that if the fact that the ingenue is a processor and/or does not dampen is not false then the ptyalism untunes felon is not correct.
sent1: if the nonconformist is a foreman the hysteric is delicate. sent2: the ptyalism is counterterror if that the hysteric untunes felon hold. sent3: if a non-stoloniferous thing is not counterterror the fact that it is not delicate is true. sent4: the steamer is not a kind of a self. sent5: something does untune felon if it is self. sent6: the ptyalism clings gully if the ingenue does not dampen. sent7: if the ptyalism is a kind of non-self thing that does cling gully the nonconformist is a foreman. sent8: the ptyalism clings gully if the ingenue is a kind of a processor and/or does not dampen. sent9: the fact that everything is not stoloniferous and not counterterror is right. sent10: the hysteric is not delicate if it is not stoloniferous and it is not non-counterterror.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the ingenue is a kind of a processor and/or does not dampen.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: the ptyalism clings gully.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that that the ptyalism is not a self is not wrong.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: the ptyalism is not a self but it does cling gully.; int2 & sent7 -> int3: the nonconformist is a foreman.; int3 & sent1 -> int4: the hysteric is delicate.; sent3 -> int5: if the hysteric is both not stoloniferous and not counterterror it is non-delicate.; sent9 -> int6: the hysteric is not stoloniferous and not counterterror.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the hysteric is not delicate.; int4 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int8 -> int9: the ptyalism is self.; sent5 -> int10: if the ptyalism is a self then it untunes felon.; int9 & int10 -> int11: the ptyalism does untune felon.; [assump1] & int11 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that if the fact that the ingenue is a processor and/or does not dampen is not false then the ptyalism untunes felon is not correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if the nonconformist is a foreman the hysteric is delicate. sent2: the ptyalism is counterterror if that the hysteric untunes felon hold. sent3: if a non-stoloniferous thing is not counterterror the fact that it is not delicate is true. sent4: the steamer is not a kind of a self. sent5: something does untune felon if it is self. sent6: the ptyalism clings gully if the ingenue does not dampen. sent7: if the ptyalism is a kind of non-self thing that does cling gully the nonconformist is a foreman. sent8: the ptyalism clings gully if the ingenue is a kind of a processor and/or does not dampen. sent9: the fact that everything is not stoloniferous and not counterterror is right. sent10: the hysteric is not delicate if it is not stoloniferous and it is not non-counterterror. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the ingenue is a kind of a processor and/or does not dampen.; sent8 & assump1 -> int1: the ptyalism clings gully.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that that the ptyalism is not a self is not wrong.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: the ptyalism is not a self but it does cling gully.; int2 & sent7 -> int3: the nonconformist is a foreman.; int3 & sent1 -> int4: the hysteric is delicate.; sent3 -> int5: if the hysteric is both not stoloniferous and not counterterror it is non-delicate.; sent9 -> int6: the hysteric is not stoloniferous and not counterterror.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the hysteric is not delicate.; int4 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int8 -> int9: the ptyalism is self.; sent5 -> int10: if the ptyalism is a self then it untunes felon.; int9 & int10 -> int11: the ptyalism does untune felon.; [assump1] & int11 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__