the perversion is heliacal.
sent1: the fact that the propjet is abyssal thing that does describe is wrong if the chrysomelid does not describe. sent2: the chrysomelid does not describe if the fact that the maillot is not an armiger but a chafed does not hold. sent3: the perversion is heliacal if the maillot is not a kind of an armiger but it chafes. sent4: if the maillot is abyssal but it is not a worktable then the perversion is not abyssal. sent5: the chrysomelid sees if the fact that it is not a sees and not a Berbers does not hold. sent6: the maillot is not methodological if the propjet is not a kind of a formal. sent7: if the fact that the chrysomelid does not describe hold then the fact that the propjet is a kind of non-abyssal thing that does describe is false. sent8: the propjet chafes if the maillot is a worktable and it describes. sent9: if the fact that the chrysomelid does overuse Cypriot and is a kind of a mydriatic does not hold the fact that the maillot is not a worktable is true. sent10: either the propjet is not logistics or it is not formal or both. sent11: the propjet is non-abyssal if it is not a worktable. sent12: something is not heliacal if it is not abyssal. sent13: the propjet does not overuse Cypriot and it is not a worktable. sent14: if something is not a kind of a worktable then the fact that it is not abyssal is true. sent15: the fact that something overuses Cypriot and is a mydriatic is not right if it is not a laparoscope. sent16: the fact that the perversion is heliacal is not wrong if the maillot is an armiger and a chafed. sent17: the propjet is not abyssal. sent18: that the propjet is abyssal thing that does describe is not right. sent19: if the propjet is not logistics then the fact that the maillot is not methodological is true. sent20: if something is a saw and is a feline then it is not a kind of a laparoscope. sent21: the fact that the chrysomelid is not a saw and is not a Berbers is false. sent22: something is abyssal and it describes if it is not methodological. sent23: something is a kind of non-abyssal thing that does describe if it is not a worktable.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the fact that the maillot is not a kind of an armiger but it is a chafed is correct is not right.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the chrysomelid does not describe.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: the fact that the propjet is not abyssal but it describes is not correct.; sent23 -> int3: if the propjet is not a kind of a worktable it is not abyssal and it describes.; sent13 -> int4: the propjet is not a worktable.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the propjet is not abyssal and does describe.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the maillot is not an armiger but it is a chafed.; int7 & sent3 -> hypothesis;
the perversion is not heliacal.
sent12 -> int8: if the perversion is not abyssal it is not heliacal.; sent22 -> int9: the maillot is abyssal and it does describe if it is not methodological.; sent10 & sent19 & sent6 -> int10: the fact that the maillot is not methodological is not incorrect.; int9 & int10 -> int11: the maillot is abyssal thing that describes.; int11 -> int12: the maillot is abyssal.; sent15 -> int13: that the chrysomelid overuses Cypriot and is a mydriatic does not hold if it is not a kind of a laparoscope.; sent20 -> int14: if the chrysomelid is a kind of a saw and it is a kind of a feline then it is not a laparoscope.; sent5 & sent21 -> int15: the chrysomelid sees.;
$hypothesis$ = the perversion is heliacal. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the propjet is abyssal thing that does describe is wrong if the chrysomelid does not describe. sent2: the chrysomelid does not describe if the fact that the maillot is not an armiger but a chafed does not hold. sent3: the perversion is heliacal if the maillot is not a kind of an armiger but it chafes. sent4: if the maillot is abyssal but it is not a worktable then the perversion is not abyssal. sent5: the chrysomelid sees if the fact that it is not a sees and not a Berbers does not hold. sent6: the maillot is not methodological if the propjet is not a kind of a formal. sent7: if the fact that the chrysomelid does not describe hold then the fact that the propjet is a kind of non-abyssal thing that does describe is false. sent8: the propjet chafes if the maillot is a worktable and it describes. sent9: if the fact that the chrysomelid does overuse Cypriot and is a kind of a mydriatic does not hold the fact that the maillot is not a worktable is true. sent10: either the propjet is not logistics or it is not formal or both. sent11: the propjet is non-abyssal if it is not a worktable. sent12: something is not heliacal if it is not abyssal. sent13: the propjet does not overuse Cypriot and it is not a worktable. sent14: if something is not a kind of a worktable then the fact that it is not abyssal is true. sent15: the fact that something overuses Cypriot and is a mydriatic is not right if it is not a laparoscope. sent16: the fact that the perversion is heliacal is not wrong if the maillot is an armiger and a chafed. sent17: the propjet is not abyssal. sent18: that the propjet is abyssal thing that does describe is not right. sent19: if the propjet is not logistics then the fact that the maillot is not methodological is true. sent20: if something is a saw and is a feline then it is not a kind of a laparoscope. sent21: the fact that the chrysomelid is not a saw and is not a Berbers is false. sent22: something is abyssal and it describes if it is not methodological. sent23: something is a kind of non-abyssal thing that does describe if it is not a worktable. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the fact that the maillot is not a kind of an armiger but it is a chafed is correct is not right.; sent2 & assump1 -> int1: the chrysomelid does not describe.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: the fact that the propjet is not abyssal but it describes is not correct.; sent23 -> int3: if the propjet is not a kind of a worktable it is not abyssal and it describes.; sent13 -> int4: the propjet is not a worktable.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the propjet is not abyssal and does describe.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the maillot is not an armiger but it is a chafed.; int7 & sent3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__