%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : CSR032+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.4.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n014.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 0.13s 5.47s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.13s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 14 ( 4 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 24 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 18 ( 8 ~; 5 |; 1 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 4 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 4 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 4 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 4 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 11 ( 1 sgn 5 !; 2 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(just46,axiom,
! [X10] :
( trajector_underspecified(X10)
=> isa(X10,c_trajector_underspecified) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',just46) ).
fof(just10,axiom,
! [X1] :
( individual(X1)
=> trajector_underspecified(X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',just10) ).
fof(query32,conjecture,
? [X17] :
( mtvisible(c_reasoningaboutpossibleantecedentsmt)
=> isa(f_citynamedfn(s_agen,c_france),X17) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',query32) ).
fof(just1,axiom,
individual(f_citynamedfn(s_agen,c_france)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',just1) ).
fof(c_0_4,plain,
! [X55] :
( isa(X55,c_trajector_underspecified)
| ~ trajector_underspecified(X55) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[just46])])]) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X43] :
( trajector_underspecified(X43)
| ~ individual(X43) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[just10])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
~ ? [X17] :
( mtvisible(c_reasoningaboutpossibleantecedentsmt)
=> isa(f_citynamedfn(s_agen,c_france),X17) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[query32]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ trajector_underspecified(X1)
| isa(X1,c_trajector_underspecified) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ individual(X1)
| trajector_underspecified(X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
fof(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
! [X18] :
( ~ isa(f_citynamedfn(s_agen,c_france),X18)
& mtvisible(c_reasoningaboutpossibleantecedentsmt) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_6])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( ~ individual(X1)
| isa(X1,c_trajector_underspecified) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
individual(f_citynamedfn(s_agen,c_france)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[just1]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
~ isa(f_citynamedfn(s_agen,c_france),X1),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
$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 : CSR032+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.4.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.13/5.40 % Computer : n014.cluster.edu
% 0.13/5.40 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/5.40 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/5.40 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.13/5.40 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.13/5.40 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/5.40 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.13/5.40 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 14:26:39 UTC 2026
% 0.13/5.40 % CPUTime :
% 0.13/5.40 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.13/5.45 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.13/5.45 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
% 0.13/5.47 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.13/5.47 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/5.47 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/5.47 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/5.47 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/5.47 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/5.47 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/5.47 % new_bool_3 with pid 109349 completed with status 0
% 0.13/5.47 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.13/5.47 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/5.47 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/5.47 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/5.47 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/5.47 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.13/5.47 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.13/5.47 % Search class: FHUNF-FFSM22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.13/5.47 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.13/5.47 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.13/5.47 % SubtermCWHack with pid 109352 completed with status 0
% 0.13/5.47 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.13/5.47 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/5.47 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/5.47 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/5.47 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/5.47 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.13/5.47 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.13/5.47 % Search class: FHUNF-FFSM22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.13/5.47 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.13/5.47 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.13/5.47 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.13/5.47
% 0.13/5.47 % Proof found!
% 0.13/5.47 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.13/5.47 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.13/5.47 % Parsed axioms : 68
% 0.13/5.47 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 40
% 0.13/5.47 % Initial clauses : 29
% 0.13/5.47 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.13/5.47 % Initial clauses in saturation : 29
% 0.13/5.47 % Processed clauses : 28
% 0.13/5.47 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.13/5.47 % ...subsumed : 4
% 0.13/5.47 % ...remaining for further processing : 24
% 0.13/5.47 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.13/5.47 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.13/5.47 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.13/5.47 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.13/5.47 % Generated clauses : 14
% 0.13/5.47 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 6
% 0.13/5.47 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.13/5.47 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.13/5.47 % Paramodulations : 14
% 0.13/5.47 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.13/5.47 % NegExts : 0
% 0.13/5.47 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.13/5.47 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.13/5.47 % Total rewrite steps : 4
% 0.13/5.47 % ...of those cached : 2
% 0.13/5.47 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.13/5.47 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.13/5.47 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.13/5.47 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.13/5.47 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.13/5.47 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.13/5.47 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.13/5.47 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.13/5.47 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.13/5.47 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.13/5.47 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.13/5.47 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.13/5.47 % Current number of processed clauses : 24
% 0.13/5.47 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 12
% 0.13/5.47 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.13/5.47 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.13/5.47 % Non-unit-clauses : 11
% 0.13/5.47 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 7
% 0.13/5.47 % ...number of literals in the above : 19
% 0.13/5.47 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.13/5.47 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.13/5.47 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 33
% 0.13/5.47 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 31
% 0.13/5.47 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 4
% 0.13/5.47 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3
% 0.13/5.47 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.13/5.47 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.13/5.47 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.13/5.47 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.13/5.47 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.13/5.47 % Termbank termtop insertions : 1943
% 0.13/5.47 % Search garbage collected termcells : 458
% 0.13/5.47
% 0.13/5.47 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.13/5.47 % User time : 0.007 s
% 0.13/5.47 % System time : 0.000 s
% 0.13/5.47 % Total time : 0.007 s
% 0.13/5.47 % Maximum resident set size: 3696 pages
% 0.13/5.47
% 0.13/5.47 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.13/5.47 % User time : 0.011 s
% 0.13/5.47 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.13/5.47 % Total time : 0.014 s
% 0.13/5.47 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.13/5.47 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------