumption, contrary to what later became clear to him.