%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : CSR032+5 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v3.5.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/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 12:16:01 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.24s 28.84s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.24s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 13 ( 4 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 22 ( 3 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 16 ( 7 ~; 4 |; 1 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 4 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 5 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 4 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 15 ( 4 sgn 7 !; 2 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(ax4_449505,axiom,
! [X2,X7] :
( X2 = X7
=> thing(X7) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/CSR002+4.ax',ax4_449505) ).
fof(query232,conjecture,
? [X30] :
( mtvisible(c_reasoningaboutpossibleantecedentsmt)
=> isa(f_citynamedfn(s_agen,c_france),X30) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',query232) ).
fof(ax4_540099,axiom,
! [X23] :
( thing(X23)
=> isa(X23,c_thing) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/CSR002+4.ax',ax4_540099) ).
fof(c_0_3,plain,
! [X338,X339] :
( thing(X339)
| X338 != X339 ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[ax4_449505])])]) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ? [X30] :
( mtvisible(c_reasoningaboutpossibleantecedentsmt)
=> isa(f_citynamedfn(s_agen,c_france),X30) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[query232]) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X358] :
( isa(X358,c_thing)
| ~ thing(X358) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[ax4_540099])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( X1 != X2
| thing(X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
fof(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
! [X31] :
( ~ isa(f_citynamedfn(s_agen,c_france),X31)
& mtvisible(c_reasoningaboutpossibleantecedentsmt) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ thing(X1)
| isa(X1,c_thing) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
thing(X1),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
~ isa(f_citynamedfn(s_agen,c_france),X1),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
isa(X1,c_thing),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9])]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.04 % Problem : CSR032+5 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v3.5.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.19/15.88 % Computer : n018.cluster.edu
% 0.19/15.88 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.19/15.88 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.19/15.88 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.19/15.88 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.19/15.88 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.19/15.88 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.19/15.88 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 14:28:45 UTC 2026
% 0.19/15.88 % CPUTime :
% 0.19/15.88 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.22/15.92 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.22/15.92 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
% 0.24/28.84 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.24/28.84 % Preprocessing class: FLLLLMLLSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/28.84 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 294 seconds (2352 total)
% 0.24/28.84 % Starting new_ho_10 with 588s (2) cores
% 0.24/28.84 % Starting sh3 with 588s (2) cores
% 0.24/28.84 % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 588s (2) cores
% 0.24/28.84 % Starting new_ho_10_cnf2 with 588s (2) cores
% 0.24/28.84 % sh3 with pid 2135338 completed with status 0
% 0.24/28.84 % Result found by sh3
% 0.24/28.84 % Preprocessing class: FLLLLMLLSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/28.84 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 294 seconds (2352 total)
% 0.24/28.84 % Starting new_ho_10 with 588s (2) cores
% 0.24/28.84 % Starting sh3 with 588s (2) cores
% 0.24/28.84 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.24/28.84 % SinE strategy is gf500_h_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.24/28.84 % Search class: FHHSM-SMLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.24/28.84 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 2 cores with 584 seconds (584 total)
% 0.24/28.84 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 53s (1) cores
% 0.24/28.84 % Starting sh3 with 59s (1) cores
% 0.24/28.84 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2135344 completed with status 0
% 0.24/28.84 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.24/28.84 % Preprocessing class: FLLLLMLLSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/28.84 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 294 seconds (2352 total)
% 0.24/28.84 % Starting new_ho_10 with 588s (2) cores
% 0.24/28.84 % Starting sh3 with 588s (2) cores
% 0.24/28.84 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.24/28.84 % SinE strategy is gf500_h_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.24/28.84 % Search class: FHHSM-SMLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.24/28.84 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 2 cores with 584 seconds (584 total)
% 0.24/28.84 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 53s (1) cores
% 0.24/28.84 % Preprocessing time : 0.298 s
% 0.24/28.84
% 0.24/28.84 % Proof found!
% 0.24/28.84 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.24/28.84 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.24/28.84 % Parsed axioms : 540250
% 0.24/28.84 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 535879
% 0.24/28.84 % Initial clauses : 4372
% 0.24/28.84 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 2
% 0.24/28.84 % Initial clauses in saturation : 4370
% 0.24/28.84 % Processed clauses : 4931
% 0.24/28.84 % ...of these trivial : 715
% 0.24/28.84 % ...subsumed : 60
% 0.24/28.84 % ...remaining for further processing : 4156
% 0.24/28.84 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 1
% 0.24/28.84 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.24/28.84 % Backward-subsumed : 11
% 0.24/28.84 % Backward-rewritten : 140
% 0.24/28.84 % Generated clauses : 5109
% 0.24/28.84 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 3322
% 0.24/28.84 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.24/28.84 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.24/28.84 % Paramodulations : 5108
% 0.24/28.84 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.24/28.84 % NegExts : 0
% 0.24/28.84 % Equation resolutions : 1
% 0.24/28.84 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.24/28.84 % Total rewrite steps : 2512
% 0.24/28.84 % ...of those cached : 1724
% 0.24/28.84 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.24/28.84 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.24/28.84 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.24/28.84 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.24/28.84 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.24/28.84 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.24/28.84 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.24/28.84 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/28.84 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/28.84 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.24/28.84 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/28.84 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/28.84 % Current number of processed clauses : 4004
% 0.24/28.84 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 3080
% 0.24/28.84 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.24/28.84 % Negative unit clauses : 132
% 0.24/28.84 % Non-unit-clauses : 792
% 0.24/28.84 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 2756
% 0.24/28.84 % ...number of literals in the above : 4221
% 0.24/28.84 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.24/28.84 % Current number of archived clauses : 151
% 0.24/28.84 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 63845
% 0.24/28.84 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 59779
% 0.24/28.84 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 60
% 0.24/28.84 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 64859
% 0.24/28.84 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.24/28.84 % BW rewrite match attempts : 332
% 0.24/28.84 % BW rewrite match successes : 148
% 0.24/28.84 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.24/28.84 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.24/28.84 % Termbank termtop insertions : 3854992
% 0.24/28.84 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2170306
% 0.24/28.84
% 0.24/28.84 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/28.84 % User time : 3.852 s
% 0.24/28.84 % System time : 1.964 s
% 0.24/28.84 % Total time : 5.815 s
% 0.24/28.84 % Maximum resident set size: 1242404 pages
% 0.24/28.84
% 0.24/28.84 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/28.84 % User time : 10.298 s
% 0.24/28.84 % System time : 2.871 s
% 0.24/28.84 % Total time : 13.169 s
% 0.24/28.84 % Maximum resident set size: 456448 pages
% 0.24/28.84 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------