%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : CSR119^1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n011.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 : Wed Sep 30 07:46:33 AM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.25s 0.26s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.25s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 9
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 19 ( 3 unt; 0 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 72 ( 0 equ; 0 cnn)
% Maximal formula atoms : 12 ( 3 avg)
% Number of connectives : 183 ( 28 ~; 20 |; 10 &; 125 @)
% ( 0 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 10 ( 6 avg)
% Number of types : 2 ( 0 usr)
% Number of type conns : 0 ( 0 >; 0 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of symbols : 9 ( 7 usr; 6 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 6 ( 0 ^; 3 !; 3 ?; 6 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thf(decl_23,type,
holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI: $i > $o > $o ).
thf(decl_24,type,
lBill_THFTYPE_i: $i ).
thf(decl_25,type,
lMary_THFTYPE_i: $i ).
thf(decl_26,type,
lSue_THFTYPE_i: $i ).
thf(decl_27,type,
lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI: $i > $i ).
thf(decl_28,type,
likes_THFTYPE_IiioI: $i > $i > $o ).
thf(decl_29,type,
n2009_THFTYPE_i: $i ).
thf(con,conjecture,
? [X1: $i] : ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ X1 @ lBill_THFTYPE_i ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.AlkjpjGvPG/E---3.1_431469.p',con) ).
thf(ax,axiom,
( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i )
@ ( ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lMary_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
& ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.AlkjpjGvPG/E---3.1_431469.p',ax) ).
thf(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ ? [X1: $i] : ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ X1 @ lBill_THFTYPE_i ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[con]) ).
thf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ? [X1: $i] :
( ( ~ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ X1 @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
| ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ $true ) )
& ( ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ X1 @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
| ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ $false ) ) ),
inference(fool_unroll,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
thf(c_0_4,axiom,
( ( ~ ( ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lMary_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
& ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i ) )
| ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ $true ) )
& ( ( ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lMary_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
& ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i ) )
| ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ $false ) ) ),
inference(fool_unroll,[status(thm)],[ax]) ).
thf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
! [X3: $i] :
( ( ~ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ X3 @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
| ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ X3 @ lBill_THFTYPE_i ) )
& ( ~ ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ $false )
| ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ X3 @ lBill_THFTYPE_i ) )
& ( ~ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ X3 @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
| ~ ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ $true ) )
& ( ~ ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ $false )
| ~ ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ $true ) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])])])]) ).
thf(c_0_6,plain,
( ( ~ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lMary_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
| ~ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
| ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ $true ) )
& ( ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lMary_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
| ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ $false ) )
& ( ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
| ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ $false ) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])])]) ).
thf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
! [X1: $i] :
( ~ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ X1 @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
| ~ ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ $true ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
thf(c_0_8,plain,
( ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
| ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ ~ $true ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
thf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
( ~ ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ ~ $true )
| ~ ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ $true ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
thf(c_0_10,plain,
( ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ $true )
| ~ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lMary_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
| ~ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
thf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
~ ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ $true ),
inference(csr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]),c_0_9]) ).
thf(c_0_12,plain,
( ~ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lMary_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
| ~ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i ) ),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).
thf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
! [X1: $i] :
( ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ X1 @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
| ~ ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ ~ $true ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
thf(c_0_14,plain,
( ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lMary_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
| ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ ~ $true ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
thf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
~ ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ ~ $true ),
inference(csr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]),c_0_13]) ).
thf(c_0_16,plain,
likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lMary_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]) ).
thf(c_0_17,plain,
likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_15]) ).
thf(c_0_18,plain,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_16])]),c_0_17])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : CSR119^1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/0.18 % Computer : n011.cluster.edu
% 0.08/0.18 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.08/0.18 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.08/0.18 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.08/0.18 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.08/0.18 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.08/0.18 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.08/0.18 % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 17:53:16 UTC 2026
% 0.08/0.19 % CPUTime :
% 0.08/0.19 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/0.23 Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.08/0.24 Running: /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/eprover-ho --delete-bad-limit=2000000000 --definitional-cnf=24 -s --print-statistics -R --print-version --proof-object --auto-schedule=8 --cpu-limit=300 /export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.AlkjpjGvPG/E---3.1_431469.p
% 0.25/0.26 % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 0.25/0.26 % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.26 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.26 % Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.26 % Starting ho_unfolding_6 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.26 % Starting sh4l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.26 % Starting ehoh_best_nonlift_rwall with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.26 % ho_unfolding_6 with pid 431498 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.26 % Result found by ho_unfolding_6
% 0.25/0.26 % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.26 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.26 % Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.26 % Starting ho_unfolding_6 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.26 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.25/0.26 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.25/0.26 % Search class: HGHNF-FFSF11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.26 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.26 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.26 % SubtermCWHack with pid 431501 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.26 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.25/0.26 % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.26 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.26 % Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.26 % Starting ho_unfolding_6 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.26 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.25/0.26 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.25/0.26 % Search class: HGHNF-FFSF11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.26 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.26 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.26 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.25/0.26
% 0.25/0.26 % Proof found!
% 0.25/0.26 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.25/0.26 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.25/0.26 % Parsed axioms : 10
% 0.25/0.26 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.25/0.26 % Initial clauses : 15
% 0.25/0.26 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 9
% 0.25/0.26 % Initial clauses in saturation : 6
% 0.25/0.26 % Processed clauses : 11
% 0.25/0.26 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.25/0.26 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.26 % ...remaining for further processing : 10
% 0.25/0.26 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.25/0.26 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.25/0.26 % Backward-subsumed : 3
% 0.25/0.26 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.25/0.26 % Generated clauses : 7
% 0.25/0.26 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 8
% 0.25/0.26 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.26 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 2
% 0.25/0.26 % Paramodulations : 5
% 0.25/0.26 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.25/0.26 % NegExts : 0
% 0.25/0.26 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.25/0.26 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.25/0.26 % Total rewrite steps : 2
% 0.25/0.26 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.25/0.26 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.25/0.26 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.25/0.26 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.25/0.26 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.26 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.25/0.26 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.25/0.26 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.26 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.26 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.26 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.26 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.26 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.26 % Current number of processed clauses : 4
% 0.25/0.26 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 2
% 0.25/0.26 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.25/0.26 % Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.25/0.26 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.26 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.25/0.26 % ...number of literals in the above : 0
% 0.25/0.26 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.25/0.26 % Current number of archived clauses : 6
% 0.25/0.26 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 4
% 0.25/0.26 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3
% 0.25/0.26 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 2
% 0.25/0.26 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3
% 0.25/0.26 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.25/0.26 % BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.25/0.26 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.25/0.26 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.25/0.26 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.25/0.26 % Termbank termtop insertions : 580
% 0.25/0.26 % Search garbage collected termcells : 42
% 0.25/0.26
% 0.25/0.26 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.26 % User time : 0.001 s
% 0.25/0.26 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.25/0.26 % Total time : 0.004 s
% 0.25/0.26 % Maximum resident set size: 3628 pages
% 0.25/0.26
% 0.25/0.26 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.26 % User time : 0.002 s
% 0.25/0.26 % System time : 0.008 s
% 0.25/0.26 % Total time : 0.010 s
% 0.25/0.26 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.25/0.26 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------