%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : CSR047+5 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v3.5.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n004.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 12:16:13 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.15s 16.93s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.15s
% 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(query247,conjecture,
( mtvisible(c_tptpgeo_member4_mt)
=> borderson(c_georegion_l4_x37_y50,c_georegion_l4_x36_y50) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',query247) ).
fof(ax4_116655,axiom,
( mtvisible(c_tptpgeo_member4_mt)
=> borderson(c_georegion_l4_x36_y50,c_georegion_l4_x37_y50) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/CSR002+4.ax',ax4_116655) ).
fof(ax4_540068,axiom,
! [X23,X27] :
( borderson(X23,X27)
=> borderson(X27,X23) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/CSR002+4.ax',ax4_540068) ).
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)],[query247]) ).
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)],[ax4_116655])]) ).
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,
! [X34,X35] :
( borderson(X35,X34)
| ~ borderson(X34,X35) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[ax4_540068])])]) ).
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+5 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v3.5.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.34 % Computer : n004.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.34 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.34 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.34 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.34 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 14:33:50 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/0.35 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.13/0.39 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.13/0.39 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
% 0.15/16.93 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.15/16.93 % Preprocessing class: FLLLLMLLSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/16.93 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 288 seconds (2304 total)
% 0.15/16.93 % Starting new_ho_10 with 576s (2) cores
% 0.15/16.93 % Starting sh3 with 576s (2) cores
% 0.15/16.93 % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 576s (2) cores
% 0.15/16.93 % Starting new_ho_10_cnf2 with 576s (2) cores
% 0.15/16.93 % ho_unfolding_3 with pid 3383632 completed with status 0
% 0.15/16.93 % Result found by ho_unfolding_3
% 0.15/16.93 % Preprocessing class: FLLLLMLLSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/16.93 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 288 seconds (2304 total)
% 0.15/16.93 % Starting new_ho_10 with 576s (2) cores
% 0.15/16.93 % Starting sh3 with 576s (2) cores
% 0.15/16.93 % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 576s (2) cores
% 0.15/16.93 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.15/16.93 % SinE strategy is gf500_h_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.15/16.93 % Search class: FHHNM-FSLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.15/16.93 % partial match(1): FHHNM-SSLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.15/16.93 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 2 cores with 574 seconds (574 total)
% 0.15/16.93 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 52s (1) cores
% 0.15/16.93 % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 58s (1) cores
% 0.15/16.93 % ho_unfolding_3 with pid 3383635 completed with status 0
% 0.15/16.93 % Result found by ho_unfolding_3
% 0.15/16.93 % Preprocessing class: FLLLLMLLSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/16.93 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 288 seconds (2304 total)
% 0.15/16.93 % Starting new_ho_10 with 576s (2) cores
% 0.15/16.93 % Starting sh3 with 576s (2) cores
% 0.15/16.93 % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 576s (2) cores
% 0.15/16.93 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.15/16.93 % SinE strategy is gf500_h_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.15/16.93 % Search class: FHHNM-FSLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.15/16.93 % partial match(1): FHHNM-SSLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.15/16.93 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 2 cores with 574 seconds (574 total)
% 0.15/16.93 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 52s (1) cores
% 0.15/16.93 % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 58s (1) cores
% 0.15/16.93 % Preprocessing time : 0.155 s
% 0.15/16.93 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.15/16.93
% 0.15/16.93 % Proof found!
% 0.15/16.93 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.15/16.93 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.15/16.93 % Parsed axioms : 540250
% 0.15/16.93 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 539730
% 0.15/16.93 % Initial clauses : 521
% 0.15/16.93 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.15/16.93 % Initial clauses in saturation : 521
% 0.15/16.93 % Processed clauses : 724
% 0.15/16.93 % ...of these trivial : 38
% 0.15/16.93 % ...subsumed : 20
% 0.15/16.93 % ...remaining for further processing : 666
% 0.15/16.93 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.15/16.93 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.15/16.93 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.15/16.93 % Backward-rewritten : 8
% 0.15/16.93 % Generated clauses : 135
% 0.15/16.93 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 87
% 0.15/16.93 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.15/16.93 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.15/16.93 % Paramodulations : 135
% 0.15/16.93 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.15/16.93 % NegExts : 0
% 0.15/16.93 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.15/16.93 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.15/16.93 % Total rewrite steps : 91
% 0.15/16.93 % ...of those cached : 37
% 0.15/16.93 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.15/16.93 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.15/16.93 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.15/16.93 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.15/16.93 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.15/16.93 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.15/16.93 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.15/16.93 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/16.93 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/16.93 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.15/16.93 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/16.93 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/16.93 % Current number of processed clauses : 191
% 0.15/16.93 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 117
% 0.15/16.93 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.15/16.93 % Negative unit clauses : 11
% 0.15/16.93 % Non-unit-clauses : 63
% 0.15/16.93 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 348
% 0.15/16.93 % ...number of literals in the above : 447
% 0.15/16.93 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.15/16.93 % Current number of archived clauses : 475
% 0.15/16.93 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 4675
% 0.15/16.93 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3963
% 0.15/16.93 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 20
% 0.15/16.93 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 518
% 0.15/16.93 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.15/16.93 % BW rewrite match attempts : 15
% 0.15/16.93 % BW rewrite match successes : 8
% 0.15/16.93 % Condensation attempts : 724
% 0.15/16.93 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.15/16.93 % Termbank termtop insertions : 3696113
% 0.15/16.93 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2173234
% 0.15/16.93
% 0.15/16.93 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/16.93 % User time : 2.003 s
% 0.15/16.93 % System time : 0.899 s
% 0.15/16.93 % Total time : 2.902 s
% 0.15/16.93 % Maximum resident set size: 1242148 pages
% 0.15/16.93
% 0.15/16.93 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/16.93 % User time : 14.646 s
% 0.15/16.93 % System time : 1.753 s
% 0.15/16.93 % Total time : 16.399 s
% 0.15/16.93 % Maximum resident set size: 456960 pages
% 0.15/16.93 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------