the fact that the reflection does not disown limonene and it is not caulescent is false if that the inactivation is exaugural is not wrong.
sent1: if the inactivation is exaugural the fact that the fact that the reflection does not disown limonene and is caulescent does not hold hold. sent2: if the inactivation is exaugural then it is a legibility. sent3: the fact that if that the inactivation does not disown limonene hold then the fact that the fact that the reflection does disown limonene and is non-caulescent is not wrong does not hold is correct. sent4: that the reflection does not disown limonene and it is not caulescent is wrong if the inactivation does not disown limonene. sent5: if the inactivation is exaugural the reflection does not disown limonene and it is non-caulescent. sent6: the fact that the inactivation is a kind of non-exaugural thing that does disown limonene is not correct if the reflection is not exaugural. sent7: the fact that the reflection does not disown limonene and is caulescent is not true. sent8: if the inactivation does not disown limonene then the fact that the reflection does not disown limonene and is caulescent is wrong. sent9: the inactivation is a legibility. sent10: that the reflection disowns limonene but it is not caulescent does not hold. sent11: that the reflection disowns limonene but it is not caulescent is wrong if the inactivation is exaugural. sent12: the reflection does not disown limonene and it is not caulescent if the inactivation does not disown limonene. sent13: if the inactivation is exaugural it is a legibility and does not disown limonene.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the inactivation is exaugural.; sent13 & assump1 -> int1: the inactivation is a legibility and does not disown limonene.; int1 -> int2: the fact that the inactivation does not disown limonene is true.; sent4 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the reflection does not disown limonene and is not caulescent does not hold.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the fact that the reflection does not disown limonene and it is not caulescent is false if that the inactivation is exaugural is not wrong. ; $context$ = sent1: if the inactivation is exaugural the fact that the fact that the reflection does not disown limonene and is caulescent does not hold hold. sent2: if the inactivation is exaugural then it is a legibility. sent3: the fact that if that the inactivation does not disown limonene hold then the fact that the fact that the reflection does disown limonene and is non-caulescent is not wrong does not hold is correct. sent4: that the reflection does not disown limonene and it is not caulescent is wrong if the inactivation does not disown limonene. sent5: if the inactivation is exaugural the reflection does not disown limonene and it is non-caulescent. sent6: the fact that the inactivation is a kind of non-exaugural thing that does disown limonene is not correct if the reflection is not exaugural. sent7: the fact that the reflection does not disown limonene and is caulescent is not true. sent8: if the inactivation does not disown limonene then the fact that the reflection does not disown limonene and is caulescent is wrong. sent9: the inactivation is a legibility. sent10: that the reflection disowns limonene but it is not caulescent does not hold. sent11: that the reflection disowns limonene but it is not caulescent is wrong if the inactivation is exaugural. sent12: the reflection does not disown limonene and it is not caulescent if the inactivation does not disown limonene. sent13: if the inactivation is exaugural it is a legibility and does not disown limonene. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the inactivation is exaugural.; sent13 & assump1 -> int1: the inactivation is a legibility and does not disown limonene.; int1 -> int2: the fact that the inactivation does not disown limonene is true.; sent4 & int2 -> int3: the fact that the reflection does not disown limonene and is not caulescent does not hold.; [assump1] & int3 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__