the fact that there exists something such that the fact that it is not a Duchamp and it is a kind of a Winckelmann does not hold is not true.
sent1: if the galactagogue is a pitcher then the fact that the surrealist is a secularist is not false. sent2: if something is nominalistic it is joyful. sent3: if something is not a Duchamp and is a Winckelmann then the galactagogue is a kind of a pitcher. sent4: the surrealist is not joyful. sent5: the bugloss is nominalistic if that it is a Winckelmann is true. sent6: if something is a secularist it is nominalistic. sent7: something is a Winckelmann. sent8: that the bugloss is not a Duchamp is right.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the bugloss is not a kind of a Duchamp but it is a kind of a Winckelmann.; assump1 -> int1: there exists something such that it is both not a Duchamp and a Winckelmann.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the galactagogue is a pitcher.; int2 & sent1 -> int3: the surrealist is a secularist.; sent6 -> int4: if the surrealist is a secularist then it is nominalistic.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the fact that the surrealist is nominalistic is not false.; sent2 -> int6: the surrealist is joyful if it is nominalistic.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the surrealist is joyful.; int7 & sent4 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> int9: that the bugloss is not a Duchamp but it is a Winckelmann is false.; int9 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that there exists something such that the fact that it is not a Duchamp and it is a kind of a Winckelmann does not hold is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: if the galactagogue is a pitcher then the fact that the surrealist is a secularist is not false. sent2: if something is nominalistic it is joyful. sent3: if something is not a Duchamp and is a Winckelmann then the galactagogue is a kind of a pitcher. sent4: the surrealist is not joyful. sent5: the bugloss is nominalistic if that it is a Winckelmann is true. sent6: if something is a secularist it is nominalistic. sent7: something is a Winckelmann. sent8: that the bugloss is not a Duchamp is right. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the bugloss is not a kind of a Duchamp but it is a kind of a Winckelmann.; assump1 -> int1: there exists something such that it is both not a Duchamp and a Winckelmann.; int1 & sent3 -> int2: the galactagogue is a pitcher.; int2 & sent1 -> int3: the surrealist is a secularist.; sent6 -> int4: if the surrealist is a secularist then it is nominalistic.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the fact that the surrealist is nominalistic is not false.; sent2 -> int6: the surrealist is joyful if it is nominalistic.; int5 & int6 -> int7: the surrealist is joyful.; int7 & sent4 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> int9: that the bugloss is not a Duchamp but it is a Winckelmann is false.; int9 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__