that the triumphalness occurs prevents the non-billiardness.
sent1: if the non-propagandistness and the crowing blur occurs then the triumphalness does not occur. sent2: if that the propagandistness does not occur and the crowing blur occurs is wrong the billiardness happens. sent3: that both the non-economicalness and the damping vixen occurs prevents that the rice does not occur.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the triumphalness happens.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the propagandistness does not occur but the crowing blur happens.; sent1 & assump2 -> int1: the triumphalness does not occur.; assump1 & int1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int2 -> int3: that not the propagandistness but the crowing blur happens is incorrect.; sent2 & int3 -> int4: the billiardness occurs.; [assump1] & int4 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = that the triumphalness occurs prevents the non-billiardness. ; $context$ = sent1: if the non-propagandistness and the crowing blur occurs then the triumphalness does not occur. sent2: if that the propagandistness does not occur and the crowing blur occurs is wrong the billiardness happens. sent3: that both the non-economicalness and the damping vixen occurs prevents that the rice does not occur. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the triumphalness happens.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the propagandistness does not occur but the crowing blur happens.; sent1 & assump2 -> int1: the triumphalness does not occur.; assump1 & int1 -> int2: this is contradiction.; [assump2] & int2 -> int3: that not the propagandistness but the crowing blur happens is incorrect.; sent2 & int3 -> int4: the billiardness occurs.; [assump1] & int4 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__