the constructivist is not a corespondent.
sent1: the constructivist either is a hunger or is autotomic or both if the fact that it is a kind of a corespondent is right. sent2: something is not ocular and is not a corespondent if that it is tribal is right. sent3: the construction is shut and/or does hunger bicycling. sent4: if something is non-ocular that it is not a hunger and/or is not non-autotomic is not correct. sent5: something either does not hunger or is autotomic or both if that it is a corespondent is not false. sent6: if something that is non-ocular is not a corespondent it is Luxembourgian. sent7: the constructivist is Luxembourgian but it is not ocular.
sent5 -> int1: if the constructivist is a corespondent then it does not hunger or is autotomic or both.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the constructivist is a corespondent.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the constructivist is not a hunger and/or it is autotomic.; sent4 -> int3: the fact that either the constructivist is not a hunger or it is autotomic or both is wrong if it is not ocular.; sent7 -> int4: the constructivist is not ocular.; int3 & int4 -> int5: that the constructivist is not a kind of a hunger or it is autotomic or both is false.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> hypothesis;
the martin is Luxembourgian.
sent6 -> int7: the martin is Luxembourgian if it is not ocular and it is not a corespondent.; sent2 -> int8: the martin is non-ocular and is not a corespondent if the fact that it is tribal is not false.;
$hypothesis$ = the constructivist is not a corespondent. ; $context$ = sent1: the constructivist either is a hunger or is autotomic or both if the fact that it is a kind of a corespondent is right. sent2: something is not ocular and is not a corespondent if that it is tribal is right. sent3: the construction is shut and/or does hunger bicycling. sent4: if something is non-ocular that it is not a hunger and/or is not non-autotomic is not correct. sent5: something either does not hunger or is autotomic or both if that it is a corespondent is not false. sent6: if something that is non-ocular is not a corespondent it is Luxembourgian. sent7: the constructivist is Luxembourgian but it is not ocular. ; $proof$ = 
sent5 -> int1: if the constructivist is a corespondent then it does not hunger or is autotomic or both.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the constructivist is a corespondent.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the constructivist is not a hunger and/or it is autotomic.; sent4 -> int3: the fact that either the constructivist is not a hunger or it is autotomic or both is wrong if it is not ocular.; sent7 -> int4: the constructivist is not ocular.; int3 & int4 -> int5: that the constructivist is not a kind of a hunger or it is autotomic or both is false.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__