the fact that the dunning Algonquian does not occur and the Eucharisticness occurs is false.
sent1: if the fact that the interpreting Codiaeum does not occur but the interpreting mandator occurs is false then the Berith does not occur. sent2: the non-darkness is caused by that both the non-uncousinliness and the dunning mounter occurs. sent3: that the Berith does not occur brings about that the dunning Algonquian does not occur but the Eucharisticness occurs. sent4: the fact that the subdividing trudge does not occur and the interpreting massage does not occur does not hold if the dunning hill happens. sent5: the darkness happens if the fact that the subdividing trudge does not occur and the interpreting massage does not occur is not correct. sent6: that the interpreting Codiaeum does not occur but the interpreting mandator occurs is false if the dunning mounter does not occur. sent7: the uncousinliness does not occur. sent8: the dunning hill occurs.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the dunning mounter occurs.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: both the cousinlyness and the dunning mounter happens.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the darkness does not occur.; sent4 & sent8 -> int3: the fact that the subdividing trudge does not occur and the interpreting massage does not occur is not right.; sent5 & int3 -> int4: the darkness occurs.; int2 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the dunning mounter does not occur.; int6 & sent6 -> int7: that not the interpreting Codiaeum but the interpreting mandator happens does not hold.; int7 & sent1 -> int8: the Berith does not occur.; int8 & sent3 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the dunning Algonquian does not occur and the Eucharisticness occurs is false. ; $context$ = sent1: if the fact that the interpreting Codiaeum does not occur but the interpreting mandator occurs is false then the Berith does not occur. sent2: the non-darkness is caused by that both the non-uncousinliness and the dunning mounter occurs. sent3: that the Berith does not occur brings about that the dunning Algonquian does not occur but the Eucharisticness occurs. sent4: the fact that the subdividing trudge does not occur and the interpreting massage does not occur does not hold if the dunning hill happens. sent5: the darkness happens if the fact that the subdividing trudge does not occur and the interpreting massage does not occur is not correct. sent6: that the interpreting Codiaeum does not occur but the interpreting mandator occurs is false if the dunning mounter does not occur. sent7: the uncousinliness does not occur. sent8: the dunning hill occurs. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the dunning mounter occurs.; sent7 & assump1 -> int1: both the cousinlyness and the dunning mounter happens.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the darkness does not occur.; sent4 & sent8 -> int3: the fact that the subdividing trudge does not occur and the interpreting massage does not occur is not right.; sent5 & int3 -> int4: the darkness occurs.; int2 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> int6: the dunning mounter does not occur.; int6 & sent6 -> int7: that not the interpreting Codiaeum but the interpreting mandator happens does not hold.; int7 & sent1 -> int8: the Berith does not occur.; int8 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__