that the tinning translator occurs but the recursion does not occur is not right.
sent1: the fact that the menstruating soviet occurs but the tinning tufted does not occur is not correct. sent2: the tinning translator happens. sent3: that the roofing challenge and the effacing Slovak happens brings about the existentness. sent4: that the roofing challenge occurs is false if that the roofing challenge occurs but the effacing Slovak does not occur is wrong. sent5: the roofing challenge is prevented by that the abdication occurs. sent6: the roofing challenge does not occur. sent7: that the tinning Honduran does not occur is caused by the non-deficientness. sent8: if the Spanish does not occur the menstruating telegraph and the agrobiologicness happens. sent9: that the effacing projection occurs causes that the Spanish does not occur and the tinning whale does not occur. sent10: the occasion does not occur. sent11: the existentness occurs if the roofing challenge does not occur but the effacing Slovak happens. sent12: the existentness does not occur if the menstruating telegraph does not occur. sent13: the fact that the miscibleness occurs and the tympanoplasty does not occur does not hold if the roofing challenge does not occur. sent14: that not the roofing challenge but the effacing Slovak happens is triggered by that the abdication occurs. sent15: the tinning prolegomenon happens. sent16: the menstruating telegraph does not occur. sent17: that both the zoning and the non-posturalness happens is false. sent18: the fact that that both the tinning sliminess and the shred occurs hold is not true. sent19: the abdication happens if the tinning translator but not the recursion happens. sent20: the recursion is prevented by that the roofing challenge occurs and the abdication does not occur. sent21: if the abdication does not occur then the fact that the roofing challenge happens and the effacing Slovak does not occur is not right.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the tinning translator but not the recursion occurs.; sent19 & assump1 -> int1: that the abdication occurs is not false.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the roofing challenge does not occur and the effacing Slovak happens.; int2 & sent11 -> int3: the existentness happens.; sent12 & sent16 -> int4: the existentness does not occur.; int3 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> hypothesis;
the tinning translator happens but the recursion does not occur.
$hypothesis$ = that the tinning translator occurs but the recursion does not occur is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the fact that the menstruating soviet occurs but the tinning tufted does not occur is not correct. sent2: the tinning translator happens. sent3: that the roofing challenge and the effacing Slovak happens brings about the existentness. sent4: that the roofing challenge occurs is false if that the roofing challenge occurs but the effacing Slovak does not occur is wrong. sent5: the roofing challenge is prevented by that the abdication occurs. sent6: the roofing challenge does not occur. sent7: that the tinning Honduran does not occur is caused by the non-deficientness. sent8: if the Spanish does not occur the menstruating telegraph and the agrobiologicness happens. sent9: that the effacing projection occurs causes that the Spanish does not occur and the tinning whale does not occur. sent10: the occasion does not occur. sent11: the existentness occurs if the roofing challenge does not occur but the effacing Slovak happens. sent12: the existentness does not occur if the menstruating telegraph does not occur. sent13: the fact that the miscibleness occurs and the tympanoplasty does not occur does not hold if the roofing challenge does not occur. sent14: that not the roofing challenge but the effacing Slovak happens is triggered by that the abdication occurs. sent15: the tinning prolegomenon happens. sent16: the menstruating telegraph does not occur. sent17: that both the zoning and the non-posturalness happens is false. sent18: the fact that that both the tinning sliminess and the shred occurs hold is not true. sent19: the abdication happens if the tinning translator but not the recursion happens. sent20: the recursion is prevented by that the roofing challenge occurs and the abdication does not occur. sent21: if the abdication does not occur then the fact that the roofing challenge happens and the effacing Slovak does not occur is not right. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the tinning translator but not the recursion occurs.; sent19 & assump1 -> int1: that the abdication occurs is not false.; int1 & sent14 -> int2: the roofing challenge does not occur and the effacing Slovak happens.; int2 & sent11 -> int3: the existentness happens.; sent12 & sent16 -> int4: the existentness does not occur.; int3 & int4 -> int5: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__