%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : CSR057+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 : n026.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 12:16:20 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 23.52s 19.03s
% Output : CNFRefutation 23.52s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 21 ( 6 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 36 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 27 ( 12 ~; 8 |; 1 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 6 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 5 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 6 ( 5 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 3 ( 3 usr; 3 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 20 ( 3 sgn 11 !; 2 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(query257,conjecture,
? [X23] :
( mtvisible(c_tptpgeo_member8_mt)
=> inregion(X23,c_georegion_l4_x75_y75) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',query257) ).
fof(ax4_297918,axiom,
( mtvisible(c_tptpgeo_member8_mt)
=> borderson(c_georegion_l4_x75_y75,c_georegion_l4_x75_y76) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/CSR002+4.ax',ax4_297918) ).
fof(ax4_62192,axiom,
! [X2,X3] :
( geographicalsubregions(X2,X3)
=> inregion(X3,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/CSR002+4.ax',ax4_62192) ).
fof(ax4_540067,axiom,
! [X7,X3] :
( borderson(X7,X3)
=> geographicalregion(X7) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/CSR002+4.ax',ax4_540067) ).
fof(ax4_538371,axiom,
! [X23] :
( geographicalregion(X23)
=> geographicalsubregions(X23,X23) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/CSR002+4.ax',ax4_538371) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ ? [X23] :
( mtvisible(c_tptpgeo_member8_mt)
=> inregion(X23,c_georegion_l4_x75_y75) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[query257]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
( borderson(c_georegion_l4_x75_y75,c_georegion_l4_x75_y76)
| ~ mtvisible(c_tptpgeo_member8_mt) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[ax4_297918])]) ).
fof(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
! [X30] :
( ~ inregion(X30,c_georegion_l4_x75_y75)
& mtvisible(c_tptpgeo_member8_mt) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_5])])]) ).
fof(c_0_8,plain,
! [X31,X32] :
( inregion(X32,X31)
| ~ geographicalsubregions(X31,X32) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[ax4_62192])])]) ).
fof(c_0_9,plain,
! [X50,X51] :
( geographicalregion(X50)
| ~ borderson(X50,X51) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[ax4_540067])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( ~ mtvisible(c_tptpgeo_member8_mt)
| borderson(c_georegion_l4_x75_y75,c_georegion_l4_x75_y76) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
mtvisible(c_tptpgeo_member8_mt),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
~ inregion(X1,c_georegion_l4_x75_y75),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
( ~ geographicalsubregions(X1,X2)
| inregion(X2,X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
fof(c_0_14,plain,
! [X45] :
( geographicalsubregions(X45,X45)
| ~ geographicalregion(X45) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[ax4_538371])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
( ~ borderson(X1,X2)
| geographicalregion(X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
borderson(c_georegion_l4_x75_y75,c_georegion_l4_x75_y76),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11])]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
~ geographicalsubregions(c_georegion_l4_x75_y75,X1),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,plain,
( ~ geographicalregion(X1)
| geographicalsubregions(X1,X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,plain,
geographicalregion(c_georegion_l4_x75_y75),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_18]),c_0_19])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : CSR057+5 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v3.5.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.37 % Computer : n026.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/0.37 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 14:41:36 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.41 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.11/0.42 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
% 23.52/19.03 % Version: 3.5.1
% 23.52/19.03 % Preprocessing class: FLLLLMLLSSSNFFN.
% 23.52/19.03 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 287 seconds (2296 total)
% 23.52/19.03 % Starting new_ho_10 with 574s (2) cores
% 23.52/19.03 % Starting sh3 with 574s (2) cores
% 23.52/19.03 % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 574s (2) cores
% 23.52/19.03 % Starting new_ho_10_cnf2 with 574s (2) cores
% 23.52/19.03 % new_ho_10_cnf2 with pid 2527867 completed with status 0
% 23.52/19.03 % Result found by new_ho_10_cnf2
% 23.52/19.03 % Preprocessing class: FLLLLMLLSSSNFFN.
