the wheel is not an enlightenment but it does align.
sent1: the mailman is invitational if something that does jellify capitation does exceed Siamese. sent2: something does not exceed Siamese. sent3: there is something such that that it is not a googolplex and it is permissive does not hold. sent4: the fact that the zonule does throng is not wrong. sent5: the wheel is not a kind of an enlightenment if there is something such that the fact that it is a porker is not wrong. sent6: the wheel does align if the cave is a Jimenez. sent7: if something is not invitational then the fact that it is not a kind of an enlightenment and aligns does not hold. sent8: something does exceed mailman if that it is non-duodenal thing that does not exceed charley-horse does not hold. sent9: if the locum does exceed Siamese then the cave is permissive. sent10: the wheel is not an enlightenment if there is something such that that it is not a porker but a rial does not hold. sent11: the mailman is invitational if something that does jellify capitation does not exceed Siamese. sent12: the fact that the cave is not a kind of a Jimenez if the earplug is not a rial is not false. sent13: the wheel is not invitational if that the mailman is not permissive and it is not Monophysite is wrong. sent14: if the zonule is a kind of a porker and exceeds mailman the fact that the earplug is not a kind of a rial is true. sent15: if the zonule is not a humanization then it is a kind of a porker. sent16: the locum does not exceed Siamese. sent17: there exists something such that the fact that it is a porker and is a rial is incorrect. sent18: the mailman does align if the wheel is a kind of a googolplex. sent19: that the mailman is invitational and it is a googolplex is incorrect. sent20: something is not a porker and is a kind of a rial. sent21: that the zonule is non-duodenal and it does not exceed charley-horse is false if it does throng. sent22: that the mailman is invitational and is a kind of a Jimenez is incorrect. sent23: something is not a Jimenez if that it is a kind of a googolplex and it is a Jimenez is not correct. sent24: the mailman is not invitational if the fact that it is both invitational and a googolplex is not correct. sent25: the cave is permissive if the fact that the locum does jellify capitation and does not exceed Siamese is not true. sent26: something is a Jimenez if it is Monophysite. sent27: the fact that something is not non-Monophysite is true if it is permissive.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the locum does jellify capitation and does not exceed Siamese.; assump1 -> int1: something jellifies capitation and does not exceed Siamese.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: the mailman is invitational.; sent24 & sent19 -> int3: the mailman is non-invitational.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: that the locum jellifies capitation and does not exceed Siamese is wrong.; int5 & sent25 -> int6: the cave is permissive.; sent27 -> int7: if the cave is permissive then that it is a Monophysite hold.; int6 & int7 -> int8: the cave is Monophysite.; sent26 -> int9: if the fact that the cave is Monophysite hold then it is a Jimenez.; int8 & int9 -> int10: the cave is a Jimenez.; int10 & sent6 -> int11: the fact that the wheel does align hold.;
that the wheel is not an enlightenment but it does align is not right.
sent7 -> int12: that the fact that the wheel is not a kind of the enlightenment but it aligns is wrong if the wheel is not invitational hold.; sent23 -> int13: if that that the mailman is both a googolplex and a Jimenez is not correct hold it is not a Jimenez.; sent8 -> int14: if the fact that the zonule is not duodenal and does not exceed charley-horse is wrong it does exceed mailman.; sent21 & sent4 -> int15: that the zonule is not duodenal and does not exceed charley-horse is not right.; int14 & int15 -> int16: the zonule does exceed mailman.;
$hypothesis$ = the wheel is not an enlightenment but it does align. ; $context$ = sent1: the mailman is invitational if something that does jellify capitation does exceed Siamese. sent2: something does not exceed Siamese. sent3: there is something such that that it is not a googolplex and it is permissive does not hold. sent4: the fact that the zonule does throng is not wrong. sent5: the wheel is not a kind of an enlightenment if there is something such that the fact that it is a porker is not wrong. sent6: the wheel does align if the cave is a Jimenez. sent7: if something is not invitational then the fact that it is not a kind of an enlightenment and aligns does not hold. sent8: something does exceed mailman if that it is non-duodenal thing that does not exceed charley-horse does not hold. sent9: if the locum does exceed Siamese then the cave is permissive. sent10: the wheel is not an enlightenment if there is something such that that it is not a porker but a rial does not hold. sent11: the mailman is invitational if something that does jellify capitation does not exceed Siamese. sent12: the fact that the cave is not a kind of a Jimenez if the earplug is not a rial is not false. sent13: the wheel is not invitational if that the mailman is not permissive and it is not Monophysite is wrong. sent14: if the zonule is a kind of a porker and exceeds mailman the fact that the earplug is not a kind of a rial is true. sent15: if the zonule is not a humanization then it is a kind of a porker. sent16: the locum does not exceed Siamese. sent17: there exists something such that the fact that it is a porker and is a rial is incorrect. sent18: the mailman does align if the wheel is a kind of a googolplex. sent19: that the mailman is invitational and it is a googolplex is incorrect. sent20: something is not a porker and is a kind of a rial. sent21: that the zonule is non-duodenal and it does not exceed charley-horse is false if it does throng. sent22: that the mailman is invitational and is a kind of a Jimenez is incorrect. sent23: something is not a Jimenez if that it is a kind of a googolplex and it is a Jimenez is not correct. sent24: the mailman is not invitational if the fact that it is both invitational and a googolplex is not correct. sent25: the cave is permissive if the fact that the locum does jellify capitation and does not exceed Siamese is not true. sent26: something is a Jimenez if it is Monophysite. sent27: the fact that something is not non-Monophysite is true if it is permissive. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the locum does jellify capitation and does not exceed Siamese.; assump1 -> int1: something jellifies capitation and does not exceed Siamese.; int1 & sent11 -> int2: the mailman is invitational.; sent24 & sent19 -> int3: the mailman is non-invitational.; int2 & int3 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: that the locum jellifies capitation and does not exceed Siamese is wrong.; int5 & sent25 -> int6: the cave is permissive.; sent27 -> int7: if the cave is permissive then that it is a Monophysite hold.; int6 & int7 -> int8: the cave is Monophysite.; sent26 -> int9: if the fact that the cave is Monophysite hold then it is a Jimenez.; int8 & int9 -> int10: the cave is a Jimenez.; int10 & sent6 -> int11: the fact that the wheel does align hold.; __UNKNOWN__