that there exists something such that if it is a baldness then it does anticipate mathematician is not true.
sent1: the fact that the loon is a kind of a baldness and does anticipate hyssop is incorrect. sent2: the kalmia is not counterinsurgent. sent3: if the fact that the kalmia is appetitive hold then it is not a kind of a baldness. sent4: if that something is not appetitive but it is extracellular is false it is a baldness. sent5: the gyroscope bullshits cartwheel. sent6: if the gyroscope bullshits cartwheel it is not a unsuitability and does not anticipate roly-poly. sent7: if something does not crop dazed the fact that it is a session and it is a kind of a baldness is correct. sent8: if something is appetitive then the fact that it is not a baldness is not incorrect. sent9: the kalmia is not a Niebuhr. sent10: if that either something is not an airplane or it does not bullshit flytrap or both is wrong then it does not crop dazed. sent11: if something is not a unsuitability then the fact that the saboteur is not a kind of an airplane and/or it does not bullshit flytrap is incorrect. sent12: the fact that something is both not appetitive and extracellular is not correct if it does not anticipate mathematician. sent13: that the kalmia is both not non-appetitive and extracellular is incorrect if it does not anticipate mathematician. sent14: something is not a baldness if the fact that it is not appetitive and is extracellular does not hold.
sent12 -> int1: the fact that the kalmia is not appetitive but it is extracellular does not hold if it does not anticipate mathematician.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the kalmia does not anticipate mathematician.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: the fact that the kalmia is non-appetitive thing that is extracellular is not right.; sent14 -> int3: if that the kalmia is both non-appetitive and extracellular does not hold it is not a baldness.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the kalmia is not a baldness.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the kalmia is a baldness.; int4 & assump1 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int5 -> int6: the kalmia anticipates mathematician.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the kalmia does anticipate mathematician if it is a baldness.; int7 -> hypothesis;
the nipple does not anticipate mathematician.
sent7 -> int8: if the saboteur does not crop dazed it is a session and it is a kind of a baldness.; sent10 -> int9: if that the saboteur is not an airplane and/or does not bullshit flytrap is false it does not crop dazed.; sent6 & sent5 -> int10: the gyroscope is not a kind of a unsuitability and does not anticipate roly-poly.; int10 -> int11: the gyroscope is not a unsuitability.; int11 -> int12: there is something such that it is not a unsuitability.; int12 & sent11 -> int13: that the saboteur is not a kind of an airplane and/or it does not bullshit flytrap does not hold.; int9 & int13 -> int14: the saboteur does not crop dazed.; int8 & int14 -> int15: the saboteur is a session and it is a baldness.; int15 -> int16: there is something such that it is a kind of a session and is a kind of a baldness.;
$hypothesis$ = that there exists something such that if it is a baldness then it does anticipate mathematician is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the loon is a kind of a baldness and does anticipate hyssop is incorrect. sent2: the kalmia is not counterinsurgent. sent3: if the fact that the kalmia is appetitive hold then it is not a kind of a baldness. sent4: if that something is not appetitive but it is extracellular is false it is a baldness. sent5: the gyroscope bullshits cartwheel. sent6: if the gyroscope bullshits cartwheel it is not a unsuitability and does not anticipate roly-poly. sent7: if something does not crop dazed the fact that it is a session and it is a kind of a baldness is correct. sent8: if something is appetitive then the fact that it is not a baldness is not incorrect. sent9: the kalmia is not a Niebuhr. sent10: if that either something is not an airplane or it does not bullshit flytrap or both is wrong then it does not crop dazed. sent11: if something is not a unsuitability then the fact that the saboteur is not a kind of an airplane and/or it does not bullshit flytrap is incorrect. sent12: the fact that something is both not appetitive and extracellular is not correct if it does not anticipate mathematician. sent13: that the kalmia is both not non-appetitive and extracellular is incorrect if it does not anticipate mathematician. sent14: something is not a baldness if the fact that it is not appetitive and is extracellular does not hold. ; $proof$ = 
sent12 -> int1: the fact that the kalmia is not appetitive but it is extracellular does not hold if it does not anticipate mathematician.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the kalmia does not anticipate mathematician.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: the fact that the kalmia is non-appetitive thing that is extracellular is not right.; sent14 -> int3: if that the kalmia is both non-appetitive and extracellular does not hold it is not a baldness.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the kalmia is not a baldness.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the kalmia is a baldness.; int4 & assump1 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int5 -> int6: the kalmia anticipates mathematician.; [assump1] & int6 -> int7: the kalmia does anticipate mathematician if it is a baldness.; int7 -> hypothesis; __DISPROVED__