that the mallet cambers Poitier is correct.
sent1: if something does not camber Reiter it cambers Poitier. sent2: the glyph does not camber Reiter if something that is a Meuse is a stockfish. sent3: something is a dogwatch if the fact that it is non-bibliomaniacal and it is not biliary does not hold. sent4: if the glyph is not biliary the portico is not biliary but it does immobilize. sent5: if something is achondritic that it does not camber Reiter and it is biliary is false. sent6: something is not a Meuse but it is a stockfish. sent7: the glyph is a dogwatch. sent8: the magnetite is bibliomaniacal. sent9: if something is iridic then the fact that it does not rotate unfavorableness and does gear mallet is false. sent10: the fact that the glyph immobilizes is right. sent11: if something is biliary and it immobilizes then that it is not bibliomaniacal is not false. sent12: the portico is not biliary. sent13: the fact that the mallet is a solicitor that is not bibliomaniacal is not right. sent14: if the mallet is a solicitor it cambers Poitier. sent15: if something is not biliary but it immobilizes then it is not bibliomaniacal. sent16: the glyph does not camber Reiter if there is something such that it is not a kind of a Meuse and it is a stockfish. sent17: the glyph is a dogwatch and achondritic. sent18: if the portico is not bibliomaniacal then that the mallet is not a kind of a solicitor and it is not bibliomaniacal is wrong.
sent6 & sent16 -> int1: the glyph does not camber Reiter.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the glyph is biliary.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the glyph does not camber Reiter and is biliary.; sent5 -> int3: the fact that the glyph does not camber Reiter but it is biliary is wrong if that it is achondritic is not wrong.; sent17 -> int4: the glyph is not non-achondritic.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the fact that the glyph does not camber Reiter but it is biliary does not hold.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the glyph is not biliary.; int7 & sent4 -> int8: the portico is a kind of non-biliary thing that does immobilize.; sent15 -> int9: if the portico is non-biliary thing that immobilizes the fact that it is not bibliomaniacal is not false.; int8 & int9 -> int10: that the portico is not bibliomaniacal is true.; int10 & sent18 -> int11: that the fact that the mallet is not a solicitor and not bibliomaniacal is not true hold.;
the endosperm does camber Poitier and cambers bomblet.
sent1 -> int12: the endosperm cambers Poitier if it does not camber Reiter.;
$hypothesis$ = that the mallet cambers Poitier is correct. ; $context$ = sent1: if something does not camber Reiter it cambers Poitier. sent2: the glyph does not camber Reiter if something that is a Meuse is a stockfish. sent3: something is a dogwatch if the fact that it is non-bibliomaniacal and it is not biliary does not hold. sent4: if the glyph is not biliary the portico is not biliary but it does immobilize. sent5: if something is achondritic that it does not camber Reiter and it is biliary is false. sent6: something is not a Meuse but it is a stockfish. sent7: the glyph is a dogwatch. sent8: the magnetite is bibliomaniacal. sent9: if something is iridic then the fact that it does not rotate unfavorableness and does gear mallet is false. sent10: the fact that the glyph immobilizes is right. sent11: if something is biliary and it immobilizes then that it is not bibliomaniacal is not false. sent12: the portico is not biliary. sent13: the fact that the mallet is a solicitor that is not bibliomaniacal is not right. sent14: if the mallet is a solicitor it cambers Poitier. sent15: if something is not biliary but it immobilizes then it is not bibliomaniacal. sent16: the glyph does not camber Reiter if there is something such that it is not a kind of a Meuse and it is a stockfish. sent17: the glyph is a dogwatch and achondritic. sent18: if the portico is not bibliomaniacal then that the mallet is not a kind of a solicitor and it is not bibliomaniacal is wrong. ; $proof$ = 
sent6 & sent16 -> int1: the glyph does not camber Reiter.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the glyph is biliary.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the glyph does not camber Reiter and is biliary.; sent5 -> int3: the fact that the glyph does not camber Reiter but it is biliary is wrong if that it is achondritic is not wrong.; sent17 -> int4: the glyph is not non-achondritic.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the fact that the glyph does not camber Reiter but it is biliary does not hold.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the glyph is not biliary.; int7 & sent4 -> int8: the portico is a kind of non-biliary thing that does immobilize.; sent15 -> int9: if the portico is non-biliary thing that immobilizes the fact that it is not bibliomaniacal is not false.; int8 & int9 -> int10: that the portico is not bibliomaniacal is true.; int10 & sent18 -> int11: that the fact that the mallet is not a solicitor and not bibliomaniacal is not true hold.; __UNKNOWN__