that either the Fez is not a kind of a peafowl or it is a Tennyson or both is not right.
sent1: the Fez is not a Tennyson. sent2: the glossarist is umbelliform if the dinette is umbelliform. sent3: if there exists something such that that it does crochet genuflection hold then that the dinette does not crochet genuflection and it is not umbelliform is false. sent4: that the dinette does not crochet genuflection and is umbelliform is wrong. sent5: if the glossarist is literal the tailcoat is literal. sent6: if the fact that the dinette does not crochet genuflection and is not umbelliform does not hold the glossarist is umbelliform. sent7: if something does crochet genuflection then that the dinette does not crochet genuflection but it is umbelliform is not correct. sent8: the fact that that the glossarist is not umbelliform is right if that the tailcoat is a Nancere and is not chancroidal is not true is right. sent9: if the Fez is not a peafowl and/or is a Tennyson it is not a contrivance. sent10: if the glossarist gargles it is literal. sent11: the Fez is not a contrivance if it is a Tennyson. sent12: the glossarist gargles. sent13: that the tailcoat is a kind of a Nancere but it is not chancroidal is not true if that the Fez is not a contrivance is not false. sent14: the digitigrade does crochet genuflection. sent15: if something is not chancroidal the fact that the fact that it is a Nancere and it is a contrivance is not incorrect does not hold. sent16: the Fez is not chancroidal if the tailcoat is literal and chancroidal. sent17: if that the tailcoat is a kind of a Nancere is not true the fact that the glossarist is not umbelliform is not wrong. sent18: the minder does not crochet genuflection. sent19: if that something is a kind of a Nancere that is a contrivance is incorrect it is not a peafowl. sent20: The genuflection does crochet digitigrade. sent21: either the Fez is not a kind of a Nancere or it is a contrivance or both if the tailcoat is not chancroidal.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Fez is not a kind of a peafowl and/or is a Tennyson.; sent9 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the Fez is not a contrivance is not incorrect.; int1 & sent13 -> int2: that the tailcoat is a Nancere that is not chancroidal does not hold.; int2 & sent8 -> int3: the glossarist is not umbelliform.; sent14 -> int4: there is something such that it does crochet genuflection.; int4 & sent3 -> int5: that the fact that the dinette does not crochet genuflection and is not umbelliform is incorrect hold.; sent6 & int5 -> int6: the glossarist is umbelliform.; int3 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> hypothesis;
either the Fez is not a kind of a peafowl or it is a Tennyson or both.
sent19 -> int8: if the fact that the Fez is a Nancere that is a contrivance is not true that it is not a peafowl is not incorrect.; sent15 -> int9: if the Fez is not chancroidal that it is a Nancere and is a contrivance is wrong.; sent10 & sent12 -> int10: the glossarist is literal.; sent5 & int10 -> int11: the tailcoat is literal.;
$hypothesis$ = that either the Fez is not a kind of a peafowl or it is a Tennyson or both is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the Fez is not a Tennyson. sent2: the glossarist is umbelliform if the dinette is umbelliform. sent3: if there exists something such that that it does crochet genuflection hold then that the dinette does not crochet genuflection and it is not umbelliform is false. sent4: that the dinette does not crochet genuflection and is umbelliform is wrong. sent5: if the glossarist is literal the tailcoat is literal. sent6: if the fact that the dinette does not crochet genuflection and is not umbelliform does not hold the glossarist is umbelliform. sent7: if something does crochet genuflection then that the dinette does not crochet genuflection but it is umbelliform is not correct. sent8: the fact that that the glossarist is not umbelliform is right if that the tailcoat is a Nancere and is not chancroidal is not true is right. sent9: if the Fez is not a peafowl and/or is a Tennyson it is not a contrivance. sent10: if the glossarist gargles it is literal. sent11: the Fez is not a contrivance if it is a Tennyson. sent12: the glossarist gargles. sent13: that the tailcoat is a kind of a Nancere but it is not chancroidal is not true if that the Fez is not a contrivance is not false. sent14: the digitigrade does crochet genuflection. sent15: if something is not chancroidal the fact that the fact that it is a Nancere and it is a contrivance is not incorrect does not hold. sent16: the Fez is not chancroidal if the tailcoat is literal and chancroidal. sent17: if that the tailcoat is a kind of a Nancere is not true the fact that the glossarist is not umbelliform is not wrong. sent18: the minder does not crochet genuflection. sent19: if that something is a kind of a Nancere that is a contrivance is incorrect it is not a peafowl. sent20: The genuflection does crochet digitigrade. sent21: either the Fez is not a kind of a Nancere or it is a contrivance or both if the tailcoat is not chancroidal. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the Fez is not a kind of a peafowl and/or is a Tennyson.; sent9 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the Fez is not a contrivance is not incorrect.; int1 & sent13 -> int2: that the tailcoat is a Nancere that is not chancroidal does not hold.; int2 & sent8 -> int3: the glossarist is not umbelliform.; sent14 -> int4: there is something such that it does crochet genuflection.; int4 & sent3 -> int5: that the fact that the dinette does not crochet genuflection and is not umbelliform is incorrect hold.; sent6 & int5 -> int6: the glossarist is umbelliform.; int3 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__