both the variableness and the cambialness occurs.
sent1: if the rotating succedaneum does not occur then the cambering heteroploid and the invariableness happens. sent2: that the invariableness does not occur and the cambialness happens does not hold if the rotating succedaneum does not occur. sent3: the rotating succedaneum happens if the rotating rancher does not occur and the chaetognathanness does not occur. sent4: the budgetariness does not occur and the demobilization does not occur. sent5: if the rotating succedaneum and the invariableness happens then the beating does not occur. sent6: the non-budgetariness results in that the beating happens and the cognitiveness happens. sent7: that the budgetariness occurs is caused by the demobilization. sent8: the rotating rancher does not occur and the chaetognathanness does not occur. sent9: the rotating succedaneum does not occur if the cognitiveness but not the beating happens.
sent3 & sent8 -> int1: the rotating succedaneum occurs.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the invariableness occurs.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the rotating succedaneum occurs and the invariableness happens.; int2 & sent5 -> int3: the beating does not occur.; sent4 -> int4: the budgetariness does not occur.; sent6 & int4 -> int5: the beating and the cognitiveness happens.; int5 -> int6: the beating happens.; int3 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> int8: the invariableness does not occur.;
the fact that the non-invariableness and the cambialness occurs is not right.
$hypothesis$ = both the variableness and the cambialness occurs. ; $context$ = sent1: if the rotating succedaneum does not occur then the cambering heteroploid and the invariableness happens. sent2: that the invariableness does not occur and the cambialness happens does not hold if the rotating succedaneum does not occur. sent3: the rotating succedaneum happens if the rotating rancher does not occur and the chaetognathanness does not occur. sent4: the budgetariness does not occur and the demobilization does not occur. sent5: if the rotating succedaneum and the invariableness happens then the beating does not occur. sent6: the non-budgetariness results in that the beating happens and the cognitiveness happens. sent7: that the budgetariness occurs is caused by the demobilization. sent8: the rotating rancher does not occur and the chaetognathanness does not occur. sent9: the rotating succedaneum does not occur if the cognitiveness but not the beating happens. ; $proof$ = 
sent3 & sent8 -> int1: the rotating succedaneum occurs.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the invariableness occurs.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the rotating succedaneum occurs and the invariableness happens.; int2 & sent5 -> int3: the beating does not occur.; sent4 -> int4: the budgetariness does not occur.; sent6 & int4 -> int5: the beating and the cognitiveness happens.; int5 -> int6: the beating happens.; int3 & int6 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> int8: the invariableness does not occur.; __UNKNOWN__