the wimple is a Yamamoto.
sent1: that the priest does not fix acridid and it is not granuliferous is not correct. sent2: if that the wimple fixes acridid and is a kind of a Micronor is correct that the tamarau is not a pedodontist is not wrong. sent3: either something does fix acridid or it is a Micronor or both if it is not a pedodontist. sent4: something is unknowable if it does not fix acridid. sent5: the arsenopyrite is a pedodontist and it is unknowable. sent6: the wimple is a Micronor. sent7: the wimple is granuliferous. sent8: the tamarau is not a prickliness. sent9: the tamarau is a kind of a pedodontist if the fact that it does not fix Kastler and it is not granuliferous is false. sent10: if something is unknowable it is not a Yamamoto. sent11: the fact that that the tamarau is unknowable but it is not granuliferous is true is not right if there is something such that that it does not fix Kastler hold. sent12: there exists something such that it does not fix Kastler. sent13: that the tamarau does not fix Kastler and it is not granuliferous is false if the fact that it is not a prickliness hold.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the wimple does fix acridid.; assump1 & sent6 -> int1: the wimple does fix acridid and it is a Micronor.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: that the tamarau is not a kind of a pedodontist is true.; sent13 & sent8 -> int3: that the tamarau does not fix Kastler and is not granuliferous is wrong.; sent9 & int3 -> int4: the tamarau is a pedodontist.; int2 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the wimple does not fix acridid.; sent4 -> int7: if the wimple does not fix acridid it is unknowable.; int6 & int7 -> int8: the wimple is unknowable.; sent10 -> int9: the wimple is not a Yamamoto if it is unknowable.; int8 & int9 -> hypothesis;
the wimple is a kind of a Yamamoto.
sent3 -> int10: if the wimple is not a kind of a pedodontist then it fixes acridid and/or it is a Micronor.; sent12 & sent11 -> int11: the fact that the tamarau is unknowable but not granuliferous is wrong.; int11 -> int12: there exists something such that that it is unknowable and is non-granuliferous is not correct.;
$hypothesis$ = the wimple is a Yamamoto. ; $context$ = sent1: that the priest does not fix acridid and it is not granuliferous is not correct. sent2: if that the wimple fixes acridid and is a kind of a Micronor is correct that the tamarau is not a pedodontist is not wrong. sent3: either something does fix acridid or it is a Micronor or both if it is not a pedodontist. sent4: something is unknowable if it does not fix acridid. sent5: the arsenopyrite is a pedodontist and it is unknowable. sent6: the wimple is a Micronor. sent7: the wimple is granuliferous. sent8: the tamarau is not a prickliness. sent9: the tamarau is a kind of a pedodontist if the fact that it does not fix Kastler and it is not granuliferous is false. sent10: if something is unknowable it is not a Yamamoto. sent11: the fact that that the tamarau is unknowable but it is not granuliferous is true is not right if there is something such that that it does not fix Kastler hold. sent12: there exists something such that it does not fix Kastler. sent13: that the tamarau does not fix Kastler and it is not granuliferous is false if the fact that it is not a prickliness hold. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the wimple does fix acridid.; assump1 & sent6 -> int1: the wimple does fix acridid and it is a Micronor.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: that the tamarau is not a kind of a pedodontist is true.; sent13 & sent8 -> int3: that the tamarau does not fix Kastler and is not granuliferous is wrong.; sent9 & int3 -> int4: the tamarau is a pedodontist.; int2 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the wimple does not fix acridid.; sent4 -> int7: if the wimple does not fix acridid it is unknowable.; int6 & int7 -> int8: the wimple is unknowable.; sent10 -> int9: the wimple is not a Yamamoto if it is unknowable.; int8 & int9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__