that the barouche is a characin if the pickelhaube is a semasiology is not right.
sent1: the cigarette is a kind of an affair if the pickelhaube does eliminate Gallicism and is not a kind of a Ull. sent2: the pickelhaube is an affair if the fact that it is not a semasiology and does not eliminate Gallicism is false. sent3: if the fact that the bungalow does not overpower Pinatubo is not wrong then the barouche is a characin. sent4: the fact that the barouche is a semasiology is not wrong. sent5: the fact that the pickelhaube does not eliminate Gallicism is not incorrect. sent6: the pickelhaube is not a kind of a semasiology if the fact that it does not eliminate Gallicism and it is not a Ull does not hold. sent7: the pickelhaube does not eliminate Gallicism if that it is not a kind of a Ull and is not a kind of an affair is not correct. sent8: the barouche is not a characin and it is not a kind of a Ull. sent9: the splice does not overpower Pinatubo. sent10: the fact that the bungalow is an affair is correct if the cigarette is optical. sent11: if the fact that the bungalow is not optical but it does overpower Pinatubo is not correct then the barouche is a characin. sent12: the cigarette does eliminate Gallicism. sent13: if the cigarette is an affair then that the bungalow is not optical but it does overpower Pinatubo is not right. sent14: the pickelhaube is a characin if that it does not eliminate Gallicism and it is not optical is wrong. sent15: if the bungalow is a kind of a semasiology the pickelhaube eliminates Gallicism. sent16: the fact that something is not a kind of an affair but it is seaworthy does not hold if it is not a semasiology. sent17: the fact that the fact that the pickelhaube does eliminate Gallicism and is not a kind of a Ull hold is not correct. sent18: if the pickelhaube does eliminate Gallicism it is not a semasiology. sent19: the cigarette is an affair if the pickelhaube does not eliminate Gallicism and is not a Ull.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the pickelhaube is a semasiology is correct.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that that the fact that the pickelhaube does not eliminate Gallicism and it is not a Ull is not correct is not false.; sent6 & assump2 -> int1: the pickelhaube is not a kind of a semasiology.; assump1 & int1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int2 -> int3: the pickelhaube does not eliminate Gallicism and it is not a Ull.; sent19 & int3 -> int4: the cigarette is a kind of an affair.; sent13 & int4 -> int5: the fact that the bungalow is not optical but it does overpower Pinatubo is not correct.; sent11 & int5 -> int6: the barouche is a characin.; [assump1] & int6 -> hypothesis;
that the bungalow is not an affair but it is seaworthy is not right.
sent16 -> int7: if the bungalow is not a semasiology then that it is both not an affair and seaworthy is not true.;
$hypothesis$ = that the barouche is a characin if the pickelhaube is a semasiology is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the cigarette is a kind of an affair if the pickelhaube does eliminate Gallicism and is not a kind of a Ull. sent2: the pickelhaube is an affair if the fact that it is not a semasiology and does not eliminate Gallicism is false. sent3: if the fact that the bungalow does not overpower Pinatubo is not wrong then the barouche is a characin. sent4: the fact that the barouche is a semasiology is not wrong. sent5: the fact that the pickelhaube does not eliminate Gallicism is not incorrect. sent6: the pickelhaube is not a kind of a semasiology if the fact that it does not eliminate Gallicism and it is not a Ull does not hold. sent7: the pickelhaube does not eliminate Gallicism if that it is not a kind of a Ull and is not a kind of an affair is not correct. sent8: the barouche is not a characin and it is not a kind of a Ull. sent9: the splice does not overpower Pinatubo. sent10: the fact that the bungalow is an affair is correct if the cigarette is optical. sent11: if the fact that the bungalow is not optical but it does overpower Pinatubo is not correct then the barouche is a characin. sent12: the cigarette does eliminate Gallicism. sent13: if the cigarette is an affair then that the bungalow is not optical but it does overpower Pinatubo is not right. sent14: the pickelhaube is a characin if that it does not eliminate Gallicism and it is not optical is wrong. sent15: if the bungalow is a kind of a semasiology the pickelhaube eliminates Gallicism. sent16: the fact that something is not a kind of an affair but it is seaworthy does not hold if it is not a semasiology. sent17: the fact that the fact that the pickelhaube does eliminate Gallicism and is not a kind of a Ull hold is not correct. sent18: if the pickelhaube does eliminate Gallicism it is not a semasiology. sent19: the cigarette is an affair if the pickelhaube does not eliminate Gallicism and is not a Ull. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the pickelhaube is a semasiology is correct.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that that the fact that the pickelhaube does not eliminate Gallicism and it is not a Ull is not correct is not false.; sent6 & assump2 -> int1: the pickelhaube is not a kind of a semasiology.; assump1 & int1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int2 -> int3: the pickelhaube does not eliminate Gallicism and it is not a Ull.; sent19 & int3 -> int4: the cigarette is a kind of an affair.; sent13 & int4 -> int5: the fact that the bungalow is not optical but it does overpower Pinatubo is not correct.; sent11 & int5 -> int6: the barouche is a characin.; [assump1] & int6 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__