the grandee is not nonterritorial.
sent1: if there exists something such that that it is not a reactionary and scuffs harmonization does not hold the grandee is nonterritorial. sent2: if something does not vaticinate it is a Stein. sent3: the logomach either is a reactionary or is not a kind of a Stein or both if it is a quiver. sent4: if the logomach is not a kind of a reactionary the fact that the fact that the erotic is a mind and it is calendric does not hold hold. sent5: the worsted is a quiver. sent6: something is a kind of a Stein if it pieces aerology. sent7: something does mind if it does not piece meeting. sent8: the logomach does not scuff harmonization but it is a reactionary if the erotic is not a mind. sent9: the worsted is not a kind of a Stein if that that the erotic minds and it is not non-calendric is correct is incorrect. sent10: the bellwether does not piece aerology but it girdles logomach. sent11: either the worsted pieces aerology or it does not vaticinate or both if it is a quiver.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the logomach is not a reactionary and does scuff harmonization is not wrong.; assump1 -> int1: the logomach is not a kind of a reactionary.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the fact that the erotic is a mind and it is calendric is incorrect.; int2 & sent9 -> int3: the worsted is not a Stein.; sent11 & sent5 -> int4: the worsted pieces aerology and/or it does not vaticinate.; sent6 -> int5: if the worsted pieces aerology then it is a Stein.; sent2 -> int6: the worsted is a Stein if it does not vaticinate.; int4 & int5 & int6 -> int7: the worsted is a Stein.; int3 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> int9: that the logomach is not a reactionary but it scuffs harmonization is not correct.; int9 -> int10: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a reactionary and scuffs harmonization is not true.; int10 & sent1 -> hypothesis;
the grandee is not nonterritorial.
$hypothesis$ = the grandee is not nonterritorial. ; $context$ = sent1: if there exists something such that that it is not a reactionary and scuffs harmonization does not hold the grandee is nonterritorial. sent2: if something does not vaticinate it is a Stein. sent3: the logomach either is a reactionary or is not a kind of a Stein or both if it is a quiver. sent4: if the logomach is not a kind of a reactionary the fact that the fact that the erotic is a mind and it is calendric does not hold hold. sent5: the worsted is a quiver. sent6: something is a kind of a Stein if it pieces aerology. sent7: something does mind if it does not piece meeting. sent8: the logomach does not scuff harmonization but it is a reactionary if the erotic is not a mind. sent9: the worsted is not a kind of a Stein if that that the erotic minds and it is not non-calendric is correct is incorrect. sent10: the bellwether does not piece aerology but it girdles logomach. sent11: either the worsted pieces aerology or it does not vaticinate or both if it is a quiver. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the fact that the logomach is not a reactionary and does scuff harmonization is not wrong.; assump1 -> int1: the logomach is not a kind of a reactionary.; int1 & sent4 -> int2: the fact that the erotic is a mind and it is calendric is incorrect.; int2 & sent9 -> int3: the worsted is not a Stein.; sent11 & sent5 -> int4: the worsted pieces aerology and/or it does not vaticinate.; sent6 -> int5: if the worsted pieces aerology then it is a Stein.; sent2 -> int6: the worsted is a Stein if it does not vaticinate.; int4 & int5 & int6 -> int7: the worsted is a Stein.; int3 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> int9: that the logomach is not a reactionary but it scuffs harmonization is not correct.; int9 -> int10: there exists something such that the fact that it is not a kind of a reactionary and scuffs harmonization is not true.; int10 & sent1 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__