%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : CSR053+4 : 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 : n019.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 12:18:19 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.95s 1.44s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.95s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 9 ( 3 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 15 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 11 ( 5 ~; 2 |; 1 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 3 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 3 ( 2 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 : 0 ( 0 sgn 0 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(query203,conjecture,
( mtvisible(c_tptpgeo_member1_mt)
=> geographicalsubregions(c_georegion_l3_x11_y2,c_georegion_l4_x35_y7) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',query203) ).
fof(ax3_6834,axiom,
( mtvisible(c_tptpgeo_member1_mt)
=> geographicalsubregions(c_georegion_l3_x11_y2,c_georegion_l4_x35_y7) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/CSR002+3.ax',ax3_6834) ).
fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ ( mtvisible(c_tptpgeo_member1_mt)
=> geographicalsubregions(c_georegion_l3_x11_y2,c_georegion_l4_x35_y7) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[query203]) ).
fof(c_0_3,plain,
( geographicalsubregions(c_georegion_l3_x11_y2,c_georegion_l4_x35_y7)
| ~ mtvisible(c_tptpgeo_member1_mt) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[ax3_6834])]) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
( ~ geographicalsubregions(c_georegion_l3_x11_y2,c_georegion_l4_x35_y7)
& mtvisible(c_tptpgeo_member1_mt) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,plain,
( ~ mtvisible(c_tptpgeo_member1_mt)
| geographicalsubregions(c_georegion_l3_x11_y2,c_georegion_l4_x35_y7) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
mtvisible(c_tptpgeo_member1_mt),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
~ geographicalsubregions(c_georegion_l3_x11_y2,c_georegion_l4_x35_y7),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6])]),c_0_7]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : CSR053+4 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.4.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.38 % Computer : n019.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.38 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.38 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.38 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.38 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.38 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.38 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/0.38 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 14:37:19 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.38 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/0.38 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.42 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.16/0.42 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
% 0.95/1.44 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.95/1.44 % Preprocessing class: FMLLLMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.95/1.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.95/1.44 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.95/1.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.95/1.44 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.95/1.44 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.95/1.44 % sh5l with pid 2822669 completed with status 0
% 0.95/1.44 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.95/1.44 % Preprocessing class: FMLLLMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.95/1.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.95/1.44 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.95/1.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.95/1.44 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.95/1.44 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.95/1.44 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.95/1.44 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.95/1.44 % Search class: FHHNM-FSMM31-SFFFFFNN
% 0.95/1.44 % partial match(2): FGHSM-FSMM31-SFFFFFNN
% 0.95/1.44 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.95/1.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.95/1.44 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2822670 completed with status 0
% 0.95/1.44 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.95/1.44 % Preprocessing class: FMLLLMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.95/1.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.95/1.44 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.95/1.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.95/1.44 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.95/1.44 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.95/1.44 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.95/1.44 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.95/1.44 % Search class: FHHNM-FSMM31-SFFFFFNN
% 0.95/1.44 % partial match(2): FGHSM-FSMM31-SFFFFFNN
% 0.95/1.44 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.95/1.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.95/1.44 % Preprocessing time : 0.023 s
% 0.95/1.44
% 0.95/1.44 % Proof found!
% 0.95/1.44 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.95/1.44 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.95/1.44 % Parsed axioms : 44217
% 0.95/1.44 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 43958
% 0.95/1.44 % Initial clauses : 260
% 0.95/1.44 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.95/1.44 % Initial clauses in saturation : 260
% 0.95/1.44 % Processed clauses : 104
% 0.95/1.44 % ...of these trivial : 14
% 0.95/1.44 % ...subsumed : 7
% 0.95/1.44 % ...remaining for further processing : 82
% 0.95/1.44 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.95/1.44 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.95/1.44 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.95/1.44 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.95/1.44 % Generated clauses : 7
% 0.95/1.44 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 7
% 0.95/1.44 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.95/1.44 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.95/1.44 % Paramodulations : 7
% 0.95/1.44 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.95/1.44 % NegExts : 0
% 0.95/1.44 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.95/1.44 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.95/1.44 % Total rewrite steps : 15
% 0.95/1.44 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.95/1.44 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.95/1.44 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.95/1.44 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.95/1.44 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.95/1.44 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.95/1.44 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.95/1.44 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.95/1.44 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.95/1.44 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.95/1.44 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.95/1.44 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.95/1.44 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.95/1.44 % Current number of processed clauses : 82
% 0.95/1.44 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 51
% 0.95/1.44 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.95/1.44 % Negative unit clauses : 4
% 0.95/1.44 % Non-unit-clauses : 27
% 0.95/1.44 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 163
% 0.95/1.44 % ...number of literals in the above : 325
% 0.95/1.44 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.95/1.44 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.95/1.44 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 148
% 0.95/1.44 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 142
% 0.95/1.44 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 7
% 0.95/1.44 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 11
% 0.95/1.44 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.95/1.44 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.95/1.44 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.95/1.44 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.95/1.44 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.95/1.44 % Termbank termtop insertions : 302058
% 0.95/1.44 % Search garbage collected termcells : 158149
% 0.95/1.44
% 0.95/1.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.95/1.44 % User time : 0.121 s
% 0.95/1.44 % System time : 0.078 s
% 0.95/1.44 % Total time : 0.198 s
% 0.95/1.44 % Maximum resident set size: 84276 pages
% 0.95/1.44
% 0.95/1.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.95/1.44 % User time : 0.863 s
% 0.95/1.44 % System time : 0.118 s
% 0.95/1.44 % Total time : 0.981 s
% 0.95/1.44 % Maximum resident set size: 38144 pages
% 0.95/1.44 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------