if the investing religionism happens then the sensing does not occur.
sent1: that the sensing occurs and/or the blackjack happens prevents that the investing religionism occurs. sent2: the blackjack occurs. sent3: that the sense does not occur and the overexposure does not occur is caused by that the blackjack does not occur.
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the sense happens.; assump2 -> int1: the sense occurs and/or the blackjack occurs.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the investing religionism does not occur.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the investing religionism occurs.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int3 -> int4: the sensing does not occur.; [assump1] & int4 -> hypothesis;
the overexposure does not occur.
$hypothesis$ = if the investing religionism happens then the sensing does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the sensing occurs and/or the blackjack happens prevents that the investing religionism occurs. sent2: the blackjack occurs. sent3: that the sense does not occur and the overexposure does not occur is caused by that the blackjack does not occur. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the sense happens.; assump2 -> int1: the sense occurs and/or the blackjack occurs.; int1 & sent1 -> int2: the investing religionism does not occur.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the investing religionism occurs.; int2 & assump1 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int3 -> int4: the sensing does not occur.; [assump1] & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__