%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : CSR031+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.4.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n017.cluster.edu
% Model : x86_64 x86_64
% CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 2.10GHz
% Memory : 8046.5625MB
% OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% CPULimit : 300s
% WCLimit : 300s
% DateTime : Thu Sep 24 12:16:00 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.23s 0.53s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.23s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 14 ( 8 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 20 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 17 ( 11 ~; 4 |; 1 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 1 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 5 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 2 ( 2 usr; 2 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 9 ( 1 sgn 6 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(query81,conjecture,
~ disjointwith(c_tptptptpcol_16_8398,c_tptpcol_16_18488),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',query81) ).
fof(ax1_289,axiom,
! [X1] :
~ ( individual(X1)
& collection(X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/CSR002+1.ax',ax1_289) ).
fof(ax1_1119,axiom,
! [X10,X6] :
( disjointwith(X10,X6)
=> collection(X10) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/CSR002+1.ax',ax1_1119) ).
fof(ax1_447,axiom,
individual(c_tptptptpcol_16_8398),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/CSR002+1.ax',ax1_447) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ~ disjointwith(c_tptptptpcol_16_8398,c_tptpcol_16_18488),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[query81]) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X94] :
( ~ individual(X94)
| ~ collection(X94) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[ax1_289])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X31,X32] :
( collection(X31)
| ~ disjointwith(X31,X32) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[ax1_1119])])]) ).
fof(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
disjointwith(c_tptptptpcol_16_8398,c_tptpcol_16_18488),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ individual(X1)
| ~ collection(X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
individual(c_tptptptpcol_16_8398),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[ax1_447]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( ~ disjointwith(X1,X2)
| collection(X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
disjointwith(c_tptptptpcol_16_8398,c_tptpcol_16_18488),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
~ collection(c_tptptptpcol_16_8398),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]),c_0_12]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : CSR031+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.4.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/0.36 % Computer : n017.cluster.edu
% 0.08/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.08/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.08/0.36 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.08/0.36 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.08/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.08/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.08/0.36 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 14:22:28 UTC 2026
% 0.08/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.08/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.44 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/0.45 Running: /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/eprover --delete-bad-limit=2000000000 --definitional-cnf=24 -s --print-statistics -R --print-version --proof-object --auto-schedule=8 --cpu-limit=300 /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.23/0.53 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.23/0.53 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.23/0.53 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/0.53 % Starting G-E--_208_C18C--_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 900s (3) cores
% 0.23/0.53 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.23/0.53 % Starting new_bool_1 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.23/0.53 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.53 % new_bool_3 with pid 2548122 completed with status 0
% 0.23/0.53 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.23/0.53 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.23/0.53 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/0.53 % Starting G-E--_208_C18C--_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 900s (3) cores
% 0.23/0.53 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.23/0.53 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.23/0.53 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.23/0.53 % Search class: FHHNF-FFMF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.23/0.53 % partial match(1): FHHNF-FFMM00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.23/0.53 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 2 cores with 600 seconds (600 total)
% 0.23/0.53 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 61s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.53 % Starting SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with 361s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.53 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2548125 completed with status 0
% 0.23/0.53 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.23/0.53 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.23/0.53 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/0.53 % Starting G-E--_208_C18C--_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 900s (3) cores
% 0.23/0.53 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.23/0.53 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.23/0.53 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.23/0.53 % Search class: FHHNF-FFMF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.23/0.53 % partial match(1): FHHNF-FFMM00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.23/0.53 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 2 cores with 600 seconds (600 total)
% 0.23/0.53 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 61s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.53 % Preprocessing time : 0.004 s
% 0.23/0.53
% 0.23/0.53 % Proof found!
% 0.23/0.53 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.23/0.53 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.23/0.53 % Parsed axioms : 1132
% 0.23/0.53 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 1090
% 0.23/0.53 % Initial clauses : 42
% 0.23/0.53 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.23/0.53 % Initial clauses in saturation : 42
% 0.23/0.53 % Processed clauses : 22
% 0.23/0.53 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.23/0.53 % ...subsumed : 4
% 0.23/0.53 % ...remaining for further processing : 18
% 0.23/0.53 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.23/0.53 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.23/0.53 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.23/0.53 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.23/0.53 % Generated clauses : 6
% 0.23/0.53 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 4
% 0.23/0.53 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.23/0.53 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.23/0.53 % Paramodulations : 6
% 0.23/0.53 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.23/0.53 % NegExts : 0
% 0.23/0.53 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.23/0.53 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.23/0.53 % Total rewrite steps : 1
% 0.23/0.53 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.23/0.53 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.23/0.53 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.23/0.53 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.23/0.53 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.23/0.53 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.23/0.53 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.23/0.53 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.53 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.53 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.53 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.53 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.53 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.53 % Current number of processed clauses : 18
% 0.23/0.53 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 4
% 0.23/0.53 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.23/0.53 % Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.23/0.53 % Non-unit-clauses : 12
% 0.23/0.53 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 24
% 0.23/0.53 % ...number of literals in the above : 65
% 0.23/0.53 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.23/0.53 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.23/0.53 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 10
% 0.23/0.53 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 10
% 0.23/0.53 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 4
% 0.23/0.53 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% 0.23/0.53 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.23/0.53 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.23/0.53 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.23/0.53 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.23/0.53 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.23/0.53 % Termbank termtop insertions : 9902
% 0.23/0.53 % Search garbage collected termcells : 5121
% 0.23/0.53
% 0.23/0.53 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.23/0.53 % User time : 0.013 s
% 0.23/0.53 % System time : 0.011 s
% 0.23/0.53 % Total time : 0.024 s
% 0.23/0.53 % Maximum resident set size: 5888 pages
% 0.23/0.53
% 0.23/0.53 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.23/0.53 % User time : 0.047 s
% 0.23/0.53 % System time : 0.024 s
% 0.23/0.53 % Total time : 0.071 s
% 0.23/0.53 % Maximum resident set size: 5632 pages
% 0.23/0.53 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------