%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : CSR034+6 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v5.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n001.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 12:18:04 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.24s 100.76s
% 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 : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 3 ( 3 usr; 3 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 15 ( 4 sgn 7 !; 2 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(ax5_444511,axiom,
! [X2,X3] :
( X2 = X3
=> thing(X3) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/CSR002+5.ax',ax5_444511) ).
fof(query284,conjecture,
? [X34] :
( mtvisible(c_tptp_member3515_mt)
=> isa(c_wanica_districtsuriname,X34) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',query284) ).
fof(ax5_3341059,axiom,
! [X16] :
( thing(X16)
=> isa(X16,c_thing) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/CSR002+5.ax',ax5_3341059) ).
fof(c_0_3,plain,
! [X1219,X1220] :
( thing(X1220)
| X1219 != X1220 ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[ax5_444511])])]) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ? [X34] :
( mtvisible(c_tptp_member3515_mt)
=> isa(c_wanica_districtsuriname,X34) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[query284]) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X1207] :
( isa(X1207,c_thing)
| ~ thing(X1207) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[ax5_3341059])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( X1 != X2
| thing(X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
fof(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
! [X35] :
( ~ isa(c_wanica_districtsuriname,X35)
& mtvisible(c_tptp_member3515_mt) ),
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(c_wanica_districtsuriname,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 : CSR034+6 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v5.3.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.42 % Computer : n001.cluster.edu
% 0.16/0.42 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.16/0.42 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.16/0.42 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.16/0.42 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.16/0.42 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.16/0.42 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.16/0.42 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 14:34:01 UTC 2026
% 0.16/0.42 % CPUTime :
% 0.16/0.42 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.47 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.16/0.47 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
% 0.24/100.76 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.24/100.76 % Preprocessing class: FLLLLMLLSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/100.76 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 234 seconds (1872 total)
% 0.24/100.76 % Starting new_ho_10 with 468s (2) cores
% 0.24/100.76 % Starting sh3 with 468s (2) cores
% 0.24/100.76 % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 468s (2) cores
% 0.24/100.76 % Starting new_ho_10_cnf2 with 468s (2) cores
% 0.24/100.76 % ho_unfolding_3 with pid 3374235 completed with status 0
% 0.24/100.76 % Result found by ho_unfolding_3
% 0.24/100.76 % Preprocessing class: FLLLLMLLSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/100.76 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 234 seconds (1872 total)
% 0.24/100.76 % Starting new_ho_10 with 468s (2) cores
% 0.24/100.76 % Starting sh3 with 468s (2) cores
% 0.24/100.76 % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 468s (2) cores
% 0.24/100.76 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.24/100.76 % SinE strategy is gf500_h_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.24/100.76 % Search class: FHHSM-SMLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.24/100.76 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 2 cores with 441 seconds (441 total)
% 0.24/100.76 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 40s (1) cores
% 0.24/100.76 % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 45s (1) cores
% 0.24/100.76 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3374875 completed with status 0
% 0.24/100.76 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.24/100.76 % Preprocessing class: FLLLLMLLSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/100.76 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 234 seconds (1872 total)
% 0.24/100.76 % Starting new_ho_10 with 468s (2) cores
% 0.24/100.76 % Starting sh3 with 468s (2) cores
% 0.24/100.76 % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 468s (2) cores
% 0.24/100.76 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.24/100.76 % SinE strategy is gf500_h_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.24/100.76 % Search class: FHHSM-SMLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.24/100.76 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 2 cores with 441 seconds (441 total)
% 0.24/100.76 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 40s (1) cores
% 0.24/100.76 % Preprocessing time : 1.970 s
% 0.24/100.76
% 0.24/100.76 % Proof found!
% 0.24/100.76 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.24/100.76 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.24/100.76 % Parsed axioms : 3341978
% 0.24/100.76 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 3321977
% 0.24/100.76 % Initial clauses : 20002
% 0.24/100.76 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 2
% 0.24/100.76 % Initial clauses in saturation : 20000
% 0.24/100.76 % Processed clauses : 8316
% 0.24/100.76 % ...of these trivial : 583
% 0.24/100.76 % ...subsumed : 46
% 0.24/100.76 % ...remaining for further processing : 7687
% 0.24/100.76 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 1
% 0.24/100.76 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.24/100.76 % Backward-subsumed : 10
% 0.24/100.76 % Backward-rewritten : 615
% 0.24/100.76 % Generated clauses : 1829
% 0.24/100.76 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1626
% 0.24/100.76 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.24/100.76 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.24/100.76 % Paramodulations : 1828
% 0.24/100.76 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.24/100.76 % NegExts : 0
% 0.24/100.76 % Equation resolutions : 1
% 0.24/100.76 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.24/100.76 % Total rewrite steps : 1402
% 0.24/100.76 % ...of those cached : 124
% 0.24/100.76 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.24/100.76 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.24/100.76 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.24/100.76 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.24/100.76 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.24/100.76 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.24/100.76 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.24/100.76 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/100.76 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/100.76 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.24/100.76 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/100.76 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/100.76 % Current number of processed clauses : 7061
% 0.24/100.76 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 5652
% 0.24/100.76 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.24/100.76 % Negative unit clauses : 561
% 0.24/100.76 % Non-unit-clauses : 848
% 0.24/100.76 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 13161
% 0.24/100.76 % ...number of literals in the above : 19707
% 0.24/100.76 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.24/100.76 % Current number of archived clauses : 625
% 0.24/100.76 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 38324
% 0.24/100.76 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 36927
% 0.24/100.76 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 10
% 0.24/100.76 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 383496
% 0.24/100.76 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.24/100.76 % BW rewrite match attempts : 7794
% 0.24/100.76 % BW rewrite match successes : 615
% 0.24/100.76 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.24/100.76 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.24/100.76 % Termbank termtop insertions : 22662599
% 0.24/100.76 % Search garbage collected termcells : 10464448
% 0.24/100.76
% 0.24/100.76 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/100.76 % User time : 23.430 s
% 0.24/100.76 % System time : 8.088 s
% 0.24/100.76 % Total time : 31.517 s
% 0.24/100.76 % Maximum resident set size: 5023888 pages
% 0.24/100.76
% 0.24/100.76 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/100.76 % User time : 90.094 s
% 0.24/100.76 % System time : 13.277 s
% 0.24/100.76 % Total time : 103.370 s
% 0.24/100.76 % Maximum resident set size: 2273536 pages
% 0.24/100.76 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------