the radiotelegraph is not a bump but scalable.
sent1: if the radiotelegraph bumps that the emerald is a rosewood that is not a penuche is false. sent2: if the fact that the periwinkle is not non-occlusive but it is not a Livingston is not true the poseuse is not non-katharobic. sent3: The fact that the coachwhip does not premise stereoscope hold. sent4: something is a senility and occlusive if it does not premise coachwhip. sent5: if the emerald is a Livingston but it is not katharobic the radiotelegraph is katharobic. sent6: if the stereoscope does not premise coachwhip then the fact that that the periwinkle is occlusive but it is not a Livingston is correct is not true. sent7: the poseuse is not katharobic if there is something such that that it is a rosewood and is not a penuche is not true. sent8: if the radiotelegraph is both not a senility and not a bump then the periwinkle is a kind of a bump. sent9: something is a kind of a Livingston but it is not katharobic if it is a senility. sent10: if that the emerald is not katharobic is not false then the fact that the radiotelegraph is both not a bump and scalable is not right. sent11: the fact that the radiotelegraph is scalable and it is a kind of a senility is false. sent12: the radiotelegraph is not occlusive. sent13: if the fact that the periwinkle does premise coachwhip but it is not a kind of a penuche does not hold the emerald is a Livingston. sent14: if the radiotelegraph is not a rosewood then the fact that the emerald is a bump but it is not a Livingston does not hold. sent15: if something is not katharobic then the fact that it is not a bump and it is scalable is not correct. sent16: the periwinkle does premise coachwhip. sent17: the radiotelegraph is scalable if the fact that the fingertip is a kind of a senility is correct. sent18: the fact that the fingertip is not immunological is right. sent19: something is scalable if it is a bump. sent20: the fingertip is a senility that bludgeons. sent21: the fact that the stereoscope does not premise coachwhip hold.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the radiotelegraph is a bump is not false.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the emerald is a rosewood and is not a penuche is wrong.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that the fact that it is a rosewood and it is not a penuche is not true.; int2 & sent7 -> int3: the poseuse is not katharobic.; sent6 & sent21 -> int4: the fact that the periwinkle is occlusive but it is not a Livingston is false.; sent2 & int4 -> int5: the poseuse is katharobic.; int3 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the radiotelegraph is not a bump.; sent20 -> int8: the fingertip is a senility.; sent17 & int8 -> int9: the radiotelegraph is scalable.; int7 & int9 -> hypothesis;
the periwinkle is scalable.
sent19 -> int10: if the periwinkle is a bump then it is scalable.;
$hypothesis$ = the radiotelegraph is not a bump but scalable. ; $context$ = sent1: if the radiotelegraph bumps that the emerald is a rosewood that is not a penuche is false. sent2: if the fact that the periwinkle is not non-occlusive but it is not a Livingston is not true the poseuse is not non-katharobic. sent3: The fact that the coachwhip does not premise stereoscope hold. sent4: something is a senility and occlusive if it does not premise coachwhip. sent5: if the emerald is a Livingston but it is not katharobic the radiotelegraph is katharobic. sent6: if the stereoscope does not premise coachwhip then the fact that that the periwinkle is occlusive but it is not a Livingston is correct is not true. sent7: the poseuse is not katharobic if there is something such that that it is a rosewood and is not a penuche is not true. sent8: if the radiotelegraph is both not a senility and not a bump then the periwinkle is a kind of a bump. sent9: something is a kind of a Livingston but it is not katharobic if it is a senility. sent10: if that the emerald is not katharobic is not false then the fact that the radiotelegraph is both not a bump and scalable is not right. sent11: the fact that the radiotelegraph is scalable and it is a kind of a senility is false. sent12: the radiotelegraph is not occlusive. sent13: if the fact that the periwinkle does premise coachwhip but it is not a kind of a penuche does not hold the emerald is a Livingston. sent14: if the radiotelegraph is not a rosewood then the fact that the emerald is a bump but it is not a Livingston does not hold. sent15: if something is not katharobic then the fact that it is not a bump and it is scalable is not correct. sent16: the periwinkle does premise coachwhip. sent17: the radiotelegraph is scalable if the fact that the fingertip is a kind of a senility is correct. sent18: the fact that the fingertip is not immunological is right. sent19: something is scalable if it is a bump. sent20: the fingertip is a senility that bludgeons. sent21: the fact that the stereoscope does not premise coachwhip hold. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the radiotelegraph is a bump is not false.; sent1 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the emerald is a rosewood and is not a penuche is wrong.; int1 -> int2: there exists something such that the fact that it is a rosewood and it is not a penuche is not true.; int2 & sent7 -> int3: the poseuse is not katharobic.; sent6 & sent21 -> int4: the fact that the periwinkle is occlusive but it is not a Livingston is false.; sent2 & int4 -> int5: the poseuse is katharobic.; int3 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the radiotelegraph is not a bump.; sent20 -> int8: the fingertip is a senility.; sent17 & int8 -> int9: the radiotelegraph is scalable.; int7 & int9 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__