if the intussusception reopens Alternanthera the Komi is not a kind of a night-light.
sent1: the fact that the Komi is completed thing that is a kind of a careerist is not correct. sent2: the Komi is a night-light. sent3: the fact that if there is something such that it does not complete then the fact that the overcompensation is unreportable and it is a wilding is incorrect is not incorrect. sent4: if the fact that the Komi is not completed but it is a careerist does not hold it is a night-light. sent5: something is not a night-light if the fact that it is a kind of non-completed thing that is a careerist is wrong. sent6: something is both non-benevolent and not non-dietary if it completes. sent7: if that something is not completed but it is a careerist does not hold then it is a night-light. sent8: the fact that the fact that the intussusception does not reopen Alternanthera is not wrong if the fact that the overcompensation is unreportable and is a kind of a wilding is wrong is not false. sent9: the Komi is a night-light if the intussusception reopens Alternanthera. sent10: the intussusception does not reopen Alternanthera if the overcompensation is not unreportable.
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the Komi is a kind of non-completed thing that is a careerist.; assump2 -> int1: the Komi does not complete.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that it is not completed.; int2 & sent3 -> int3: that the overcompensation is unreportable but not non-wilding is incorrect.; int3 & sent8 -> int4: that the intussusception does not reopen Alternanthera is correct.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the intussusception does reopen Alternanthera.; int4 & assump1 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int5 -> int6: the fact that the Komi does not complete but it is a kind of a careerist does not hold.; sent5 -> int7: if that that the Komi is a kind of non-completed a careerist is not right is not false it is not a night-light.; int6 & int7 -> int8: the Komi is not a night-light.; [assump1] & int8 -> hypothesis;
the overcompensation is a kind of non-benevolent a dietary.
sent6 -> int9: if the overcompensation is completed it is not benevolent and it is a dietary.;
$hypothesis$ = if the intussusception reopens Alternanthera the Komi is not a kind of a night-light. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the Komi is completed thing that is a kind of a careerist is not correct. sent2: the Komi is a night-light. sent3: the fact that if there is something such that it does not complete then the fact that the overcompensation is unreportable and it is a wilding is incorrect is not incorrect. sent4: if the fact that the Komi is not completed but it is a careerist does not hold it is a night-light. sent5: something is not a night-light if the fact that it is a kind of non-completed thing that is a careerist is wrong. sent6: something is both non-benevolent and not non-dietary if it completes. sent7: if that something is not completed but it is a careerist does not hold then it is a night-light. sent8: the fact that the fact that the intussusception does not reopen Alternanthera is not wrong if the fact that the overcompensation is unreportable and is a kind of a wilding is wrong is not false. sent9: the Komi is a night-light if the intussusception reopens Alternanthera. sent10: the intussusception does not reopen Alternanthera if the overcompensation is not unreportable. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump2: Let's assume that the Komi is a kind of non-completed thing that is a careerist.; assump2 -> int1: the Komi does not complete.; int1 -> int2: there is something such that it is not completed.; int2 & sent3 -> int3: that the overcompensation is unreportable but not non-wilding is incorrect.; int3 & sent8 -> int4: that the intussusception does not reopen Alternanthera is correct.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the intussusception does reopen Alternanthera.; int4 & assump1 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int5 -> int6: the fact that the Komi does not complete but it is a kind of a careerist does not hold.; sent5 -> int7: if that that the Komi is a kind of non-completed a careerist is not right is not false it is not a night-light.; int6 & int7 -> int8: the Komi is not a night-light.; [assump1] & int8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__