the geek is intracranial.
sent1: the fact that something is not intracranial if it is gutless or is not intracranial or both is right. sent2: if a sensitive thing does not wear brain it is edible. sent3: the bast is edible if it does not identify Vandal. sent4: if the fact that the Vandal is edible is not wrong the geek does not identify Vandal. sent5: if something does not astringe technophilia it is not insensitive and does not wear brain. sent6: that the Vandal is not other and is inflationary is not correct. sent7: that the bast does not identify Vandal is right if that the Vandal is both not other and not inflationary is wrong. sent8: something that is septic does not astringe technophilia and is stainable. sent9: the bast is not a diamante if the roble is not a diamante. sent10: the fact that something does wear doublethink and is not literary is incorrect if it educes. sent11: that the Vandal is not other and not inflationary is wrong if the geek is not intracranial. sent12: the fact that the roble does wear brain if the fact that the roble is insensitive and/or it does not astringe technophilia is wrong is not false. sent13: the roble is not insensitive if it is not stainable. sent14: the halitus is edible. sent15: that the roble is non-stainable is correct. sent16: either something is gutless or it is not intracranial or both if it does not identify Vandal. sent17: if the roble is a kind of gutless thing that wears brain the bast is not inflationary. sent18: if the bast is edible and it is gutless the roble does not wear brain. sent19: the bast does not identify Vandal if the Vandal is inflationary. sent20: if the roble is not stainable that it is insensitive or it does not astringe technophilia or both is not true. sent21: the fact that something is not non-stainable and is not non-intracranial hold if it is not inflationary. sent22: if that something does not identify Vandal is not wrong then it is edible and it is gutless. sent23: if that the bast does wear doublethink and is not literary is incorrect then the Vandal is septic. sent24: the fact that something educes and it is a kind of a decimalization if it is not a diamante is correct. sent25: there exists something such that that it is a countenance and a diamante is not correct.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the geek is not intracranial.; sent11 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the Vandal is not other and is not inflationary is incorrect.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: the bast does not identify Vandal.; sent22 -> int3: the bast is edible and is gutless if it does not identify Vandal.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the bast is edible and it is gutless.; int4 & sent18 -> int5: the roble does not wear brain.; sent20 & sent15 -> int6: the fact that the roble is insensitive and/or it does not astringe technophilia does not hold.; sent12 & int6 -> int7: the roble wears brain.; int5 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> hypothesis;
the geek is not intracranial.
sent1 -> int9: the geek is not intracranial if that it is gutless or it is not intracranial or both is not false.; sent16 -> int10: the geek is gutless and/or it is not intracranial if it does not identify Vandal.; sent2 -> int11: the Vandal is edible if it is not insensitive and it does not wear brain.; sent5 -> int12: the Vandal is not insensitive and it does not wear brain if it does not astringe technophilia.; sent8 -> int13: the Vandal does not astringe technophilia and is stainable if it is septic.; sent10 -> int14: the fact that the bast does wear doublethink and is non-literary does not hold if it educes.; sent24 -> int15: the bast does educe and it is a decimalization if it is not a kind of a diamante.;
$hypothesis$ = the geek is intracranial. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that something is not intracranial if it is gutless or is not intracranial or both is right. sent2: if a sensitive thing does not wear brain it is edible. sent3: the bast is edible if it does not identify Vandal. sent4: if the fact that the Vandal is edible is not wrong the geek does not identify Vandal. sent5: if something does not astringe technophilia it is not insensitive and does not wear brain. sent6: that the Vandal is not other and is inflationary is not correct. sent7: that the bast does not identify Vandal is right if that the Vandal is both not other and not inflationary is wrong. sent8: something that is septic does not astringe technophilia and is stainable. sent9: the bast is not a diamante if the roble is not a diamante. sent10: the fact that something does wear doublethink and is not literary is incorrect if it educes. sent11: that the Vandal is not other and not inflationary is wrong if the geek is not intracranial. sent12: the fact that the roble does wear brain if the fact that the roble is insensitive and/or it does not astringe technophilia is wrong is not false. sent13: the roble is not insensitive if it is not stainable. sent14: the halitus is edible. sent15: that the roble is non-stainable is correct. sent16: either something is gutless or it is not intracranial or both if it does not identify Vandal. sent17: if the roble is a kind of gutless thing that wears brain the bast is not inflationary. sent18: if the bast is edible and it is gutless the roble does not wear brain. sent19: the bast does not identify Vandal if the Vandal is inflationary. sent20: if the roble is not stainable that it is insensitive or it does not astringe technophilia or both is not true. sent21: the fact that something is not non-stainable and is not non-intracranial hold if it is not inflationary. sent22: if that something does not identify Vandal is not wrong then it is edible and it is gutless. sent23: if that the bast does wear doublethink and is not literary is incorrect then the Vandal is septic. sent24: the fact that something educes and it is a kind of a decimalization if it is not a diamante is correct. sent25: there exists something such that that it is a countenance and a diamante is not correct. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the geek is not intracranial.; sent11 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the Vandal is not other and is not inflationary is incorrect.; int1 & sent7 -> int2: the bast does not identify Vandal.; sent22 -> int3: the bast is edible and is gutless if it does not identify Vandal.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the bast is edible and it is gutless.; int4 & sent18 -> int5: the roble does not wear brain.; sent20 & sent15 -> int6: the fact that the roble is insensitive and/or it does not astringe technophilia does not hold.; sent12 & int6 -> int7: the roble wears brain.; int5 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__