%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : CSR032+2 : 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 : n005.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 12:16:01 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.17s 0.51s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.17s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 10 ( 4 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 16 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 11 ( 5 ~; 2 |; 1 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 3 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 4 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 4 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 7 ( 1 sgn 3 !; 2 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(query82,conjecture,
? [X22] :
( mtvisible(c_reasoningaboutpossibleantecedentsmt)
=> isa(f_citynamedfn(s_agen,c_france),X22) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',query82) ).
fof(ax1_1014,axiom,
! [X13] :
( individual(X13)
=> isa(X13,c_individual) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/CSR002+1.ax',ax1_1014) ).
fof(ax1_318,axiom,
individual(f_citynamedfn(s_agen,c_france)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/CSR002+1.ax',ax1_318) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ? [X22] :
( mtvisible(c_reasoningaboutpossibleantecedentsmt)
=> isa(f_citynamedfn(s_agen,c_france),X22) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[query82]) ).
fof(c_0_4,plain,
! [X48] :
( isa(X48,c_individual)
| ~ individual(X48) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[ax1_1014])])]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
! [X23] :
( ~ isa(f_citynamedfn(s_agen,c_france),X23)
& mtvisible(c_reasoningaboutpossibleantecedentsmt) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ individual(X1)
| isa(X1,c_individual) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
individual(f_citynamedfn(s_agen,c_france)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[ax1_318]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
~ isa(f_citynamedfn(s_agen,c_france),X1),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]),c_0_8]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : CSR032+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.4.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.37 % Computer : n005.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.09/0.37 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 14:26:47 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.38 % CPUTime :
% 0.09/0.38 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.42 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.09/0.42 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
% 0.17/0.51 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.17/0.51 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.17/0.51 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.17/0.51 % Starting G-E--_208_C18C--_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 900s (3) cores
% 0.17/0.51 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.17/0.51 % Starting new_bool_1 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.17/0.51 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.17/0.51 % sh5l with pid 3730623 completed with status 0
% 0.17/0.51 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.17/0.51 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.17/0.51 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.17/0.51 % Starting G-E--_208_C18C--_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 900s (3) cores
% 0.17/0.51 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.17/0.51 % Starting new_bool_1 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.17/0.51 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.17/0.51 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.17/0.51 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.17/0.51 % Search class: FHHNM-FSLM31-SFFFFFNN
% 0.17/0.51 % partial match(2): FHHNM-SSLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.17/0.51 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.17/0.51 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.17/0.51 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3730635 completed with status 0
% 0.17/0.51 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.17/0.51 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.17/0.51 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.17/0.51 % Starting G-E--_208_C18C--_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 900s (3) cores
% 0.17/0.51 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.17/0.51 % Starting new_bool_1 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.17/0.51 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.17/0.51 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.17/0.51 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.17/0.51 % Search class: FHHNM-FSLM31-SFFFFFNN
% 0.17/0.51 % partial match(2): FHHNM-SSLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.17/0.51 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.17/0.51 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.17/0.51 % Preprocessing time : 0.005 s
% 0.17/0.51
% 0.17/0.51 % Proof found!
% 0.17/0.51 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.17/0.51 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.17/0.51 % Parsed axioms : 1132
% 0.17/0.51 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 809
% 0.17/0.51 % Initial clauses : 324
% 0.17/0.51 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.17/0.51 % Initial clauses in saturation : 324
% 0.17/0.51 % Processed clauses : 664
% 0.17/0.51 % ...of these trivial : 55
% 0.17/0.51 % ...subsumed : 17
% 0.17/0.51 % ...remaining for further processing : 591
% 0.17/0.51 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.17/0.51 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.17/0.51 % Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.17/0.51 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.17/0.51 % Generated clauses : 781
% 0.17/0.51 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 481
% 0.17/0.51 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.17/0.51 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.17/0.51 % Paramodulations : 781
% 0.17/0.51 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.17/0.51 % NegExts : 0
% 0.17/0.51 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.17/0.51 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.17/0.51 % Total rewrite steps : 322
% 0.17/0.51 % ...of those cached : 217
% 0.17/0.51 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.17/0.51 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.17/0.51 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.17/0.51 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.17/0.51 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.17/0.51 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.17/0.51 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.17/0.51 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.17/0.51 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.17/0.51 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.17/0.51 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.17/0.51 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.17/0.51 % Current number of processed clauses : 590
% 0.17/0.51 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 360
% 0.17/0.51 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.17/0.51 % Negative unit clauses : 93
% 0.17/0.51 % Non-unit-clauses : 137
% 0.17/0.51 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 141
% 0.17/0.51 % ...number of literals in the above : 270
% 0.17/0.51 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.17/0.51 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.17/0.51 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 4724
% 0.17/0.51 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 4567
% 0.17/0.51 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 18
% 0.17/0.51 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 9009
% 0.17/0.51 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.17/0.51 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.17/0.51 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.17/0.51 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.17/0.51 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.17/0.51 % Termbank termtop insertions : 26346
% 0.17/0.51 % Search garbage collected termcells : 5466
% 0.17/0.51
% 0.17/0.51 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.17/0.51 % User time : 0.041 s
% 0.17/0.51 % System time : 0.010 s
% 0.17/0.51 % Total time : 0.051 s
% 0.17/0.51 % Maximum resident set size: 6656 pages
% 0.17/0.51
% 0.17/0.51 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.17/0.51 % User time : 0.056 s
% 0.17/0.51 % System time : 0.017 s
% 0.17/0.51 % Total time : 0.073 s
% 0.17/0.51 % Maximum resident set size: 5632 pages
% 0.17/0.51 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------