the deducing fluorite does not occur.
sent1: the deducing fluorite does not occur but the pugilisticness happens if the syntagmaticness happens. sent2: that the sinking occurs is not false. sent3: if both the phacoemulsification and the sinking happens the skimming earmark does not occur. sent4: the skimming earmark happens. sent5: that the biauricularness occurs prevents that the phacoemulsification does not occur. sent6: the fact that the pugilisticness occurs hold. sent7: that the biauricularness does not occur triggers that the syntagmaticness happens. sent8: if the skimming jurisprudence does not occur the cytologicalness occurs.
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the biauricularness occurs.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: that the phacoemulsification happens hold.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the phacoemulsification and the sinking happens.; int2 & sent3 -> int3: the skimming earmark does not occur.; int3 & sent4 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the biauricularness does not occur.; int5 & sent7 -> int6: the syntagmaticness happens.; int6 & sent1 -> int7: not the deducing fluorite but the pugilisticness happens.; int7 -> hypothesis;
$hypothesis$ = the deducing fluorite does not occur. ; $context$ = sent1: the deducing fluorite does not occur but the pugilisticness happens if the syntagmaticness happens. sent2: that the sinking occurs is not false. sent3: if both the phacoemulsification and the sinking happens the skimming earmark does not occur. sent4: the skimming earmark happens. sent5: that the biauricularness occurs prevents that the phacoemulsification does not occur. sent6: the fact that the pugilisticness occurs hold. sent7: that the biauricularness does not occur triggers that the syntagmaticness happens. sent8: if the skimming jurisprudence does not occur the cytologicalness occurs. ; $proof$ = 
void -> assump1: Let's assume that the biauricularness occurs.; sent5 & assump1 -> int1: that the phacoemulsification happens hold.; int1 & sent2 -> int2: the phacoemulsification and the sinking happens.; int2 & sent3 -> int3: the skimming earmark does not occur.; int3 & sent4 -> int4: this is contradiction.; [assump1] & int4 -> int5: the biauricularness does not occur.; int5 & sent7 -> int6: the syntagmaticness happens.; int6 & sent1 -> int7: not the deducing fluorite but the pugilisticness happens.; int7 -> hypothesis; __PROVED__