there exists something such that it is technological and does transform.
sent1: there is something such that it transforms. sent2: there is something such that it is not a kind of a half-light. sent3: something is not a kind of a half-light but it is a kind of a crocket. sent4: the pennoncel is both not a half-light and not a crocket if the sedge is not technological. sent5: if the pennoncel is technological the sedge is bad. sent6: the sedge reproaches. sent7: the areaway is a half-light. sent8: the areaway is not adscript. sent9: the sedge transforms. sent10: the pennoncel is not a kind of a half-light. sent11: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a half-light and it is non-technological then the sedge is a crocket. sent12: the areaway is a kind of a crocket if something that is not adscript is not technological. sent13: the fact that the areaway is not adscript and it does not transform hold if the sedge is not a kind of a half-light. sent14: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a half-light that is not a crocket then the areaway is adscript. sent15: the greyhound is not a kind of a half-light. sent16: that the areaway is adscript is not incorrect if there exists something such that it is not a half-light and it is not a kind of a crocket. sent17: there are technological things. sent18: the pennoncel is not a half-light if the sedge is not technological.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the sedge is not technological.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the pennoncel is not a half-light and it is not a crocket.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that it is not a half-light and not a crocket.; int2 & sent16 -> int3: the areaway is adscript.; int3 & sent8 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the fact that the sedge is technological is not incorrect.; int5 & sent9 -> int6: the sedge is technological thing that transforms.; int6 -> hypothesis;
there is something such that it is a reproach and it is a bad.
$hypothesis$ = there exists something such that it is technological and does transform. ; $context$ = sent1: there is something such that it transforms. sent2: there is something such that it is not a kind of a half-light. sent3: something is not a kind of a half-light but it is a kind of a crocket. sent4: the pennoncel is both not a half-light and not a crocket if the sedge is not technological. sent5: if the pennoncel is technological the sedge is bad. sent6: the sedge reproaches. sent7: the areaway is a half-light. sent8: the areaway is not adscript. sent9: the sedge transforms. sent10: the pennoncel is not a kind of a half-light. sent11: if there exists something such that it is not a kind of a half-light and it is non-technological then the sedge is a crocket. sent12: the areaway is a kind of a crocket if something that is not adscript is not technological. sent13: the fact that the areaway is not adscript and it does not transform hold if the sedge is not a kind of a half-light. sent14: if there exists something such that it is a kind of a half-light that is not a crocket then the areaway is adscript. sent15: the greyhound is not a kind of a half-light. sent16: that the areaway is adscript is not incorrect if there exists something such that it is not a half-light and it is not a kind of a crocket. sent17: there are technological things. sent18: the pennoncel is not a half-light if the sedge is not technological. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the sedge is not technological.; sent4 & assump1 -> int1: the pennoncel is not a half-light and it is not a crocket.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that it is not a half-light and not a crocket.; int2 & sent16 -> int3: the areaway is adscript.; int3 & sent8 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the fact that the sedge is technological is not incorrect.; int5 & sent9 -> int6: the sedge is technological thing that transforms.; int6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__