%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : CSR047+3 : 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 : n020.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 0.27s 0.58s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.27s
% 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(query147,conjecture,
( mtvisible(c_tptpgeo_member4_mt)
=> borderson(c_georegion_l4_x37_y50,c_georegion_l4_x36_y50) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',query147) ).
fof(ax2_1237,axiom,
( mtvisible(c_tptpgeo_member4_mt)
=> borderson(c_georegion_l4_x36_y50,c_georegion_l4_x37_y50) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/CSR002+2.ax',ax2_1237) ).
fof(ax2_7642,axiom,
! [X15,X16] :
( borderson(X15,X16)
=> borderson(X16,X15) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/CSR002+2.ax',ax2_7642) ).
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)],[query147]) ).
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)],[ax2_1237])]) ).
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,
! [X27,X28] :
( borderson(X28,X27)
| ~ borderson(X27,X28) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[ax2_7642])])]) ).
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
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : CSR047+3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.4.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.36 % Computer : n020.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.36 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.12/0.36 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.12/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.12/0.36 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 14:35:02 UTC 2026
% 0.12/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.12/0.36 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.40 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/0.40 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
% 0.27/0.58 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.27/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FMLLMMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.27/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.27/0.58 % Starting G-E--_301_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S0Y with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.27/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.58 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.58 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.58 % new_bool_1 with pid 3181061 completed with status 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.27/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FMLLMMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.27/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.27/0.58 % Starting G-E--_301_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S0Y with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.27/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.58 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.58 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.27/0.58 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.27/0.58 % Search class: FHUNF-FFSM11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.27/0.58 % partial match(1): FHUNF-FFSF11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.27/0.58 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.27/0.58 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.58 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3181063 completed with status 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.27/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FMLLMMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.27/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.27/0.58 % Starting G-E--_301_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S0Y with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.27/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.58 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.58 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.27/0.58 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.27/0.58 % Search class: FHUNF-FFSM11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.27/0.58 % partial match(1): FHUNF-FFSF11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.27/0.58 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.27/0.58 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.58 % Preprocessing time : 0.006 s
% 0.27/0.58
% 0.27/0.58 % Proof found!
% 0.27/0.58 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.27/0.58 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.27/0.58 % Parsed axioms : 8006
% 0.27/0.58 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 7960
% 0.27/0.58 % Initial clauses : 47
% 0.27/0.58 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Initial clauses in saturation : 47
% 0.27/0.58 % Processed clauses : 46
% 0.27/0.58 % ...of these trivial : 7
% 0.27/0.58 % ...subsumed : 1
% 0.27/0.58 % ...remaining for further processing : 38
% 0.27/0.58 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Generated clauses : 7
% 0.27/0.58 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 2
% 0.27/0.58 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Paramodulations : 7
% 0.27/0.58 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % NegExts : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Total rewrite steps : 9
% 0.27/0.58 % ...of those cached : 1
% 0.27/0.58 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.58 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.58 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.58 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.58 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.58 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.58 % Current number of processed clauses : 38
% 0.27/0.58 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 23
% 0.27/0.58 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.27/0.58 % Non-unit-clauses : 13
% 0.27/0.58 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 3
% 0.27/0.58 % ...number of literals in the above : 9
% 0.27/0.58 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 16
% 0.27/0.58 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 12
% 0.27/0.58 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 1
% 0.27/0.58 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 8
% 0.27/0.58 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Termbank termtop insertions : 52404
% 0.27/0.58 % Search garbage collected termcells : 31072
% 0.27/0.58
% 0.27/0.58 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.27/0.58 % User time : 0.023 s
% 0.27/0.58 % System time : 0.016 s
% 0.27/0.58 % Total time : 0.039 s
% 0.27/0.58 % Maximum resident set size: 20084 pages
% 0.27/0.58
% 0.27/0.58 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.27/0.58 % User time : 0.137 s
% 0.27/0.58 % System time : 0.030 s
% 0.27/0.58 % Total time : 0.167 s
% 0.27/0.58 % Maximum resident set size: 11264 pages
% 0.27/0.58 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------