%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : CSR047+5 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v3.5.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/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 12:18:14 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.28s 18.81s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.28s
% 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/sandbox/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/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/CSR002+4.ax',ax4_116655) ).
fof(ax4_540068,axiom,
! [X23,X27] :
( borderson(X23,X27)
=> borderson(X27,X23) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/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
% 0.00/0.04 % Problem : CSR047+5 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v3.5.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.21/0.46 % Computer : n010.cluster.edu
% 0.21/0.46 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.21/0.46 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.21/0.46 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.21/0.46 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.21/0.46 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.21/0.46 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.21/0.46 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 14:34:10 UTC 2026
% 0.21/0.46 % CPUTime :
% 0.21/0.46 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.24/0.52 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.24/0.52 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
% 0.28/18.81 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.28/18.81 % Preprocessing class: FLLLLMLLSSSNFFN.
% 0.28/18.81 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 286 seconds (2288 total)
% 0.28/18.81 % Starting new_ho_10 with 572s (2) cores
% 0.28/18.81 % Starting sh3 with 572s (2) cores
% 0.28/18.81 % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 572s (2) cores
% 0.28/18.81 % Starting new_ho_10_cnf2 with 572s (2) cores
% 0.28/18.81 % new_ho_10 with pid 1107688 completed with status 0
% 0.28/18.81 % Result found by new_ho_10
% 0.28/18.81 % Preprocessing class: FLLLLMLLSSSNFFN.
% 0.28/18.81 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 286 seconds (2288 total)
% 0.28/18.81 % Starting new_ho_10 with 572s (2) cores
% 0.28/18.81 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.28/18.81 % SinE strategy is gf500_h_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.28/18.81 % Search class: FHHNM-FSLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.28/18.81 % partial match(1): FHHNM-SSLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.28/18.81 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 2 cores with 570 seconds (570 total)
% 0.28/18.81 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 52s (1) cores
% 0.28/18.81 % Starting new_ho_10 with 58s (1) cores
% 0.28/18.81 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1107896 completed with status 0
% 0.28/18.81 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.28/18.81 % Preprocessing class: FLLLLMLLSSSNFFN.
% 0.28/18.81 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 286 seconds (2288 total)
% 0.28/18.81 % Starting new_ho_10 with 572s (2) cores
% 0.28/18.81 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.28/18.81 % SinE strategy is gf500_h_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.28/18.81 % Search class: FHHNM-FSLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.28/18.81 % partial match(1): FHHNM-SSLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.28/18.81 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 2 cores with 570 seconds (570 total)
% 0.28/18.81 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 52s (1) cores
% 0.28/18.81 % Preprocessing time : 0.349 s
% 0.28/18.81
% 0.28/18.81 % Proof found!
% 0.28/18.81 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.28/18.81 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.28/18.81 % Parsed axioms : 540250
% 0.28/18.81 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 539730
% 0.28/18.81 % Initial clauses : 521
% 0.28/18.81 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.28/18.81 % Initial clauses in saturation : 521
% 0.28/18.81 % Processed clauses : 594
% 0.28/18.81 % ...of these trivial : 44
% 0.28/18.81 % ...subsumed : 15
% 0.28/18.81 % ...remaining for further processing : 535
% 0.28/18.81 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.28/18.81 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.28/18.81 % Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.28/18.81 % Backward-rewritten : 26
% 0.28/18.81 % Generated clauses : 592
% 0.28/18.81 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 404
% 0.28/18.81 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.28/18.81 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.28/18.81 % Paramodulations : 592
% 0.28/18.81 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.28/18.81 % NegExts : 0
% 0.28/18.81 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.28/18.81 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.28/18.81 % Total rewrite steps : 251
% 0.28/18.81 % ...of those cached : 179
% 0.28/18.81 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.28/18.81 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.28/18.81 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.28/18.81 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.28/18.81 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.28/18.81 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.28/18.81 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.28/18.81 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.28/18.81 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.28/18.81 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.28/18.81 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.28/18.81 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.28/18.81 % Current number of processed clauses : 508
% 0.28/18.81 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 382
% 0.28/18.81 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.28/18.81 % Negative unit clauses : 34
% 0.28/18.81 % Non-unit-clauses : 92
% 0.28/18.81 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 328
% 0.28/18.81 % ...number of literals in the above : 441
% 0.28/18.81 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.28/18.81 % Current number of archived clauses : 27
% 0.28/18.81 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1789
% 0.28/18.81 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1427
% 0.28/18.81 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 15
% 0.28/18.81 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1516
% 0.28/18.81 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.28/18.81 % BW rewrite match attempts : 35
% 0.28/18.81 % BW rewrite match successes : 27
% 0.28/18.81 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.28/18.81 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.28/18.81 % Termbank termtop insertions : 3697809
% 0.28/18.81 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2173234
% 0.28/18.81
% 0.28/18.81 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.28/18.81 % User time : 2.258 s
% 0.28/18.81 % System time : 0.949 s
% 0.28/18.81 % Total time : 3.207 s
% 0.28/18.81 % Maximum resident set size: 1242144 pages
% 0.28/18.81
% 0.28/18.81 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.28/18.81 % User time : 16.462 s
% 0.28/18.81 % System time : 1.873 s
% 0.28/18.81 % Total time : 18.335 s
% 0.28/18.81 % Maximum resident set size: 455680 pages
% 0.28/18.81 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------