the monopolization does not occur and the denigration does not occur.
sent1: that the south happens results in that the raylessness does not occur and the enumeration does not occur. sent2: both the non-unhelpfulness and the hailing happens. sent3: the cleaving bombproof happens if the denigration occurs. sent4: the fact that not the cleaving spreader but the footwork happens does not hold if the cleaving pitchfork does not occur. sent5: the non-cytotoxicness and the hydrostaticness occurs if the beef occurs. sent6: if the wettingness and the catatonicness happens the chelonianness does not occur. sent7: the archiepiscopalness does not occur. sent8: not the enumeration but the repeating happens. sent9: if the repeat does not occur then that the denigration does not occur and the cleaving bombproof does not occur does not hold. sent10: if the cleaving bombproof and the repeat happens the distantness does not occur. sent11: that both the non-distantness and the non-cytotoxicness occurs is not true. sent12: the monopolization does not occur. sent13: the south happens and the repetition happens if the roboticsness does not occur. sent14: that the hydrostaticness does not occur is correct if the raylessness does not occur and the enumeration does not occur. sent15: if that that the cleaving spreader does not occur and the footwork occurs hold is incorrect the uncommunicativeness does not occur. sent16: the fact that the fact that the beef does not occur and the cytotoxicness does not occur hold is not correct if the hydrostaticness does not occur. sent17: the beef occurs. sent18: that the roboticsness occurs is prevented by the communicativeness. sent19: the cleaving medley does not occur if the fact that the denigration does not occur and the cleaving bombproof does not occur is incorrect. sent20: the intangibleness occurs. sent21: the hydrostaticness happens. sent22: the enumeration does not occur. sent23: the hydrostaticness happens if the beef occurs.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the denigration occurs.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the cleaving bombproof occurs is not false.; sent8 -> int2: the repeating occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the cleaving bombproof happens and the repeating occurs.; int3 & sent10 -> int4: the distantness does not occur.; sent5 & sent17 -> int5: not the cytotoxicness but the hydrostaticness happens.; int5 -> int6: the cytotoxicness does not occur.; int4 & int6 -> int7: the non-distantness and the non-cytotoxicness happens.; int7 & sent11 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> int9: the denigration does not occur.; int9 & sent12 -> hypothesis;
the cleaving medley does not occur.
$hypothesis$ = the monopolization does not occur and the denigration does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: that the south happens results in that the raylessness does not occur and the enumeration does not occur. sent2: both the non-unhelpfulness and the hailing happens. sent3: the cleaving bombproof happens if the denigration occurs. sent4: the fact that not the cleaving spreader but the footwork happens does not hold if the cleaving pitchfork does not occur. sent5: the non-cytotoxicness and the hydrostaticness occurs if the beef occurs. sent6: if the wettingness and the catatonicness happens the chelonianness does not occur. sent7: the archiepiscopalness does not occur. sent8: not the enumeration but the repeating happens. sent9: if the repeat does not occur then that the denigration does not occur and the cleaving bombproof does not occur does not hold. sent10: if the cleaving bombproof and the repeat happens the distantness does not occur. sent11: that both the non-distantness and the non-cytotoxicness occurs is not true. sent12: the monopolization does not occur. sent13: the south happens and the repetition happens if the roboticsness does not occur. sent14: that the hydrostaticness does not occur is correct if the raylessness does not occur and the enumeration does not occur. sent15: if that that the cleaving spreader does not occur and the footwork occurs hold is incorrect the uncommunicativeness does not occur. sent16: the fact that the fact that the beef does not occur and the cytotoxicness does not occur hold is not correct if the hydrostaticness does not occur. sent17: the beef occurs. sent18: that the roboticsness occurs is prevented by the communicativeness. sent19: the cleaving medley does not occur if the fact that the denigration does not occur and the cleaving bombproof does not occur is incorrect. sent20: the intangibleness occurs. sent21: the hydrostaticness happens. sent22: the enumeration does not occur. sent23: the hydrostaticness happens if the beef occurs. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the denigration occurs.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the fact that the cleaving bombproof occurs is not false.; sent8 -> int2: the repeating occurs.; int1 & int2 -> int3: the cleaving bombproof happens and the repeating occurs.; int3 & sent10 -> int4: the distantness does not occur.; sent5 & sent17 -> int5: not the cytotoxicness but the hydrostaticness happens.; int5 -> int6: the cytotoxicness does not occur.; int4 & int6 -> int7: the non-distantness and the non-cytotoxicness happens.; int7 & sent11 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> int9: the denigration does not occur.; int9 & sent12 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__