that the coelacanth is not non-bathymetric and is not a adenopathy is not right.
sent1: the coelacanth is not eugenic if it does window-shop and it is hungry. sent2: the fact that the coelacanth is bathymetric and it is a kind of a adenopathy is false if it does not window-shop. sent3: the coelacanth is not palmar. sent4: the licenser does window-shop. sent5: the coelacanth is a killifish. sent6: that something is both bathymetric and not a killifish is not true if it is a kind of a futurity. sent7: the homopteran is a adenopathy. sent8: something is a kind of a futurity if it is cerous. sent9: the fact that the coelacanth is a kind of bathymetric thing that is a adenopathy is not right. sent10: if the tam window-shops then the flirt does ramble. sent11: the coelacanth is a kind of a rambler. sent12: if the flirt is a kind of a killifish the fact that the coelacanth is a rambler that does not window-shop is false. sent13: the fact that something does ramble but it is not bathymetric is wrong if it is not a kind of a killifish. sent14: the coelacanth is a kind of a putoff. sent15: the collation does not window-shop. sent16: the fact that something is bathymetric and a adenopathy is wrong if it does not window-shop. sent17: if the butterbur is bathymetric a Trema then it is non-isthmian. sent18: if the gigot is tractive and decorates camise then it does not decorate sensuousness. sent19: that something is bathymetric but it is not a kind of a adenopathy does not hold if the fact that it does not window-shop hold. sent20: if something does not window-shop that that it is a kind of a adenopathy and it is not a killifish is not incorrect does not hold. sent21: if the clunch is not a futurity the tam does window-shop and is a kind of a killifish. sent22: the coelacanth is not a kind of a killifish if it rambles and window-shops. sent23: the tam is cerous.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the coelacanth does window-shop is not false.; sent11 & assump1 -> int1: the coelacanth does ramble and window-shops.; int1 & sent22 -> int2: the coelacanth is not a kind of a killifish.; int2 & sent5 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the fact that the coelacanth does not window-shop is correct.; sent19 -> int5: if the coelacanth does not window-shop that it is bathymetric and is not a adenopathy does not hold.; int4 & int5 -> hypothesis;
the Tractarian is a adenopathy.
sent6 -> int6: if the tam is a futurity then that it is bathymetric and is not a kind of a killifish is false.; sent8 -> int7: that the tam is the futurity if the tam is cerous hold.; int7 & sent23 -> int8: the fact that the tam is a kind of a futurity is not wrong.; int6 & int8 -> int9: that the fact that the tam is bathymetric thing that is not a killifish is true is not true.; int9 -> int10: there is something such that that it is bathymetric and it is not a killifish is not true.;
$hypothesis$ = that the coelacanth is not non-bathymetric and is not a adenopathy is not right. ; $context$ = sent1: the coelacanth is not eugenic if it does window-shop and it is hungry. sent2: the fact that the coelacanth is bathymetric and it is a kind of a adenopathy is false if it does not window-shop. sent3: the coelacanth is not palmar. sent4: the licenser does window-shop. sent5: the coelacanth is a killifish. sent6: that something is both bathymetric and not a killifish is not true if it is a kind of a futurity. sent7: the homopteran is a adenopathy. sent8: something is a kind of a futurity if it is cerous. sent9: the fact that the coelacanth is a kind of bathymetric thing that is a adenopathy is not right. sent10: if the tam window-shops then the flirt does ramble. sent11: the coelacanth is a kind of a rambler. sent12: if the flirt is a kind of a killifish the fact that the coelacanth is a rambler that does not window-shop is false. sent13: the fact that something does ramble but it is not bathymetric is wrong if it is not a kind of a killifish. sent14: the coelacanth is a kind of a putoff. sent15: the collation does not window-shop. sent16: the fact that something is bathymetric and a adenopathy is wrong if it does not window-shop. sent17: if the butterbur is bathymetric a Trema then it is non-isthmian. sent18: if the gigot is tractive and decorates camise then it does not decorate sensuousness. sent19: that something is bathymetric but it is not a kind of a adenopathy does not hold if the fact that it does not window-shop hold. sent20: if something does not window-shop that that it is a kind of a adenopathy and it is not a killifish is not incorrect does not hold. sent21: if the clunch is not a futurity the tam does window-shop and is a kind of a killifish. sent22: the coelacanth is not a kind of a killifish if it rambles and window-shops. sent23: the tam is cerous. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the coelacanth does window-shop is not false.; sent11 & assump1 -> int1: the coelacanth does ramble and window-shops.; int1 & sent22 -> int2: the coelacanth is not a kind of a killifish.; int2 & sent5 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the fact that the coelacanth does not window-shop is correct.; sent19 -> int5: if the coelacanth does not window-shop that it is bathymetric and is not a adenopathy does not hold.; int4 & int5 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__