%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : CSR067+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 : 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 12:16:28 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.24s 26.44s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.24s
% 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 : 10 ( 1 sgn 5 !; 2 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(query267,conjecture,
? [X2] :
( mtvisible(c_tptpgeo_member7_mt)
=> borderson(X2,c_georegion_l4_x29_y75) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',query267) ).
fof(ax4_87470,axiom,
( mtvisible(c_tptpgeo_member7_mt)
=> borderson(c_georegion_l4_x29_y75,c_georegion_l4_x30_y75) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/CSR002+4.ax',ax4_87470) ).
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,
~ ? [X2] :
( mtvisible(c_tptpgeo_member7_mt)
=> borderson(X2,c_georegion_l4_x29_y75) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[query267]) ).
fof(c_0_4,plain,
( borderson(c_georegion_l4_x29_y75,c_georegion_l4_x30_y75)
| ~ mtvisible(c_tptpgeo_member7_mt) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[ax4_87470])]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
! [X30] :
( ~ borderson(X30,c_georegion_l4_x29_y75)
& mtvisible(c_tptpgeo_member7_mt) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X35,X36] :
( borderson(X36,X35)
| ~ borderson(X35,X36) ),
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_member7_mt)
| borderson(c_georegion_l4_x29_y75,c_georegion_l4_x30_y75) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
mtvisible(c_tptpgeo_member7_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_x29_y75,c_georegion_l4_x30_y75),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8])]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
~ borderson(X1,c_georegion_l4_x29_y75),
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 : CSR067+5 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v3.5.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.14/0.44 % Computer : n020.cluster.edu
% 0.14/0.44 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.14/0.44 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.14/0.44 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.14/0.44 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.14/0.44 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.14/0.44 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.14/0.44 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 14:44:18 UTC 2026
% 0.14/0.45 % CPUTime :
% 0.14/0.45 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.14/0.52 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.14/0.52 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
% 0.24/26.44 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.24/26.44 % Preprocessing class: FLLLLMLLSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/26.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 280 seconds (2240 total)
% 0.24/26.44 % Starting new_ho_10 with 560s (2) cores
% 0.24/26.44 % Starting sh3 with 560s (2) cores
% 0.24/26.44 % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 560s (2) cores
% 0.24/26.44 % Starting new_ho_10_cnf2 with 560s (2) cores
% 0.24/26.44 % ho_unfolding_3 with pid 3186445 completed with status 0
% 0.24/26.44 % Result found by ho_unfolding_3
% 0.24/26.44 % Preprocessing class: FLLLLMLLSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/26.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 280 seconds (2240 total)
% 0.24/26.44 % Starting new_ho_10 with 560s (2) cores
% 0.24/26.44 % Starting sh3 with 560s (2) cores
% 0.24/26.44 % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 560s (2) cores
% 0.24/26.44 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.24/26.44 % SinE strategy is gf500_h_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.24/26.44 % Search class: FHHNM-FSLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.24/26.44 % partial match(1): FHHNM-SSLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.24/26.44 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 2 cores with 556 seconds (556 total)
% 0.24/26.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 51s (1) cores
% 0.24/26.44 % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 56s (1) cores
% 0.24/26.44 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3186447 completed with status 0
% 0.24/26.44 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.24/26.44 % Preprocessing class: FLLLLMLLSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/26.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 280 seconds (2240 total)
% 0.24/26.44 % Starting new_ho_10 with 560s (2) cores
% 0.24/26.44 % Starting sh3 with 560s (2) cores
% 0.24/26.44 % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 560s (2) cores
% 0.24/26.44 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.24/26.44 % SinE strategy is gf500_h_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.24/26.44 % Search class: FHHNM-FSLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.24/26.44 % partial match(1): FHHNM-SSLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.24/26.44 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 2 cores with 556 seconds (556 total)
% 0.24/26.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 51s (1) cores
% 0.24/26.44 % Preprocessing time : 0.342 s
% 0.24/26.44
% 0.24/26.44 % Proof found!
% 0.24/26.44 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.24/26.44 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.24/26.45 % Parsed axioms : 540250
% 0.24/26.45 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 539718
% 0.24/26.45 % Initial clauses : 533
% 0.24/26.45 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.24/26.45 % Initial clauses in saturation : 533
% 0.24/26.45 % Processed clauses : 594
% 0.24/26.45 % ...of these trivial : 47
% 0.24/26.45 % ...subsumed : 15
% 0.24/26.45 % ...remaining for further processing : 532
% 0.24/26.45 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.24/26.45 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.24/26.45 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.24/26.45 % Backward-rewritten : 26
% 0.24/26.45 % Generated clauses : 563
% 0.24/26.45 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 400
% 0.24/26.45 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.24/26.45 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.24/26.45 % Paramodulations : 563
% 0.24/26.45 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.24/26.45 % NegExts : 0
% 0.24/26.45 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.24/26.45 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.24/26.45 % Total rewrite steps : 227
% 0.24/26.45 % ...of those cached : 157
% 0.24/26.45 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.24/26.45 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.24/26.45 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.24/26.45 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.24/26.45 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.24/26.45 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.24/26.45 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.24/26.45 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/26.45 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/26.45 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.24/26.45 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/26.45 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/26.45 % Current number of processed clauses : 506
% 0.24/26.45 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 369
% 0.24/26.45 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.24/26.45 % Negative unit clauses : 34
% 0.24/26.45 % Non-unit-clauses : 103
% 0.24/26.45 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 337
% 0.24/26.45 % ...number of literals in the above : 447
% 0.24/26.45 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.24/26.45 % Current number of archived clauses : 26
% 0.24/26.45 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1915
% 0.24/26.45 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1568
% 0.24/26.45 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 15
% 0.24/26.45 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1286
% 0.24/26.45 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.24/26.45 % BW rewrite match attempts : 34
% 0.24/26.45 % BW rewrite match successes : 26
% 0.24/26.45 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.24/26.45 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.24/26.45 % Termbank termtop insertions : 3697745
% 0.24/26.45 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2173217
% 0.24/26.45
% 0.24/26.45 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/26.45 % User time : 3.267 s
% 0.24/26.45 % System time : 1.325 s
% 0.24/26.45 % Total time : 4.592 s
% 0.24/26.45 % Maximum resident set size: 1242148 pages
% 0.24/26.45
% 0.24/26.45 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/26.45 % User time : 23.070 s
% 0.24/26.45 % System time : 2.509 s
% 0.24/26.45 % Total time : 25.579 s
% 0.24/26.45 % Maximum resident set size: 456960 pages
% 0.24/26.45 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------