that the fact that the crucifix refers apperception is not incorrect if the interchange is topological is not true.
sent1: if the jacksnipe is topological it is deficient. sent2: if the jacksnipe does not refer apperception it is axial. sent3: if the crucifix is deficient then the jacksnipe is peritoneal. sent4: if something is not a vespers it does brake. sent5: if something is not Masoretic the fact that it is irresistible is not false. sent6: the bollworm is peritoneal if the crucifix is irresistible. sent7: the jacksnipe refers apperception. sent8: that something is deficient and is not axial is true. sent9: that the jacksnipe is a kind of deficient thing that is axial does not hold. sent10: there is something such that the fact that it is deficient and is axial is not correct. sent11: if there is something such that it is axial the fact that the bollworm is not Masoretic hold. sent12: a poke does counterweight visa. sent13: if something is not topological the fact that it refers apperception is not incorrect. sent14: the crucifix is peritoneal if the bollworm is irresistible. sent15: something does refer apperception if it is peritoneal. sent16: if the interchange is axial then the jacksnipe is topological. sent17: that something is Masoretic and does refer apperception is false if it is not topological. sent18: that the jacksnipe is both not non-peritoneal and non-irresistible is wrong if it is not a compass. sent19: the jacksnipe is irresistible. sent20: that the jacksnipe is deficient and it is axial does not hold if the interchange is topological. sent21: if the interchange refers apperception then the perch does not refers apperception. sent22: if the jacksnipe is not a space-time and it does not spang it is not a kind of a compass. sent23: if the interchange is topological then that the jacksnipe is both not non-deficient and non-axial is incorrect. sent24: the bollworm is not Masoretic if the fact that there exists something such that that it is deficient and it is not axial is wrong is not false.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the interchange is topological.; sent23 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the jacksnipe is deficient but it is not axial is incorrect.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that that it is deficient and it is not axial is not true.; int2 & sent24 -> int3: the bollworm is not Masoretic.; sent5 -> int4: the bollworm is irresistible if it is not Masoretic.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the bollworm is irresistible.; int5 & sent14 -> int6: the crucifix is peritoneal.; sent15 -> int7: if that the crucifix is peritoneal is not wrong it refers apperception.; int6 & int7 -> int8: the crucifix does refer apperception.; [assump1] & int8 -> hypothesis;
the perch does not refer apperception.
sent13 -> int9: if the interchange is not topological then it refers apperception.;
$hypothesis$ = that the fact that the crucifix refers apperception is not incorrect if the interchange is topological is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: if the jacksnipe is topological it is deficient. sent2: if the jacksnipe does not refer apperception it is axial. sent3: if the crucifix is deficient then the jacksnipe is peritoneal. sent4: if something is not a vespers it does brake. sent5: if something is not Masoretic the fact that it is irresistible is not false. sent6: the bollworm is peritoneal if the crucifix is irresistible. sent7: the jacksnipe refers apperception. sent8: that something is deficient and is not axial is true. sent9: that the jacksnipe is a kind of deficient thing that is axial does not hold. sent10: there is something such that the fact that it is deficient and is axial is not correct. sent11: if there is something such that it is axial the fact that the bollworm is not Masoretic hold. sent12: a poke does counterweight visa. sent13: if something is not topological the fact that it refers apperception is not incorrect. sent14: the crucifix is peritoneal if the bollworm is irresistible. sent15: something does refer apperception if it is peritoneal. sent16: if the interchange is axial then the jacksnipe is topological. sent17: that something is Masoretic and does refer apperception is false if it is not topological. sent18: that the jacksnipe is both not non-peritoneal and non-irresistible is wrong if it is not a compass. sent19: the jacksnipe is irresistible. sent20: that the jacksnipe is deficient and it is axial does not hold if the interchange is topological. sent21: if the interchange refers apperception then the perch does not refers apperception. sent22: if the jacksnipe is not a space-time and it does not spang it is not a kind of a compass. sent23: if the interchange is topological then that the jacksnipe is both not non-deficient and non-axial is incorrect. sent24: the bollworm is not Masoretic if the fact that there exists something such that that it is deficient and it is not axial is wrong is not false. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the interchange is topological.; sent23 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the jacksnipe is deficient but it is not axial is incorrect.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that that it is deficient and it is not axial is not true.; int2 & sent24 -> int3: the bollworm is not Masoretic.; sent5 -> int4: the bollworm is irresistible if it is not Masoretic.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the bollworm is irresistible.; int5 & sent14 -> int6: the crucifix is peritoneal.; sent15 -> int7: if that the crucifix is peritoneal is not wrong it refers apperception.; int6 & int7 -> int8: the crucifix does refer apperception.; [assump1] & int8 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__