%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : CSR031+5 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v3.5.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n018.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 12:18:02 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.17s 18.47s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.17s
% 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(query231,conjecture,
~ disjointwith(c_tptptptpcol_16_8398,c_tptpcol_16_18488),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',query231) ).
fof(ax4_117519,axiom,
! [X1] :
~ ( individual(X1)
& collection(X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/CSR002+4.ax',ax4_117519) ).
fof(ax4_540134,axiom,
! [X7,X3] :
( disjointwith(X7,X3)
=> collection(X7) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/CSR002+4.ax',ax4_540134) ).
fof(ax4_128360,axiom,
individual(c_tptptptpcol_16_8398),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/CSR002+4.ax',ax4_128360) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ~ disjointwith(c_tptptptpcol_16_8398,c_tptpcol_16_18488),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[query231]) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X59] :
( ~ individual(X59)
| ~ collection(X59) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[ax4_117519])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X42,X43] :
( collection(X42)
| ~ disjointwith(X42,X43) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[ax4_540134])])]) ).
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)],[ax4_128360]) ).
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+5 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v3.5.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.35 % Computer : n018.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.35 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.35 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.35 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 14:28:59 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/0.36 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.14/0.40 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.14/0.40 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
% 0.17/18.47 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.17/18.47 % Preprocessing class: FLLLLMLLSSSNFFN.
% 0.17/18.47 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 288 seconds (2304 total)
% 0.17/18.47 % Starting new_ho_10 with 576s (2) cores
% 0.17/18.47 % Starting sh3 with 576s (2) cores
% 0.17/18.47 % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 576s (2) cores
% 0.17/18.47 % Starting new_ho_10_cnf2 with 576s (2) cores
% 0.17/18.47 % sh3 with pid 2135756 completed with status 0
% 0.17/18.47 % Result found by sh3
% 0.17/18.47 % Preprocessing class: FLLLLMLLSSSNFFN.
% 0.17/18.47 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 288 seconds (2304 total)
% 0.17/18.47 % Starting new_ho_10 with 576s (2) cores
% 0.17/18.47 % Starting sh3 with 576s (2) cores
% 0.17/18.47 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.17/18.47 % SinE strategy is gf500_h_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.17/18.47 % Search class: FHHSM-FSLM31-SFFFFFNN
% 0.17/18.47 % partial match(1): FGHSM-FSLM31-SFFFFFNN
% 0.17/18.47 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 2 cores with 572 seconds (572 total)
% 0.17/18.47 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 52s (1) cores
% 0.17/18.47 % Starting sh3 with 58s (1) cores
% 0.17/18.47 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2136153 completed with status 0
% 0.17/18.47 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.17/18.47 % Preprocessing class: FLLLLMLLSSSNFFN.
% 0.17/18.47 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 288 seconds (2304 total)
% 0.17/18.47 % Starting new_ho_10 with 576s (2) cores
% 0.17/18.47 % Starting sh3 with 576s (2) cores
% 0.17/18.47 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.17/18.47 % SinE strategy is gf500_h_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.17/18.47 % Search class: FHHSM-FSLM31-SFFFFFNN
% 0.17/18.47 % partial match(1): FGHSM-FSLM31-SFFFFFNN
% 0.17/18.47 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 2 cores with 572 seconds (572 total)
% 0.17/18.47 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 52s (1) cores
% 0.17/18.47 % Preprocessing time : 0.206 s
% 0.17/18.47
% 0.17/18.47 % Proof found!
% 0.17/18.47 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.17/18.47 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.17/18.47 % Parsed axioms : 540250
% 0.17/18.47 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 539879
% 0.17/18.47 % Initial clauses : 371
% 0.17/18.47 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 2
% 0.17/18.47 % Initial clauses in saturation : 369
% 0.17/18.47 % Processed clauses : 200
% 0.17/18.47 % ...of these trivial : 22
% 0.17/18.47 % ...subsumed : 12
% 0.17/18.47 % ...remaining for further processing : 166
% 0.17/18.47 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 1
% 0.17/18.47 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.17/18.47 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.17/18.47 % Backward-rewritten : 21
% 0.17/18.47 % Generated clauses : 103
% 0.17/18.47 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 86
% 0.17/18.47 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.17/18.47 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.17/18.47 % Paramodulations : 102
% 0.17/18.47 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.17/18.47 % NegExts : 0
% 0.17/18.47 % Equation resolutions : 1
% 0.17/18.47 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.17/18.47 % Total rewrite steps : 52
% 0.17/18.47 % ...of those cached : 17
% 0.17/18.47 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.17/18.47 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.17/18.47 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.17/18.47 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.17/18.47 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.17/18.47 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.17/18.47 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.17/18.47 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.17/18.47 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.17/18.47 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.17/18.47 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.17/18.47 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.17/18.47 % Current number of processed clauses : 144
% 0.17/18.47 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 93
% 0.17/18.47 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.17/18.47 % Negative unit clauses : 24
% 0.17/18.47 % Non-unit-clauses : 27
% 0.17/18.47 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 239
% 0.17/18.47 % ...number of literals in the above : 331
% 0.17/18.47 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.17/18.47 % Current number of archived clauses : 21
% 0.17/18.47 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 146
% 0.17/18.47 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 140
% 0.17/18.47 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 12
% 0.17/18.47 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 368
% 0.17/18.47 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.17/18.47 % BW rewrite match attempts : 21
% 0.17/18.47 % BW rewrite match successes : 21
% 0.17/18.47 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.17/18.47 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.17/18.47 % Termbank termtop insertions : 3689711
% 0.17/18.47 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2173736
% 0.17/18.47
% 0.17/18.47 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.17/18.47 % User time : 3.147 s
% 0.17/18.47 % System time : 1.451 s
% 0.17/18.47 % Total time : 4.598 s
% 0.17/18.47 % Maximum resident set size: 1242128 pages
% 0.17/18.47
% 0.17/18.47 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.17/18.47 % User time : 15.679 s
% 0.17/18.47 % System time : 2.270 s
% 0.17/18.47 % Total time : 17.949 s
% 0.17/18.47 % Maximum resident set size: 456960 pages
% 0.17/18.47 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------