%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : CSR031+6 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v5.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n012.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 0.06s 95.49s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.06s
% 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(query281,conjecture,
~ disjointwith(c_tptptptpcol_16_8398,c_tptpcol_16_18488),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',query281) ).
fof(ax5_1365323,axiom,
! [X1] :
~ ( individual(X1)
& collection(X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/CSR002+5.ax',ax5_1365323) ).
fof(ax5_2620972,axiom,
! [X2,X3] :
( disjointwith(X2,X3)
=> collection(X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/CSR002+5.ax',ax5_2620972) ).
fof(ax5_2847953,axiom,
individual(c_tptptptpcol_16_8398),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/CSR002+5.ax',ax5_2847953) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ~ disjointwith(c_tptptptpcol_16_8398,c_tptpcol_16_18488),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[query281]) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X89] :
( ~ individual(X89)
| ~ collection(X89) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[ax5_1365323])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X41,X42] :
( collection(X41)
| ~ disjointwith(X41,X42) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[ax5_2620972])])]) ).
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)],[ax5_2847953]) ).
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
% 0.00/0.01 % Problem : CSR031+6 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v5.3.0.
% 0.00/0.02 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.03/0.30 % Computer : n012.cluster.edu
% 0.03/0.30 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.03/0.30 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.03/0.30 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.03/0.30 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.03/0.30 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.03/0.30 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.03/0.30 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 14:26:37 UTC 2026
% 0.03/0.30 % CPUTime :
% 0.03/0.30 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.03/0.32 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.03/0.32 Running: /export/starexec/sandbox/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/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.06/95.49 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.06/95.49 % Preprocessing class: FLLLLMLLSSSNFFN.
% 0.06/95.49 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 225 seconds (1800 total)
% 0.06/95.49 % Starting new_ho_10 with 450s (2) cores
% 0.06/95.49 % Starting sh3 with 450s (2) cores
% 0.06/95.49 % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 450s (2) cores
% 0.06/95.49 % Starting new_ho_10_cnf2 with 450s (2) cores
% 0.06/95.49 % ho_unfolding_3 with pid 2567697 completed with status 0
% 0.06/95.49 % Result found by ho_unfolding_3
% 0.06/95.49 % Preprocessing class: FLLLLMLLSSSNFFN.
% 0.06/95.49 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 225 seconds (1800 total)
% 0.06/95.49 % Starting new_ho_10 with 450s (2) cores
% 0.06/95.49 % Starting sh3 with 450s (2) cores
% 0.06/95.49 % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 450s (2) cores
% 0.06/95.49 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.06/95.49 % SinE strategy is gf500_h_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.06/95.49 % Search class: FHHSM-SMLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.06/95.49 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 2 cores with 435 seconds (435 total)
% 0.06/95.49 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 40s (1) cores
% 0.06/95.49 % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 44s (1) cores
% 0.06/95.49 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2568011 completed with status 0
% 0.06/95.49 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.06/95.49 % Preprocessing class: FLLLLMLLSSSNFFN.
% 0.06/95.49 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 225 seconds (1800 total)
% 0.06/95.49 % Starting new_ho_10 with 450s (2) cores
% 0.06/95.49 % Starting sh3 with 450s (2) cores
% 0.06/95.49 % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 450s (2) cores
% 0.06/95.49 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.06/95.49 % SinE strategy is gf500_h_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.06/95.49 % Search class: FHHSM-SMLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.06/95.49 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 2 cores with 435 seconds (435 total)
% 0.06/95.49 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 40s (1) cores
% 0.06/95.49 % Preprocessing time : 1.191 s
% 0.06/95.49
% 0.06/95.49 % Proof found!
% 0.06/95.49 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.06/95.49 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.06/95.49 % Parsed axioms : 3341978
% 0.06/95.49 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 3330215
% 0.06/95.49 % Initial clauses : 11763
% 0.06/95.49 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 2
% 0.06/95.49 % Initial clauses in saturation : 11761
% 0.06/95.49 % Processed clauses : 8495
% 0.06/95.49 % ...of these trivial : 678
% 0.06/95.49 % ...subsumed : 61
% 0.06/95.49 % ...remaining for further processing : 7756
% 0.06/95.49 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 1
% 0.06/95.49 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.06/95.49 % Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.06/95.49 % Backward-rewritten : 603
% 0.06/95.49 % Generated clauses : 7125
% 0.06/95.49 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 4725
% 0.06/95.49 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.06/95.49 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.06/95.49 % Paramodulations : 7124
% 0.06/95.49 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.06/95.49 % NegExts : 0
% 0.06/95.49 % Equation resolutions : 1
% 0.06/95.49 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.06/95.49 % Total rewrite steps : 3600
% 0.06/95.49 % ...of those cached : 2160
% 0.06/95.49 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.06/95.49 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.06/95.49 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.06/95.49 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.06/95.49 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.06/95.49 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.06/95.49 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.06/95.49 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.06/95.49 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.06/95.49 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.06/95.49 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.06/95.49 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.06/95.49 % Current number of processed clauses : 7151
% 0.06/95.49 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 5447
% 0.06/95.49 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.06/95.49 % Negative unit clauses : 858
% 0.06/95.49 % Non-unit-clauses : 846
% 0.06/95.49 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 7901
% 0.06/95.49 % ...number of literals in the above : 10498
% 0.06/95.49 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.06/95.49 % Current number of archived clauses : 604
% 0.06/95.49 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 26840
% 0.06/95.49 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 25295
% 0.06/95.49 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 59
% 0.06/95.49 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 404617
% 0.06/95.49 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.06/95.49 % BW rewrite match attempts : 3883
% 0.06/95.49 % BW rewrite match successes : 604
% 0.06/95.49 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.06/95.49 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.06/95.49 % Termbank termtop insertions : 22420027
% 0.06/95.49 % Search garbage collected termcells : 10482995
% 0.06/95.49
% 0.06/95.49 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.06/95.49 % User time : 14.196 s
% 0.06/95.49 % System time : 4.182 s
% 0.06/95.49 % Total time : 18.378 s
% 0.06/95.49 % Maximum resident set size: 5019588 pages
% 0.06/95.49
% 0.06/95.49 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.06/95.49 % User time : 88.761 s
% 0.06/95.49 % System time : 8.160 s
% 0.06/95.49 % Total time : 96.921 s
% 0.06/95.49 % Maximum resident set size: 2273024 pages
% 0.06/95.49 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------