something is a kind of non-aperiodic thing that is not inadequate.
sent1: if something that does not uphold is not peaceful the fact that it is not inadequate is true. sent2: if the serjeant-at-law does not condemn roc then it is not aperiodic. sent3: there exists something such that it is not inadequate. sent4: that the serjeant-at-law condemns trifurcation is right. sent5: the crocolite does not beard if that the serjeant-at-law does not stab Belisarius is true. sent6: the crocolite is a kind of a adience and beards. sent7: the serjeant-at-law does not uphold and is not peaceful. sent8: That the trifurcation condemns serjeant-at-law is right. sent9: if the serjeant-at-law does condemn trifurcation and it stabs Belisarius it does not condemn roc.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the serjeant-at-law does not stab Belisarius.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the crocolite does not beard.; sent6 -> int2: the crocolite does beard.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the fact that the serjeant-at-law stabs Belisarius hold.; int4 & sent4 -> int5: the serjeant-at-law condemns trifurcation and stabs Belisarius.; int5 & sent9 -> int6: the serjeant-at-law does not condemn roc.; int6 & sent2 -> int7: the serjeant-at-law is not aperiodic.; sent1 -> int8: the serjeant-at-law is not inadequate if it does not uphold and it is not peaceful.; int8 & sent7 -> int9: the serjeant-at-law is not inadequate.; int7 & int9 -> int10: the serjeant-at-law is not aperiodic and it is not inadequate.; int10 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = something is a kind of non-aperiodic thing that is not inadequate. ; $context$ = sent1: if something that does not uphold is not peaceful the fact that it is not inadequate is true. sent2: if the serjeant-at-law does not condemn roc then it is not aperiodic. sent3: there exists something such that it is not inadequate. sent4: that the serjeant-at-law condemns trifurcation is right. sent5: the crocolite does not beard if that the serjeant-at-law does not stab Belisarius is true. sent6: the crocolite is a kind of a adience and beards. sent7: the serjeant-at-law does not uphold and is not peaceful. sent8: That the trifurcation condemns serjeant-at-law is right. sent9: if the serjeant-at-law does condemn trifurcation and it stabs Belisarius it does not condemn roc. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the serjeant-at-law does not stab Belisarius.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: the crocolite does not beard.; sent6 -> int2: the crocolite does beard.; int1 & int2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the fact that the serjeant-at-law stabs Belisarius hold.; int4 & sent4 -> int5: the serjeant-at-law condemns trifurcation and stabs Belisarius.; int5 & sent9 -> int6: the serjeant-at-law does not condemn roc.; int6 & sent2 -> int7: the serjeant-at-law is not aperiodic.; sent1 -> int8: the serjeant-at-law is not inadequate if it does not uphold and it is not peaceful.; int8 & sent7 -> int9: the serjeant-at-law is not inadequate.; int7 & int9 -> int10: the serjeant-at-law is not aperiodic and it is not inadequate.; int10 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__