%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : CSR115+4 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 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 12:17:13 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.94s 0.88s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.94s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 8
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 19 ( 8 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 79 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 32 ( 4 avg)
% Number of connectives : 105 ( 45 ~; 38 |; 20 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 2 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 15 ( 5 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 9 ( 8 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 9 ( 9 usr; 5 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 43 ( 9 sgn 12 !; 8 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(synth_qa07_007_mira_news_1087,conjecture,
? [X1,X2] : obj(X2,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',synth_qa07_007_mira_news_1087) ).
fof(sub__bezeichnen_1_1_als,axiom,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( ( subr(X1,sub_0)
& arg2(X1,X3)
& arg1(X1,X2) )
=> ? [X4,X5,X6] :
( subs(X4,bezeichnen_1_1)
& subr(X5,rprs_0)
& sub(X6,X3)
& obj(X4,X2)
& mcont(X4,X5)
& hsit(X1,X4)
& arg2(X5,X6)
& arg1(X5,X2) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/CSR004+0.ax',sub__bezeichnen_1_1_als) ).
fof(sub__sub_0_expansion,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( sub(X1,X2)
=> ? [X3] :
( subr(X3,sub_0)
& arg2(X3,X2)
& arg1(X3,X1) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/CSR004+0.ax',sub__sub_0_expansion) ).
fof(fact_9405,axiom,
sub(herrscher__1_1,an_f__374hrer_1_1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/CSR004+0.ax',fact_9405) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ? [X1,X2] : obj(X2,X1),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[synth_qa07_007_mira_news_1087]) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X308,X309,X310] :
( ( ~ subr(X308,sub_0)
| ~ arg2(X308,X310)
| ~ arg1(X308,X309)
| subs(esk43_3(X308,X309,X310),bezeichnen_1_1) )
& ( ~ subr(X308,sub_0)
| ~ arg2(X308,X310)
| ~ arg1(X308,X309)
| subr(esk44_3(X308,X309,X310),rprs_0) )
& ( ~ subr(X308,sub_0)
| ~ arg2(X308,X310)
| ~ arg1(X308,X309)
| sub(esk45_3(X308,X309,X310),X310) )
& ( ~ subr(X308,sub_0)
| ~ arg2(X308,X310)
| ~ arg1(X308,X309)
| obj(esk43_3(X308,X309,X310),X309) )
& ( ~ subr(X308,sub_0)
| ~ arg2(X308,X310)
| ~ arg1(X308,X309)
| mcont(esk43_3(X308,X309,X310),esk44_3(X308,X309,X310)) )
& ( ~ subr(X308,sub_0)
| ~ arg2(X308,X310)
| ~ arg1(X308,X309)
| hsit(X308,esk43_3(X308,X309,X310)) )
& ( ~ subr(X308,sub_0)
| ~ arg2(X308,X310)
| ~ arg1(X308,X309)
| arg2(esk44_3(X308,X309,X310),esk45_3(X308,X309,X310)) )
& ( ~ subr(X308,sub_0)
| ~ arg2(X308,X310)
| ~ arg1(X308,X309)
| arg1(esk44_3(X308,X309,X310),X309) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[sub__bezeichnen_1_1_als])])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
! [X8,X9] : ~ obj(X9,X8),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ subr(X1,sub_0)
| ~ arg2(X1,X3)
| ~ arg1(X1,X2)
| obj(esk43_3(X1,X2,X3),X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
~ obj(X1,X2),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
fof(c_0_9,plain,
! [X314,X315] :
( ( ~ sub(X314,X315)
| subr(esk46_2(X314,X315),sub_0) )
& ( ~ sub(X314,X315)
| arg2(esk46_2(X314,X315),X315) )
& ( ~ sub(X314,X315)
| arg1(esk46_2(X314,X315),X314) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[sub__sub_0_expansion])])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( ~ arg1(X1,X3)
| ~ arg2(X1,X2)
| ~ subr(X1,sub_0) ),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( ~ sub(X1,X2)
| subr(esk46_2(X1,X2),sub_0) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( ~ sub(X1,X2)
| ~ arg1(esk46_2(X1,X2),X4)
| ~ arg2(esk46_2(X1,X2),X3) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
( ~ sub(X1,X2)
| arg2(esk46_2(X1,X2),X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
( ~ sub(X1,X2)
| ~ arg1(esk46_2(X1,X2),X3) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
( ~ sub(X1,X2)
| arg1(esk46_2(X1,X2),X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
sub(herrscher__1_1,an_f__374hrer_1_1),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[fact_9405]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,plain,
~ sub(X1,X2),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,plain,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : CSR115+4 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.37 % Computer : n020.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.37 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 15:07:47 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.38 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/0.38 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.42 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/0.42 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
% 0.94/0.88 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.94/0.88 % Preprocessing class: FMLLSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.94/0.88 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.94/0.88 % Starting G-E--_208_B07_F1_AE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.94/0.88 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.94/0.88 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.94/0.88 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.94/0.88 % G-E--_208_B07_F1_AE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with pid 3218480 completed with status 0
% 0.94/0.88 % Result found by G-E--_208_B07_F1_AE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y
