%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : CSR047+4 : 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 0.94s 1.43s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.94s
% 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(query197,conjecture,
( mtvisible(c_tptpgeo_member4_mt)
=> borderson(c_georegion_l4_x37_y50,c_georegion_l4_x36_y50) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',query197) ).
fof(ax3_13874,axiom,
( mtvisible(c_tptpgeo_member4_mt)
=> borderson(c_georegion_l4_x36_y50,c_georegion_l4_x37_y50) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/CSR002+3.ax',ax3_13874) ).
fof(ax3_43084,axiom,
! [X16,X17] :
( borderson(X16,X17)
=> borderson(X17,X16) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/CSR002+3.ax',ax3_43084) ).
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)],[query197]) ).
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)],[ax3_13874])]) ).
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,
! [X28,X29] :
( borderson(X29,X28)
| ~ borderson(X28,X29) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[ax3_43084])])]) ).
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+4 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.4.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.37 % Computer : n020.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 14:34:47 UTC 2026
% 0.12/0.38 % CPUTime :
% 0.12/0.38 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.42 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.12/0.42 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
% 0.94/1.43 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.94/1.43 % Preprocessing class: FMLLLMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.94/1.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.94/1.43 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.94/1.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.94/1.43 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.94/1.43 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.94/1.43 % sh5l with pid 3180432 completed with status 0
% 0.94/1.43 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.94/1.43 % Preprocessing class: FMLLLMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.94/1.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.94/1.43 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.94/1.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.94/1.43 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.94/1.43 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.94/1.43 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.94/1.43 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.94/1.43 % Search class: FHUNF-FFMM11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.94/1.43 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.94/1.43 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.94/1.43 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3180433 completed with status 0
% 0.94/1.43 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.94/1.43 % Preprocessing class: FMLLLMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.94/1.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.94/1.43 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.94/1.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.94/1.43 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.94/1.43 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.94/1.43 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.94/1.43 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.94/1.43 % Search class: FHUNF-FFMM11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.94/1.43 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.94/1.43 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.94/1.43 % Preprocessing time : 0.019 s
% 0.94/1.43
% 0.94/1.43 % Proof found!
% 0.94/1.43 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.94/1.43 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.94/1.43 % Parsed axioms : 44217
% 0.94/1.43 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 44104
% 0.94/1.43 % Initial clauses : 114
% 0.94/1.43 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.94/1.43 % Initial clauses in saturation : 114
% 0.94/1.43 % Processed clauses : 242
% 0.94/1.43 % ...of these trivial : 23
% 0.94/1.43 % ...subsumed : 61
% 0.94/1.43 % ...remaining for further processing : 158
% 0.94/1.43 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.94/1.43 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.94/1.43 % Backward-subsumed : 2
% 0.94/1.43 % Backward-rewritten : 7
% 0.94/1.43 % Generated clauses : 197
% 0.94/1.43 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 172
% 0.94/1.43 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.94/1.43 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.94/1.43 % Paramodulations : 197
% 0.94/1.43 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.94/1.43 % NegExts : 0
% 0.94/1.43 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.94/1.43 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.94/1.43 % Total rewrite steps : 62
% 0.94/1.43 % ...of those cached : 40
% 0.94/1.43 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.94/1.43 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.94/1.43 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.94/1.43 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.94/1.43 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.94/1.43 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.94/1.43 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.94/1.43 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.94/1.43 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.94/1.43 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.94/1.43 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.94/1.43 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.94/1.43 % Current number of processed clauses : 149
% 0.94/1.43 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 63
% 0.94/1.43 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.94/1.43 % Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.94/1.43 % Non-unit-clauses : 84
% 0.94/1.43 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 39
% 0.94/1.43 % ...number of literals in the above : 79
% 0.94/1.43 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.94/1.43 % Current number of archived clauses : 9
% 0.94/1.43 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1658
% 0.94/1.43 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1496
% 0.94/1.43 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 61
% 0.94/1.43 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 154
% 0.94/1.43 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.94/1.43 % BW rewrite match attempts : 3
% 0.94/1.43 % BW rewrite match successes : 3
% 0.94/1.43 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.94/1.43 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.94/1.43 % Termbank termtop insertions : 296732
% 0.94/1.43 % Search garbage collected termcells : 157722
% 0.94/1.43
% 0.94/1.43 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.94/1.43 % User time : 0.127 s
% 0.94/1.43 % System time : 0.079 s
% 0.94/1.43 % Total time : 0.206 s
% 0.94/1.43 % Maximum resident set size: 84276 pages
% 0.94/1.43
% 0.94/1.43 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.94/1.43 % User time : 0.843 s
% 0.94/1.43 % System time : 0.132 s
% 0.94/1.43 % Total time : 0.975 s
% 0.94/1.43 % Maximum resident set size: 37888 pages
% 0.94/1.43 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------