the edutainment happens.
sent1: if the tribulating Tamarindus does not occur the fact that the carangid happens is correct. sent2: if the clamoring sawtooth occurs the dereliction happens. sent3: that the edutainment does not occur is triggered by that the clamoring sawtooth does not occur but the dereliction happens. sent4: that the glovelessness occurs but the speechifying does not occur is not true. sent5: if the fact that the fact that both the monopolizing Selkup and the non-sensibleness occurs hold is false then the monopolizing Selkup does not occur. sent6: if that the breakable does not occur and the referral happens does not hold the edutainment happens. sent7: that the clamoring ampere-turn but not the guard occurs is not right. sent8: that the tribulating Tamarindus does not occur causes that the carangid occurs and the salamandriformness happens. sent9: the glovelessness does not occur if that the glovelessness but not the speechifying happens does not hold. sent10: the salamandriformness does not occur if the dereliction but not the glovelessness occurs. sent11: the tribulating Tamarindus does not occur. sent12: if the carangid does not occur both the salamandriformness and the glovelessness occurs. sent13: the fact that the breakableness occurs and the referral occurs is not correct. sent14: the carangid happens. sent15: if the breakable occurs and the referral occurs the clamoring sawtooth happens. sent16: that the clamoring sawtooth occurs is triggered by that the breakable does not occur and the referral happens.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the unbreakableness and the referral occurs.; sent16 & assump1 -> int1: the clamoring sawtooth occurs.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: that the dereliction occurs is right.; sent9 & sent4 -> int3: that the glovelessness does not occur is right.; int2 & int3 -> int4: both the dereliction and the non-glovelessness occurs.; int4 & sent10 -> int5: the salamandriformness does not occur.; sent8 & sent11 -> int6: both the carangid and the salamandriformness happens.; int6 -> int7: the salamandriformness happens.; int5 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> int9: the fact that the breakable does not occur and the referral happens does not hold.; int9 & sent6 -> hypothesis;
the edutainment does not occur.
$hypothesis$ = the edutainment happens. ; $context$ = sent1: if the tribulating Tamarindus does not occur the fact that the carangid happens is correct. sent2: if the clamoring sawtooth occurs the dereliction happens. sent3: that the edutainment does not occur is triggered by that the clamoring sawtooth does not occur but the dereliction happens. sent4: that the glovelessness occurs but the speechifying does not occur is not true. sent5: if the fact that the fact that both the monopolizing Selkup and the non-sensibleness occurs hold is false then the monopolizing Selkup does not occur. sent6: if that the breakable does not occur and the referral happens does not hold the edutainment happens. sent7: that the clamoring ampere-turn but not the guard occurs is not right. sent8: that the tribulating Tamarindus does not occur causes that the carangid occurs and the salamandriformness happens. sent9: the glovelessness does not occur if that the glovelessness but not the speechifying happens does not hold. sent10: the salamandriformness does not occur if the dereliction but not the glovelessness occurs. sent11: the tribulating Tamarindus does not occur. sent12: if the carangid does not occur both the salamandriformness and the glovelessness occurs. sent13: the fact that the breakableness occurs and the referral occurs is not correct. sent14: the carangid happens. sent15: if the breakable occurs and the referral occurs the clamoring sawtooth happens. sent16: that the clamoring sawtooth occurs is triggered by that the breakable does not occur and the referral happens. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the unbreakableness and the referral occurs.; sent16 & assump1 -> int1: the clamoring sawtooth occurs.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: that the dereliction occurs is right.; sent9 & sent4 -> int3: that the glovelessness does not occur is right.; int2 & int3 -> int4: both the dereliction and the non-glovelessness occurs.; int4 & sent10 -> int5: the salamandriformness does not occur.; sent8 & sent11 -> int6: both the carangid and the salamandriformness happens.; int6 -> int7: the salamandriformness happens.; int5 & int7 -> int8: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int8 -> int9: the fact that the breakable does not occur and the referral happens does not hold.; int9 & sent6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__