%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : CSR120^2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n004.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 0.21s 0.29s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.21s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 9
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 19 ( 4 unt; 0 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 69 ( 0 equ; 0 cnn)
% Maximal formula atoms : 12 ( 3 avg)
% Number of connectives : 182 ( 30 ~; 23 |; 7 &; 122 @)
% ( 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 : 9 ( 0 ^; 6 !; 3 ?; 9 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thf(decl_38,type,
holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI: $i > $o > $o ).
thf(decl_50,type,
lBill_THFTYPE_i: $i ).
thf(decl_61,type,
lMary_THFTYPE_i: $i ).
thf(decl_73,type,
lSue_THFTYPE_i: $i ).
thf(decl_84,type,
lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI: $i > $i ).
thf(decl_88,type,
likes_THFTYPE_IiioI: $i > $i > $o ).
thf(decl_94,type,
n2009_THFTYPE_i: $i ).
thf(con,conjecture,
? [X6: $i] : ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ X6 @ lBill_THFTYPE_i ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.NvgzPB4rYu/E---3.1_1630747.p',con) ).
thf(ax_049,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/sandbox/tmp/tmp.NvgzPB4rYu/E---3.1_1630747.p',ax_049) ).
thf(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ ? [X6: $i] : ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ X6 @ lBill_THFTYPE_i ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[con]) ).
thf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ? [X6: $i] :
( ( ~ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ X6 @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
| ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ $true ) )
& ( ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ X6 @ 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,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 )
| ~ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i ) )
| ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ $false ) ) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[inference(fool_unroll,[status(thm)],[ax_049])]) ).
thf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
! [X130: $i] :
( ( ~ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ X130 @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
| ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ X130 @ lBill_THFTYPE_i ) )
& ( ~ ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ $false )
| ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ X130 @ lBill_THFTYPE_i ) )
& ( ~ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ X130 @ 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 @ 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_9,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_10,negated_conjecture,
! [X1: $i] :
( ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lMary_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
| ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ X1 @ lBill_THFTYPE_i ) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
thf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
! [X1: $i] :
( ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
| ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ X1 @ lBill_THFTYPE_i ) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_9]) ).
thf(c_0_12,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_13,negated_conjecture,
likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lMary_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i,
inference(ef,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
thf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i,
inference(ef,[status(thm)],[c_0_11]) ).
thf(c_0_15,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_16,plain,
holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ $true,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]),c_0_14])]) ).
thf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
! [X1: $i] :
~ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ X1 @ lBill_THFTYPE_i ),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16])]) ).
thf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_17]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : CSR120^2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.07/0.18 % Computer : n004.cluster.edu
% 0.07/0.18 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.07/0.18 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.07/0.18 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.07/0.18 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.07/0.18 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.07/0.18 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.07/0.18 % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 17:54:35 UTC 2026
% 0.07/0.18 % CPUTime :
% 0.07/0.18 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.07/0.23 Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.07/0.26 Running: /export/starexec/sandbox/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/sandbox/tmp/tmp.NvgzPB4rYu/E---3.1_1630747.p
% 0.21/0.29 % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 0.21/0.29 % Preprocessing class: HSLSSMSMSSSNHFA.
% 0.21/0.29 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.29 % Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.29 % Starting new_ho_10_cnf2 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.29 % Starting full_lambda_6 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.29 % Starting full_lambda_9 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.29 % full_lambda_9 with pid 1630763 completed with status 0
% 0.21/0.29 % Result found by full_lambda_9
% 0.21/0.29 % Preprocessing class: HSLSSMSMSSSNHFA.
% 0.21/0.29 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.29 % Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.29 % Starting new_ho_10_cnf2 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.29 % Starting full_lambda_6 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.29 % Starting full_lambda_9 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.29 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,4,,3,20000,3.0,true))
% 0.21/0.29 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,4,,3,20000,3.0,true)
% 0.21/0.29 % Search class: HGHSF-FFMM21-SHFFFFBN
% 0.21/0.29 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.21/0.29 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.29 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1630764 completed with status 0
% 0.21/0.29 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.21/0.29 % Preprocessing class: HSLSSMSMSSSNHFA.
% 0.21/0.29 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.29 % Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.29 % Starting new_ho_10_cnf2 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.29 % Starting full_lambda_6 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.29 % Starting full_lambda_9 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.29 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,4,,3,20000,3.0,true))
% 0.21/0.29 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,4,,3,20000,3.0,true)
% 0.21/0.29 % Search class: HGHSF-FFMM21-SHFFFFBN
% 0.21/0.29 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.21/0.29 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.29 % Preprocessing time : 0.003 s
% 0.21/0.29
% 0.21/0.29 % Proof found!
% 0.21/0.29 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.21/0.29 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.21/0.29 % Parsed axioms : 279
% 0.21/0.29 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 148
% 0.21/0.29 % Initial clauses : 148
% 0.21/0.29 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 6
% 0.21/0.29 % Initial clauses in saturation : 142
% 0.21/0.29 % Processed clauses : 155
% 0.21/0.29 % ...of these trivial : 12
% 0.21/0.29 % ...subsumed : 5
% 0.21/0.29 % ...remaining for further processing : 138
% 0.21/0.29 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.21/0.29 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.21/0.29 % Backward-subsumed : 2
% 0.21/0.29 % Backward-rewritten : 3
% 0.21/0.29 % Generated clauses : 58
% 0.21/0.29 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 51
% 0.21/0.29 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.21/0.29 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.21/0.29 % Paramodulations : 51
% 0.21/0.29 % Factorizations : 4
% 0.21/0.29 % NegExts : 0
% 0.21/0.29 % Equation resolutions : 1
% 0.21/0.29 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.21/0.29 % Total rewrite steps : 19
% 0.21/0.29 % ...of those cached : 10
% 0.21/0.29 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.21/0.29 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.21/0.29 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.21/0.29 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.21/0.29 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.21/0.29 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.21/0.29 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.29 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.29 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.29 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.29 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.29 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.29 % Current number of processed clauses : 131
% 0.21/0.29 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 112
% 0.21/0.29 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.21/0.29 % Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.21/0.29 % Non-unit-clauses : 17
% 0.21/0.29 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 34
% 0.21/0.29 % ...number of literals in the above : 97
% 0.21/0.29 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.21/0.29 % Current number of archived clauses : 7
% 0.21/0.29 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 27
% 0.21/0.29 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 24
% 0.21/0.29 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 5
% 0.21/0.29 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 15
% 0.21/0.29 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.21/0.29 % BW rewrite match attempts : 3
% 0.21/0.29 % BW rewrite match successes : 3
% 0.21/0.29 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.21/0.29 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.21/0.29 % Termbank termtop insertions : 7929
% 0.21/0.29 % Search garbage collected termcells : 1329
% 0.21/0.29
% 0.21/0.29 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.29 % User time : 0.011 s
% 0.21/0.29 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.21/0.29 % Total time : 0.014 s
% 0.21/0.29 % Maximum resident set size: 4300 pages
% 0.21/0.29
% 0.21/0.29 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.29 % User time : 0.015 s
% 0.21/0.29 % System time : 0.008 s
% 0.21/0.29 % Total time : 0.024 s
% 0.21/0.29 % Maximum resident set size: 5120 pages
% 0.21/0.29 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------