if that the ATM is not a kind of an arbitrage and it is not a Nerthus is wrong then the lacquerware is not a Cameroonian.
sent1: if the pigeon is not a Nerthus then the ATM is not a kind of an arbitrage and is not a Nerthus. sent2: if the fact that the ATM is not a Cameroonian and it does not arbitrage is incorrect then the lacquerware is a Nerthus. sent3: the pigeon is not a Nerthus if the fact that the paddle-wheeler is a bust-up or not a daily or both is false. sent4: the ATM is either an arbitrage or not a daily or both. sent5: the lacquerware does not arbitrage. sent6: the ATM is non-Cameroonian thing that is not congeneric. sent7: the ATM does arbitrage. sent8: the fact that the lacquerware is not Cameroonian if there exists something such that it either is a bust-up or is not a kind of a daily or both is true. sent9: if the ATM is both not an arbitrage and not a Nerthus the lacquerware is not Cameroonian. sent10: if the paddle-wheeler is not a bust-up then the ATM is not a Nerthus and it is not a kind of a bust-up. sent11: the introduction is not a Nerthus.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the paddle-wheeler is a bust-up or it is not a kind of a daily or both is not right.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the pigeon is not a kind of a Nerthus.; sent1 & int1 -> int2: the ATM does not arbitrage and it is not a Nerthus.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the fact that the ATM is not an arbitrage and it is not a Nerthus is not correct.; int2 & assump2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the paddle-wheeler is a bust-up and/or not a daily.; int4 -> int5: something is a bust-up and/or it is not a kind of a daily.; int5 & sent8 -> int6: the lacquerware is not a Cameroonian.; [assump2] & int6 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = if that the ATM is not a kind of an arbitrage and it is not a Nerthus is wrong then the lacquerware is not a Cameroonian. ; $context$ = sent1: if the pigeon is not a Nerthus then the ATM is not a kind of an arbitrage and is not a Nerthus. sent2: if the fact that the ATM is not a Cameroonian and it does not arbitrage is incorrect then the lacquerware is a Nerthus. sent3: the pigeon is not a Nerthus if the fact that the paddle-wheeler is a bust-up or not a daily or both is false. sent4: the ATM is either an arbitrage or not a daily or both. sent5: the lacquerware does not arbitrage. sent6: the ATM is non-Cameroonian thing that is not congeneric. sent7: the ATM does arbitrage. sent8: the fact that the lacquerware is not Cameroonian if there exists something such that it either is a bust-up or is not a kind of a daily or both is true. sent9: if the ATM is both not an arbitrage and not a Nerthus the lacquerware is not Cameroonian. sent10: if the paddle-wheeler is not a bust-up then the ATM is not a Nerthus and it is not a kind of a bust-up. sent11: the introduction is not a Nerthus. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that that the paddle-wheeler is a bust-up or it is not a kind of a daily or both is not right.; sent3 & assump1 -> int1: the pigeon is not a kind of a Nerthus.; sent1 & int1 -> int2: the ATM does not arbitrage and it is not a Nerthus.; void -> assump2: Let's assume that the fact that the ATM is not an arbitrage and it is not a Nerthus is not correct.; int2 & assump2 -> int3: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int3 -> int4: the paddle-wheeler is a bust-up and/or not a daily.; int4 -> int5: something is a bust-up and/or it is not a kind of a daily.; int5 & sent8 -> int6: the lacquerware is not a Cameroonian.; [assump2] & int6 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__