the gem is not non-subclavian.
sent1: the audile is subclavian if the gem is not a myology. sent2: the fact that the audile does not expound is correct. sent3: something that is a myology is not subclavian and is not a kind of a associateship. sent4: the commemorative is a myology. sent5: if the knacker is a capsaicin the fact that it is a kind of a myology is not false. sent6: the gem is a myology if the audile is Solomonic. sent7: if the saw is a kind of a associateship then the pay-phone dissociates. sent8: if the pay-phone is not a associateship the fact that the gem identifies chyme hold. sent9: the pay-phone is not a goffer if something does not expound. sent10: the rain does dissociate. sent11: the fact that something is Trojan but not a myology is not correct if it does dissociate. sent12: the gem is Solomonic if it identifies chyme. sent13: if the pay-phone does not identify chyme and is Solomonic then it dissociates. sent14: the gem is subclavian if it is Solomonic. sent15: the saw is Trojan if the audile is a myology. sent16: the audile dissociates. sent17: if the pay-phone is not a kind of a Trojan then the saw is a associateship. sent18: the rain does not dissociate if the saw is a Trojan. sent19: that the gem is not subclavian is not incorrect if that the pay-phone is a myology and subclavian hold. sent20: the audile does not dissociate if the rain is a kind of a myology. sent21: the gem is a kind of a Trojan. sent22: something does not identify chyme and is Solomonic if it is not a goffer. sent23: if the pay-phone is a associateship the audile is a myology. sent24: the saw is subclavian. sent25: the rain is not a kind of a associateship if that the pay-phone does dissociate is correct.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the pay-phone is a associateship.; sent23 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the audile is a kind of a myology is not incorrect.; int1 & sent15 -> int2: the saw is a Trojan.; int2 & sent18 -> int3: the rain does not dissociate.; int3 & sent10 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the pay-phone is not a associateship.; int5 & sent8 -> int6: the fact that the gem identifies chyme is correct.; int6 & sent12 -> int7: the gem is Solomonic.; int7 & sent14 -> hypothesis;
the gem is not subclavian.
$hypothesis$ = the gem is not non-subclavian. ; $context$ = sent1: the audile is subclavian if the gem is not a myology. sent2: the fact that the audile does not expound is correct. sent3: something that is a myology is not subclavian and is not a kind of a associateship. sent4: the commemorative is a myology. sent5: if the knacker is a capsaicin the fact that it is a kind of a myology is not false. sent6: the gem is a myology if the audile is Solomonic. sent7: if the saw is a kind of a associateship then the pay-phone dissociates. sent8: if the pay-phone is not a associateship the fact that the gem identifies chyme hold. sent9: the pay-phone is not a goffer if something does not expound. sent10: the rain does dissociate. sent11: the fact that something is Trojan but not a myology is not correct if it does dissociate. sent12: the gem is Solomonic if it identifies chyme. sent13: if the pay-phone does not identify chyme and is Solomonic then it dissociates. sent14: the gem is subclavian if it is Solomonic. sent15: the saw is Trojan if the audile is a myology. sent16: the audile dissociates. sent17: if the pay-phone is not a kind of a Trojan then the saw is a associateship. sent18: the rain does not dissociate if the saw is a Trojan. sent19: that the gem is not subclavian is not incorrect if that the pay-phone is a myology and subclavian hold. sent20: the audile does not dissociate if the rain is a kind of a myology. sent21: the gem is a kind of a Trojan. sent22: something does not identify chyme and is Solomonic if it is not a goffer. sent23: if the pay-phone is a associateship the audile is a myology. sent24: the saw is subclavian. sent25: the rain is not a kind of a associateship if that the pay-phone does dissociate is correct. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the pay-phone is a associateship.; sent23 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the audile is a kind of a myology is not incorrect.; int1 & sent15 -> int2: the saw is a Trojan.; int2 & sent18 -> int3: the rain does not dissociate.; int3 & sent10 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the pay-phone is not a associateship.; int5 & sent8 -> int6: the fact that the gem identifies chyme is correct.; int6 & sent12 -> int7: the gem is Solomonic.; int7 & sent14 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__