the fraxinella does dovetail.
sent1: the terminal is deconstructionist if the fact that it is non-homing and does not lob shadflower is not correct. sent2: if the fact that the terminal is deconstructionist thing that does not digitize agitprop is incorrect then it is not deconstructionist. sent3: the fact that the terminal lobs fraxinella hold. sent4: if something does not lob fraxinella that it is non-deconstructionist thing that is a carbuncled is false. sent5: the fraxinella dovetails if the hook does lob fraxinella. sent6: something lobs fraxinella if that it is a carbuncled is not incorrect. sent7: there exists something such that it does not lob shadflower. sent8: the fact that the terminal does not lob shadflower hold. sent9: if something does not home and does not lob shadflower the hook is a carbuncled. sent10: the fact that the terminal is deconstructionist and does not digitize agitprop is wrong.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the terminal is not homing and does not lob shadflower is not correct.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the terminal is deconstructionist.; sent2 & sent10 -> int2: the terminal is not deconstructionist.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the terminal is not homing and it does not lob shadflower.; int4 -> int5: something is not a homing and it does not lob shadflower.; int5 & sent9 -> int6: the hook is a carbuncled.; sent6 -> int7: if the hook is a carbuncled then it lobs fraxinella.; int6 & int7 -> int8: the hook lobs fraxinella.; int8 & sent5 -> hypothesis;
the fraxinella is not a dovetail.
sent4 -> int9: that the terminal is not deconstructionist and is a kind of a carbuncled is incorrect if it does not lob fraxinella.;
$hypothesis$ = the fraxinella does dovetail. ; $context$ = sent1: the terminal is deconstructionist if the fact that it is non-homing and does not lob shadflower is not correct. sent2: if the fact that the terminal is deconstructionist thing that does not digitize agitprop is incorrect then it is not deconstructionist. sent3: the fact that the terminal lobs fraxinella hold. sent4: if something does not lob fraxinella that it is non-deconstructionist thing that is a carbuncled is false. sent5: the fraxinella dovetails if the hook does lob fraxinella. sent6: something lobs fraxinella if that it is a carbuncled is not incorrect. sent7: there exists something such that it does not lob shadflower. sent8: the fact that the terminal does not lob shadflower hold. sent9: if something does not home and does not lob shadflower the hook is a carbuncled. sent10: the fact that the terminal is deconstructionist and does not digitize agitprop is wrong. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the terminal is not homing and does not lob shadflower is not correct.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the terminal is deconstructionist.; sent2 & sent10 -> int2: the terminal is not deconstructionist.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the terminal is not homing and it does not lob shadflower.; int4 -> int5: something is not a homing and it does not lob shadflower.; int5 & sent9 -> int6: the hook is a carbuncled.; sent6 -> int7: if the hook is a carbuncled then it lobs fraxinella.; int6 & int7 -> int8: the hook lobs fraxinella.; int8 & sent5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__