that the endocranium is not a bulimic but it does brazen cullis is not true.
sent1: the cullis is not an ambulatory. sent2: that something is not a Mason hold. sent3: something that overrides discernability is both not a Mason and ulnar. sent4: the fact that the cullis does not slug endocranium and is not a kind of an ambulatory does not hold. sent5: the cullis does not aurify and brazens cullis. sent6: the cullis does not slug endocranium if something is not a Mason but it is ulnar. sent7: if something is not a kind of a bulimic and does brazen cullis then it overrides discernability. sent8: that the cullis does not slug endocranium is true if there exists something such that it is a Mason and it is ulnar. sent9: that the endocranium is not a Mason hold.
sent7 -> int1: if the endocranium is not a kind of a bulimic but it brazens cullis it overrides discernability.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the endocranium is a kind of non-bulimic thing that brazens cullis.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the endocranium overrides discernability.; sent3 -> int3: if that the endocranium overrides discernability hold then it is not a Mason and not non-ulnar.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the endocranium is not a Mason but it is ulnar.; int4 -> int5: there is something such that it is not a kind of a Mason and it is ulnar.; int5 & sent6 -> int6: the cullis does not slug endocranium.; int6 & sent1 -> int7: the cullis does not slug endocranium and it is not an ambulatory.; int7 & sent4 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that the endocranium is not a bulimic but it does brazen cullis is not true. ; $context$ = sent1: the cullis is not an ambulatory. sent2: that something is not a Mason hold. sent3: something that overrides discernability is both not a Mason and ulnar. sent4: the fact that the cullis does not slug endocranium and is not a kind of an ambulatory does not hold. sent5: the cullis does not aurify and brazens cullis. sent6: the cullis does not slug endocranium if something is not a Mason but it is ulnar. sent7: if something is not a kind of a bulimic and does brazen cullis then it overrides discernability. sent8: that the cullis does not slug endocranium is true if there exists something such that it is a Mason and it is ulnar. sent9: that the endocranium is not a Mason hold. ; $proof$ = 
sent7 -> int1: if the endocranium is not a kind of a bulimic but it brazens cullis it overrides discernability.; void -> assump1: Let's assume that the endocranium is a kind of non-bulimic thing that brazens cullis.; int1 & assump1 -> int2: the endocranium overrides discernability.; sent3 -> int3: if that the endocranium overrides discernability hold then it is not a Mason and not non-ulnar.; int2 & int3 -> int4: the endocranium is not a Mason but it is ulnar.; int4 -> int5: there is something such that it is not a kind of a Mason and it is ulnar.; int5 & sent6 -> int6: the cullis does not slug endocranium.; int6 & sent1 -> int7: the cullis does not slug endocranium and it is not an ambulatory.; int7 & sent4 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__