% 23.52/19.03 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 287 seconds (2296 total)
% 23.52/19.03 % Starting new_ho_10 with 574s (2) cores
% 23.52/19.03 % Starting sh3 with 574s (2) cores
% 23.52/19.03 % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 574s (2) cores
% 23.52/19.03 % Starting new_ho_10_cnf2 with 574s (2) cores
% 23.52/19.03 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 23.52/19.03 % SinE strategy is gf500_h_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 23.52/19.03 % Search class: FHUNM-SSLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 23.52/19.03 % partial match(1): FHHNM-SSLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 23.52/19.03 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 2 cores with 571 seconds (571 total)
% 23.52/19.03 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 52s (1) cores
% 23.52/19.03 % Starting new_ho_10_cnf2 with 58s (1) cores
% 23.52/19.03 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2527868 completed with status 0
% 23.52/19.03 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 23.52/19.03 % Preprocessing class: FLLLLMLLSSSNFFN.
% 23.52/19.03 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 287 seconds (2296 total)
% 23.52/19.03 % Starting new_ho_10 with 574s (2) cores
% 23.52/19.03 % Starting sh3 with 574s (2) cores
% 23.52/19.03 % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 574s (2) cores
% 23.52/19.03 % Starting new_ho_10_cnf2 with 574s (2) cores
% 23.52/19.03 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 23.52/19.03 % SinE strategy is gf500_h_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 23.52/19.03 % Search class: FHUNM-SSLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 23.52/19.03 % partial match(1): FHHNM-SSLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 23.52/19.03 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 2 cores with 571 seconds (571 total)
% 23.52/19.03 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 52s (1) cores
% 23.52/19.03 % Preprocessing time : 0.346 s
% 23.52/19.03
% 23.52/19.03 % Proof found!
% 23.52/19.03 % SZS status Theorem
% 23.52/19.03 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 23.52/19.03 % Parsed axioms : 540250
% 23.52/19.03 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 538861
% 23.52/19.03 % Initial clauses : 1390
% 23.52/19.03 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 23.52/19.03 % Initial clauses in saturation : 1390
% 23.52/19.03 % Processed clauses : 232
% 23.52/19.03 % ...of these trivial : 35
% 23.52/19.03 % ...subsumed : 7
% 23.52/19.03 % ...remaining for further processing : 190
% 23.52/19.03 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 23.52/19.03 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 23.52/19.03 % Backward-subsumed : 1
% 23.52/19.03 % Backward-rewritten : 2
% 23.52/19.03 % Generated clauses : 208
% 23.52/19.03 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 99
% 23.52/19.03 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 23.52/19.03 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 23.52/19.03 % Paramodulations : 208
% 23.52/19.03 % Factorizations : 0
% 23.52/19.03 % NegExts : 0
% 23.52/19.03 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 23.52/19.03 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 23.52/19.03 % Total rewrite steps : 125
% 23.52/19.03 % ...of those cached : 87
% 23.52/19.03 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 23.52/19.03 % Propositional check models : 0
% 23.52/19.03 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 23.52/19.03 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 23.52/19.03 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 23.52/19.03 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 23.52/19.03 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 23.52/19.03 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 23.52/19.03 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 23.52/19.03 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 23.52/19.03 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 23.52/19.03 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 23.52/19.03 % Current number of processed clauses : 187
% 23.52/19.03 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 135
% 23.52/19.03 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 23.52/19.03 % Negative unit clauses : 4
% 23.52/19.03 % Non-unit-clauses : 48
% 23.52/19.03 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 1257
% 23.52/19.03 % ...number of literals in the above : 1277
% 23.52/19.03 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 23.52/19.03 % Current number of archived clauses : 3
% 23.52/19.03 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 391
% 23.52/19.03 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 161
% 23.52/19.03 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 7
% 23.52/19.03 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 60
% 23.52/19.03 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 23.52/19.03 % BW rewrite match attempts : 5
% 23.52/19.03 % BW rewrite match successes : 3
% 23.52/19.03 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 23.52/19.03 % Condensation successes : 0
% 23.52/19.03 % Termbank termtop insertions : 3715004
% 23.52/19.03 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2170462
% 23.52/19.03
% 23.52/19.03 % -------------------------------------------------
% 23.52/19.03 % User time : 2.752 s
% 23.52/19.03 % System time : 1.160 s
% 23.52/19.03 % Total time : 3.912 s
% 23.52/19.03 % Maximum resident set size: 1241780 pages
% 23.52/19.03
% 23.52/19.03 % -------------------------------------------------
% 23.52/19.03 % User time : 16.128 s
% 23.52/19.03 % System time : 2.237 s
% 23.52/19.03 % Total time : 18.365 s
% 23.52/19.03 % Maximum resident set size: 456704 pages
% 23.52/19.03 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------