the fact that the redbird is not an exhaust and it is not an aquatic is not right.
sent1: the barracuda does not bungle. sent2: if the fact that something is both a Richmond and a bedder does not hold then it is not a Richmond. sent3: if the barracuda is not an aquatic that the redbird is an exhaust and is not an aquatic is incorrect. sent4: if the Tsimshian varnishes then it does disown anomia. sent5: the Tsimshian is a kind of a Colon if that the barracuda is a bedder hold. sent6: the fact that the redbird is not an exhaust but aquatic is wrong if the barracuda is not aquatic. sent7: the Tsimshian is not a varnish if the infiltration ankyloses. sent8: if the infiltration does not disown anomia and it is not a bedder the barracuda is a bedder. sent9: the fact that the redbird does not exhaust but it is an aquatic is false. sent10: the fact that if something does disown anomia it is a bedder is not wrong. sent11: something that is nonlexical is a stranglehold. sent12: the barracuda does not bungle if it is a Richmond. sent13: if the actomyosin bungles the Tsimshian is a Richmond. sent14: that the tetrode does not ankylose and does not reprise VA does not hold. sent15: the actomyosin is a wilding. sent16: if the barracuda is not a Richmond the actomyosin is a wilding and it is susceptible. sent17: something that is not a varnish bungles and exhausts. sent18: the Tsimshian varnishes. sent19: if the maraschino ankyloses the infiltration does ankyloses. sent20: a Richmond does not bungle and is not aquatic. sent21: the actomyosin does not bungle but it does disown anomia if the Tsimshian is not a varnish. sent22: if that something does not bungle but it does disown anomia hold the barracuda is not a bedder. sent23: if the barracuda is not a Richmond the actomyosin is a wilding. sent24: that the redbird is both an exhaust and not aquatic is wrong. sent25: the Tsimshian is not a kind of a bedder if the actomyosin is a wilding and susceptible. sent26: if the barracuda is not aquatic that the redbird is not an exhaust and not aquatic is wrong. sent27: if something is a Richmond it does not bungle.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the barracuda is not a Richmond is true.; sent16 & assump1 -> int1: the actomyosin is wilding and is susceptible.; int1 & sent25 -> int2: the Tsimshian is not a bedder.; sent10 -> int3: if the Tsimshian disowns anomia it is a bedder.; sent4 & sent18 -> int4: the fact that the Tsimshian disowns anomia is not false.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the Tsimshian is a bedder.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the fact that the barracuda is a Richmond is not incorrect.; sent20 -> int8: if the barracuda is a Richmond then it does not bungle and it is not an aquatic.; int7 & int8 -> int9: the barracuda does not bungle and it is not an aquatic.; int9 -> int10: the barracuda is not aquatic.; int10 & sent26 -> hypothesis;
the Tsimshian is both an aquatic and a Colon.
sent17 -> int11: the redbird bungles and it is an exhaust if it is not a kind of a varnish.;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the redbird is not an exhaust and it is not an aquatic is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the barracuda does not bungle. sent2: if the fact that something is both a Richmond and a bedder does not hold then it is not a Richmond. sent3: if the barracuda is not an aquatic that the redbird is an exhaust and is not an aquatic is incorrect. sent4: if the Tsimshian varnishes then it does disown anomia. sent5: the Tsimshian is a kind of a Colon if that the barracuda is a bedder hold. sent6: the fact that the redbird is not an exhaust but aquatic is wrong if the barracuda is not aquatic. sent7: the Tsimshian is not a varnish if the infiltration ankyloses. sent8: if the infiltration does not disown anomia and it is not a bedder the barracuda is a bedder. sent9: the fact that the redbird does not exhaust but it is an aquatic is false. sent10: the fact that if something does disown anomia it is a bedder is not wrong. sent11: something that is nonlexical is a stranglehold. sent12: the barracuda does not bungle if it is a Richmond. sent13: if the actomyosin bungles the Tsimshian is a Richmond. sent14: that the tetrode does not ankylose and does not reprise VA does not hold. sent15: the actomyosin is a wilding. sent16: if the barracuda is not a Richmond the actomyosin is a wilding and it is susceptible. sent17: something that is not a varnish bungles and exhausts. sent18: the Tsimshian varnishes. sent19: if the maraschino ankyloses the infiltration does ankyloses. sent20: a Richmond does not bungle and is not aquatic. sent21: the actomyosin does not bungle but it does disown anomia if the Tsimshian is not a varnish. sent22: if that something does not bungle but it does disown anomia hold the barracuda is not a bedder. sent23: if the barracuda is not a Richmond the actomyosin is a wilding. sent24: that the redbird is both an exhaust and not aquatic is wrong. sent25: the Tsimshian is not a kind of a bedder if the actomyosin is a wilding and susceptible. sent26: if the barracuda is not aquatic that the redbird is not an exhaust and not aquatic is wrong. sent27: if something is a Richmond it does not bungle. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the barracuda is not a Richmond is true.; sent16 & assump1 -> int1: the actomyosin is wilding and is susceptible.; int1 & sent25 -> int2: the Tsimshian is not a bedder.; sent10 -> int3: if the Tsimshian disowns anomia it is a bedder.; sent4 & sent18 -> int4: the fact that the Tsimshian disowns anomia is not false.; int3 & int4 -> int5: the Tsimshian is a bedder.; int2 & int5 -> int6: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the fact that the barracuda is a Richmond is not incorrect.; sent20 -> int8: if the barracuda is a Richmond then it does not bungle and it is not an aquatic.; int7 & int8 -> int9: the barracuda does not bungle and it is not an aquatic.; int9 -> int10: the barracuda is not aquatic.; int10 & sent26 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__