if the physicochemicalness occurs then the chapel does not occur.
sent1: the equitableness does not occur if the fact that the physicochemicalness does not occur and the synonymousness happens is not correct. sent2: the fact that the wrongness but not the physicochemicalness occurs does not hold if the synonymousness does not occur. sent3: if the non-equitableness and the acidicness occurs the chapel does not occur. sent4: the wrongness does not occur if that the wrongness and the non-physicochemicalness happens is wrong.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that not the physicochemicalness but the synonymousness occurs.; assump1 -> int1: the physicochemicalness does not occur.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the physicochemicalness happens.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the fact that not the physicochemicalness but the synonymousness happens is incorrect.; int3 & sent1 -> int4: the equitableness does not occur.;
the wrongness does not occur.
$hypothesis$ = if the physicochemicalness occurs then the chapel does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the equitableness does not occur if the fact that the physicochemicalness does not occur and the synonymousness happens is not correct. sent2: the fact that the wrongness but not the physicochemicalness occurs does not hold if the synonymousness does not occur. sent3: if the non-equitableness and the acidicness occurs the chapel does not occur. sent4: the wrongness does not occur if that the wrongness and the non-physicochemicalness happens is wrong. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that not the physicochemicalness but the synonymousness occurs.; assump1 -> int1: the physicochemicalness does not occur.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the physicochemicalness happens.; int1 & assump2 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int2 -> int3: the fact that not the physicochemicalness but the synonymousness happens is incorrect.; int3 & sent1 -> int4: the equitableness does not occur.; __UNKNOWN__