% 0.94/0.88 % Preprocessing class: FMLLSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.94/0.88 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.94/0.88 % Starting G-E--_208_B07_F1_AE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.94/0.88 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.94/0.88 % SinE strategy is gf500_h_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.94/0.88 % Search class: FHUNS-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.94/0.88 % partial match(2): FGUPS-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.94/0.88 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.94/0.88 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.94/0.88 % Starting G-E--_208_B07_F1_AE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with 151s (1) cores
% 0.94/0.88 % Starting G-E--_301_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 254s (1) cores
% 0.94/0.88 % Starting new_bool_3 with 254s (1) cores
% 0.94/0.88 % Starting new_bool_1 with 254s (1) cores
% 0.94/0.88 % G-E--_208_B07_F1_AE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with pid 3218500 completed with status 0
% 0.94/0.88 % Result found by G-E--_208_B07_F1_AE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y
% 0.94/0.88 % Preprocessing class: FMLLSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.94/0.88 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.94/0.88 % Starting G-E--_208_B07_F1_AE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.94/0.88 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.94/0.88 % SinE strategy is gf500_h_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.94/0.88 % Search class: FHUNS-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.94/0.88 % partial match(2): FGUPS-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.94/0.88 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.94/0.88 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.94/0.88 % Starting G-E--_208_B07_F1_AE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with 151s (1) cores
% 0.94/0.88 % Preprocessing time : 0.017 s
% 0.94/0.88 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.94/0.88
% 0.94/0.88 % Proof found!
% 0.94/0.88 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.94/0.88 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.94/0.88 % Parsed axioms : 10189
% 0.94/0.88 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 9972
% 0.94/0.88 % Initial clauses : 402
% 0.94/0.88 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.94/0.88 % Initial clauses in saturation : 402
% 0.94/0.88 % Processed clauses : 647
% 0.94/0.88 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.94/0.88 % ...subsumed : 67
% 0.94/0.88 % ...remaining for further processing : 580
% 0.94/0.88 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.94/0.88 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.94/0.88 % Backward-subsumed : 17
% 0.94/0.88 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.94/0.88 % Generated clauses : 117
% 0.94/0.88 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 102
% 0.94/0.88 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.94/0.88 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.94/0.88 % Paramodulations : 102
% 0.94/0.88 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.94/0.88 % NegExts : 0
% 0.94/0.88 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.94/0.88 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.94/0.88 % Total rewrite steps : 0
% 0.94/0.88 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.94/0.88 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.94/0.88 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.94/0.88 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.94/0.88 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.94/0.88 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.94/0.88 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.94/0.88 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.94/0.88 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.94/0.88 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.94/0.88 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.94/0.88 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.94/0.88 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.94/0.88 % Current number of processed clauses : 220
% 0.94/0.88 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 168
% 0.94/0.88 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.94/0.88 % Negative unit clauses : 7
% 0.94/0.88 % Non-unit-clauses : 45
% 0.94/0.88 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 185
% 0.94/0.88 % ...number of literals in the above : 598
% 0.94/0.88 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.94/0.88 % Current number of archived clauses : 360
% 0.94/0.88 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 11832
% 0.94/0.88 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 5840
% 0.94/0.88 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 42
% 0.94/0.88 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 74
% 0.94/0.88 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.94/0.88 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.94/0.88 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.94/0.88 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.94/0.88 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.94/0.88 % Termbank termtop insertions : 64574
% 0.94/0.88 % Search garbage collected termcells : 40518
% 0.94/0.88
% 0.94/0.88 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.94/0.88 % User time : 0.154 s
% 0.94/0.88 % System time : 0.116 s
% 0.94/0.88 % Total time : 0.269 s
% 0.94/0.88 % Maximum resident set size: 49892 pages
% 0.94/0.88
% 0.94/0.88 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.94/0.88 % User time : 0.644 s
% 0.94/0.88 % System time : 0.385 s
% 0.94/0.88 % Total time : 1.029 s
% 0.94/0.88 % Maximum resident set size: 14080 pages
% 0.94/0.88 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------