%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : CSR047+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.4.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n010.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 12:16:12 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.19s 0.48s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.19s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 13 ( 4 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 22 ( 0 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 : 3 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 3 ( 3 usr; 3 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 6 ( 0 sgn 4 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(query97,conjecture,
( mtvisible(c_tptpgeo_member4_mt)
=> borderson(c_georegion_l4_x37_y50,c_georegion_l4_x36_y50) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',query97) ).
fof(ax1_383,axiom,
( mtvisible(c_tptpgeo_member4_mt)
=> borderson(c_georegion_l4_x36_y50,c_georegion_l4_x37_y50) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/CSR002+1.ax',ax1_383) ).
fof(ax1_900,axiom,
! [X13,X14] :
( borderson(X13,X14)
=> borderson(X14,X13) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/CSR002+1.ax',ax1_900) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ( mtvisible(c_tptpgeo_member4_mt)
=> borderson(c_georegion_l4_x37_y50,c_georegion_l4_x36_y50) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[query97]) ).
fof(c_0_4,plain,
( borderson(c_georegion_l4_x36_y50,c_georegion_l4_x37_y50)
| ~ mtvisible(c_tptpgeo_member4_mt) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[ax1_383])]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
( ~ borderson(c_georegion_l4_x37_y50,c_georegion_l4_x36_y50)
& mtvisible(c_tptpgeo_member4_mt) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X26,X27] :
( borderson(X27,X26)
| ~ borderson(X26,X27) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[ax1_900])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ mtvisible(c_tptpgeo_member4_mt)
| borderson(c_georegion_l4_x36_y50,c_georegion_l4_x37_y50) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
mtvisible(c_tptpgeo_member4_mt),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ borderson(X1,X2)
| borderson(X2,X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
borderson(c_georegion_l4_x36_y50,c_georegion_l4_x37_y50),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8])]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
~ borderson(c_georegion_l4_x37_y50,c_georegion_l4_x36_y50),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_11]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : CSR047+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.4.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.37 % Computer : n010.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.12/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.12/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.12/0.37 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 14:34:25 UTC 2026
% 0.12/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.12/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.42 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.12/0.42 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
% 0.19/0.48 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.19/0.48 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.19/0.48 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.19/0.48 % Starting G-E--_208_C18C--_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 900s (3) cores
% 0.19/0.48 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.19/0.48 % Starting new_bool_1 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.19/0.48 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.19/0.48 % new_bool_3 with pid 1107733 completed with status 0
% 0.19/0.48 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.19/0.48 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.19/0.48 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.19/0.48 % Starting G-E--_208_C18C--_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 900s (3) cores
% 0.19/0.48 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.19/0.48 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.19/0.48 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.19/0.48 % Search class: FHUNF-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.19/0.48 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 2 cores with 600 seconds (600 total)
% 0.19/0.48 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 61s (1) cores
% 0.19/0.48 % Starting SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with 361s (1) cores
% 0.19/0.48 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1107736 completed with status 0
% 0.19/0.48 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.19/0.48 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.19/0.48 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.19/0.48 % Starting G-E--_208_C18C--_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 900s (3) cores
% 0.19/0.48 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.19/0.48 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.19/0.48 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.19/0.48 % Search class: FHUNF-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.19/0.48 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 2 cores with 600 seconds (600 total)
% 0.19/0.48 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 61s (1) cores
% 0.19/0.48 % Preprocessing time : 0.003 s
% 0.19/0.48
% 0.19/0.48 % Proof found!
% 0.19/0.48 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.19/0.48 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.19/0.48 % Parsed axioms : 1132
% 0.19/0.48 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 1116
% 0.19/0.48 % Initial clauses : 17
% 0.19/0.48 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.19/0.48 % Initial clauses in saturation : 17
% 0.19/0.48 % Processed clauses : 16
% 0.19/0.48 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.19/0.48 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.19/0.48 % ...remaining for further processing : 16
% 0.19/0.48 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.19/0.48 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.19/0.48 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.19/0.48 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.19/0.48 % Generated clauses : 6
% 0.19/0.48 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 2
% 0.19/0.48 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.19/0.48 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.19/0.48 % Paramodulations : 6
% 0.19/0.48 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.19/0.48 % NegExts : 0
% 0.19/0.48 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.19/0.48 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.19/0.48 % Total rewrite steps : 1
% 0.19/0.48 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.19/0.48 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.19/0.48 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.19/0.48 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.19/0.48 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.19/0.48 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.19/0.48 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.19/0.48 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.19/0.48 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.19/0.48 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.19/0.48 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.19/0.48 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.19/0.48 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.19/0.48 % Current number of processed clauses : 16
% 0.19/0.48 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 4
% 0.19/0.48 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.19/0.48 % Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.19/0.48 % Non-unit-clauses : 10
% 0.19/0.48 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 3
% 0.19/0.48 % ...number of literals in the above : 9
% 0.19/0.48 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.19/0.48 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.19/0.48 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 6
% 0.19/0.48 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 4
% 0.19/0.48 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.19/0.48 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.19/0.48 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.19/0.48 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.19/0.48 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.19/0.48 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.19/0.48 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.19/0.48 % Termbank termtop insertions : 8164
% 0.19/0.48 % Search garbage collected termcells : 4911
% 0.19/0.48
% 0.19/0.48 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.19/0.48 % User time : 0.009 s
% 0.19/0.48 % System time : 0.007 s
% 0.19/0.48 % Total time : 0.016 s
% 0.19/0.48 % Maximum resident set size: 5888 pages
% 0.19/0.48
% 0.19/0.48 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.19/0.48 % User time : 0.030 s
% 0.19/0.48 % System time : 0.014 s
% 0.19/0.48 % Total time : 0.044 s
% 0.19/0.48 % Maximum resident set size: 5632 pages
% 0.19/0.48 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------