there is something such that the fact that it does not personify pinfold and it is a Dakar does not hold.
sent1: the opium does not interlock Pythia but it quacks. sent2: that the icepick does not tinkle ern but it is a Dakar does not hold. sent3: if something is not calisthenics then that it does not tinkle ern and is a millstone does not hold. sent4: that the icepick does not chomp but it is a grill is true. sent5: if the fact that something does not interlock Pythia and does jive is not true then it is not a stonework. sent6: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of non-Shakespearian a Noctuidae is incorrect. sent7: the tourniquet is not calisthenics. sent8: the fact that the fact that the icepick is non-bromidic thing that is a Dakar is incorrect is not incorrect if the pollack does not personify pinfold. sent9: if the pollack does not tinkle ern then that the icepick is not calisthenics and is a Dakar is not right. sent10: the pollack does not tinkle ern and is a kind of a millstone. sent11: the icepick either is bromidic or is not toroidal or both. sent12: if something does personify pinfold that it is not tangential and it is a curry does not hold. sent13: the pollack is a kind of a millstone. sent14: that the icepick is a Dakar hold. sent15: the fact that the papoose is both not toroidal and bronchial is false. sent16: there is something such that the fact that it does personify pinfold and is a Dakar is not right. sent17: something is not calisthenics if the fact that it is non-toroidal thing that is bromidic is not right. sent18: that the fact that something is not tangential but it does jive hold is false if it is not Procrustean. sent19: the fact that the pollack is not toroidal but it is bromidic does not hold if the icepick does not personify pinfold.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the icepick does not personify pinfold but it is a Dakar.; assump1 -> int1: that the icepick does not personify pinfold is right.; int1 & sent19 -> int2: that the pollack is not toroidal but it is not non-bromidic is not correct.; sent17 -> int3: if that the pollack is both non-toroidal and not non-bromidic is false then it is not calisthenics.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the pollack is not calisthenics.; sent3 -> int5: if the pollack is not calisthenics that it does not tinkle ern and it is a millstone is wrong.; int4 & int5 -> int6: that the pollack does not tinkle ern and is a millstone is wrong.; int6 & sent10 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> int8: the fact that the icepick does not personify pinfold and is a Dakar is incorrect.; int8 -> hypothesis;
that the lapidary is a kind of non-tangential thing that is a kind of a curry is incorrect.
sent12 -> int9: if the lapidary personifies pinfold that it is a kind of non-tangential thing that is a curry is not correct.; sent11 -> int10: there exists something such that it is bromidic and/or not toroidal.;
$hypothesis$ = there is something such that the fact that it does not personify pinfold and it is a Dakar does not hold. ; $context$ = sent1: the opium does not interlock Pythia but it quacks. sent2: that the icepick does not tinkle ern but it is a Dakar does not hold. sent3: if something is not calisthenics then that it does not tinkle ern and is a millstone does not hold. sent4: that the icepick does not chomp but it is a grill is true. sent5: if the fact that something does not interlock Pythia and does jive is not true then it is not a stonework. sent6: there exists something such that the fact that it is a kind of non-Shakespearian a Noctuidae is incorrect. sent7: the tourniquet is not calisthenics. sent8: the fact that the fact that the icepick is non-bromidic thing that is a Dakar is incorrect is not incorrect if the pollack does not personify pinfold. sent9: if the pollack does not tinkle ern then that the icepick is not calisthenics and is a Dakar is not right. sent10: the pollack does not tinkle ern and is a kind of a millstone. sent11: the icepick either is bromidic or is not toroidal or both. sent12: if something does personify pinfold that it is not tangential and it is a curry does not hold. sent13: the pollack is a kind of a millstone. sent14: that the icepick is a Dakar hold. sent15: the fact that the papoose is both not toroidal and bronchial is false. sent16: there is something such that the fact that it does personify pinfold and is a Dakar is not right. sent17: something is not calisthenics if the fact that it is non-toroidal thing that is bromidic is not right. sent18: that the fact that something is not tangential but it does jive hold is false if it is not Procrustean. sent19: the fact that the pollack is not toroidal but it is bromidic does not hold if the icepick does not personify pinfold. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the icepick does not personify pinfold but it is a Dakar.; assump1 -> int1: that the icepick does not personify pinfold is right.; int1 & sent19 -> int2: that the pollack is not toroidal but it is not non-bromidic is not correct.; sent17 -> int3: if that the pollack is both non-toroidal and not non-bromidic is false then it is not calisthenics.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the pollack is not calisthenics.; sent3 -> int5: if the pollack is not calisthenics that it does not tinkle ern and it is a millstone is wrong.; int4 & int5 -> int6: that the pollack does not tinkle ern and is a millstone is wrong.; int6 & sent10 -> int7: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int7 -> int8: the fact that the icepick does not personify pinfold and is a Dakar is incorrect.; int8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__