the fact that the caffeine is a Periplaneta and it is unrespectable is incorrect.
sent1: the caffeine is a Periplaneta if the fact that it is not ontological and it does not percuss is not incorrect. sent2: if something is not unrespectable then the fact that it is not a oscine and is a kind of a cadence does not hold. sent3: the fact that the bagman does not percuss and is not ontological is not correct. sent4: that something is a kind of a cadence hold if it is not a Picardie and not a masjid. sent5: the caffeine is non-ontological thing that does not percuss. sent6: the winger is a oscine if there exists something such that that it is not a Picardie and is not a masjid is not true. sent7: if that the bagman does not percuss and is not ontological is false then it is not a cadence. sent8: if something that is not a kind of a Picardie is a masjid then it is a cadence. sent9: the fact that the caffeine is both a Periplaneta and not respectable is not correct if the fact that something is a oscine is true.
sent4 -> int1: if the bagman is not a Picardie and is not a masjid it is a kind of a cadence.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the bagman is not a Picardie and it is not a masjid is right.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the bagman is a cadence.; sent7 & sent3 -> int3: the bagman is not a cadence.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the fact that the bagman is not a kind of a Picardie and it is not a masjid does not hold.; int5 -> int6: there is something such that that it is not a Picardie and it is not a masjid is incorrect.; int6 & sent6 -> int7: the winger is a oscine.; int7 -> int8: there are oscine things.; int8 & sent9 -> hypothesis;
something does unbutton Kyd.
sent2 -> int9: the fact that the caffeine is non-oscine and a cadence is wrong if it is respectable.; sent1 & sent5 -> int10: the caffeine is a Periplaneta.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the caffeine is a Periplaneta and it is unrespectable is incorrect. ; $context$ = sent1: the caffeine is a Periplaneta if the fact that it is not ontological and it does not percuss is not incorrect. sent2: if something is not unrespectable then the fact that it is not a oscine and is a kind of a cadence does not hold. sent3: the fact that the bagman does not percuss and is not ontological is not correct. sent4: that something is a kind of a cadence hold if it is not a Picardie and not a masjid. sent5: the caffeine is non-ontological thing that does not percuss. sent6: the winger is a oscine if there exists something such that that it is not a Picardie and is not a masjid is not true. sent7: if that the bagman does not percuss and is not ontological is false then it is not a cadence. sent8: if something that is not a kind of a Picardie is a masjid then it is a cadence. sent9: the fact that the caffeine is both a Periplaneta and not respectable is not correct if the fact that something is a oscine is true. ; $proof$ = 
sent4 -> int1: if the bagman is not a Picardie and is not a masjid it is a kind of a cadence.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the bagman is not a Picardie and it is not a masjid is right.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the bagman is a cadence.; sent7 & sent3 -> int3: the bagman is not a cadence.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the fact that the bagman is not a kind of a Picardie and it is not a masjid does not hold.; int5 -> int6: there is something such that that it is not a Picardie and it is not a masjid is incorrect.; int6 & sent6 -> int7: the winger is a oscine.; int7 -> int8: there are oscine things.; int8 & sent9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__