%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : CSR121_8 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v8.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n008.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 12:17:30 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.16s 0.43s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.16s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : CSR121_8 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v8.0.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.37 % Computer : n008.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.12/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.12/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.12/0.37 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 15:11:54 UTC 2026
% 0.12/0.38 % CPUTime :
% 0.12/0.38 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.42 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.16/0.42 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
% 0.16/0.43 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.16/0.43 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.16/0.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.16/0.43 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.16/0.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.43 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.43 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.43 % G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with pid 1274958 completed with status 0
% 0.16/0.43 % Result found by G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN
% 0.16/0.43 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.16/0.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.16/0.43 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.16/0.43 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.16/0.43 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.16/0.43 % Search class: FGHNF-FFSF11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.16/0.43 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.16/0.43 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.43 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.43 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.43 % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.43 % new_bool_3 with pid 1274965 completed with status 0
% 0.16/0.43 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.16/0.43 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.16/0.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.16/0.43 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.16/0.43 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.16/0.43 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.16/0.43 % Search class: FGHNF-FFSF11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.16/0.43 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.16/0.43 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.43 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.43 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.43 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.16/0.43 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.16/0.43
% 0.16/0.43 % Proof found!
% 0.16/0.43 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.16/0.43 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% 0.16/0.43 tff(decl_23, type, holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI: ($i * $o) > $o).
% 0.16/0.43 tff(decl_24, type, lBill_THFTYPE_i: $i).
% 0.16/0.43 tff(decl_25, type, lMary_THFTYPE_i: $i).
% 0.16/0.43 tff(decl_26, type, lSue_THFTYPE_i: $i).
% 0.16/0.43 tff(decl_27, type, lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI: $i > $i).
% 0.16/0.43 tff(decl_28, type, likes_THFTYPE_IiioI: ($i * $i) > $o).
% 0.16/0.43 tff(decl_29, type, n2009_THFTYPE_i: $i).
% 0.16/0.43 fof(con, conjecture, ?[X1]:(holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI(n2009_THFTYPE_i),(likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,X1)&likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lSue_THFTYPE_i,X1)))), file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p', con)).
% 0.16/0.43 fof(ax, axiom, holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI(n2009_THFTYPE_i),~((~(likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,lBill_THFTYPE_i))|~(likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lSue_THFTYPE_i,lBill_THFTYPE_i))))), file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p', ax)).
% 0.16/0.43 fof(c_0_2, negated_conjecture, ~(?[X1]:(holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI(n2009_THFTYPE_i),(likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,X1)&likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lSue_THFTYPE_i,X1))))), inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[con])).
% 0.16/0.43 fof(c_0_3, plain, ((~(~((~likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,lBill_THFTYPE_i)|~likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lSue_THFTYPE_i,lBill_THFTYPE_i))))|holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI(n2009_THFTYPE_i),$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),$false))), inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[inference(fool_unroll,[status(thm)],[ax])])).
% 0.16/0.43 fof(c_0_4, negated_conjecture, ~(?[X1]:(((~((likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,X1)&likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lSue_THFTYPE_i,X1)))|holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI(n2009_THFTYPE_i),$true))&((likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,X1)&likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lSue_THFTYPE_i,X1))|holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI(n2009_THFTYPE_i),$false))))), inference(fool_unroll,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])).
% 0.16/0.43 fof(c_0_5, plain, ((~likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,lBill_THFTYPE_i)|~likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lSue_THFTYPE_i,lBill_THFTYPE_i)|holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI(n2009_THFTYPE_i),$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_3])])])).
% 0.16/0.43 fof(c_0_6, negated_conjecture, ![X2]:(((((~likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,X2)|~likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lSue_THFTYPE_i,X2)|likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,X2))&(~holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI(n2009_THFTYPE_i),$false)|likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,X2)))&((~likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,X2)|~likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lSue_THFTYPE_i,X2)|likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lSue_THFTYPE_i,X2))&(~holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI(n2009_THFTYPE_i),$false)|likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lSue_THFTYPE_i,X2))))&((~likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,X2)|~likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lSue_THFTYPE_i,X2)|~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),$true))))), inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])])])])).
% 0.16/0.44 cnf(c_0_7, plain, (likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,lBill_THFTYPE_i)|holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI(n2009_THFTYPE_i),$false)), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5])).
% 0.16/0.44 cnf(c_0_8, negated_conjecture, (likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,X1)|~holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI(n2009_THFTYPE_i),$false)), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6])).
% 0.16/0.44 cnf(c_0_9, plain, (likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lSue_THFTYPE_i,lBill_THFTYPE_i)|holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI(n2009_THFTYPE_i),$false)), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5])).
% 0.16/0.44 cnf(c_0_10, negated_conjecture, (likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lSue_THFTYPE_i,X1)|~holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI(n2009_THFTYPE_i),$false)), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6])).
% 0.16/0.44 cnf(c_0_11, plain, (holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI(n2009_THFTYPE_i),$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_5])).
% 0.16/0.44 cnf(c_0_12, plain, (likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,lBill_THFTYPE_i)), inference(csr,[status(thm)],[c_0_7, c_0_8])).
% 0.16/0.44 cnf(c_0_13, plain, (likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lSue_THFTYPE_i,lBill_THFTYPE_i)), inference(csr,[status(thm)],[c_0_9, c_0_10])).
% 0.16/0.44 cnf(c_0_14, negated_conjecture, (~likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,X1)|~likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lSue_THFTYPE_i,X1)|~holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI(n2009_THFTYPE_i),$true)), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6])).
% 0.16/0.44 cnf(c_0_15, plain, (holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI(n2009_THFTYPE_i),$true)), inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_11, c_0_12]), c_0_13])])).
% 0.16/0.44 cnf(c_0_16, negated_conjecture, (~likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,X1)|~likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lSue_THFTYPE_i,X1)), inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_14, c_0_15])])).
% 0.16/0.44 cnf(c_0_17, negated_conjecture, ($false), inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16, c_0_12]), c_0_13])]), ['proof']).
% 0.16/0.44 % SZS output end CNFRefutation
% 0.16/0.44 % Parsed axioms : 10
% 0.16/0.44 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.16/0.44 % Initial clauses : 17
% 0.16/0.44 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 10
% 0.16/0.44 % Initial clauses in saturation : 7
% 0.16/0.44 % Processed clauses : 16
% 0.16/0.44 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.16/0.44 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.16/0.44 % ...remaining for further processing : 16
% 0.16/0.44 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.16/0.44 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.16/0.44 % Backward-subsumed : 2
% 0.16/0.44 % Backward-rewritten : 2
% 0.16/0.44 % Generated clauses : 1
% 0.16/0.44 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 2
% 0.16/0.44 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.16/0.44 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 2
% 0.16/0.44 % Paramodulations : 1
% 0.16/0.44 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.16/0.44 % NegExts : 0
% 0.16/0.44 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.16/0.44 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.16/0.44 % Total rewrite steps : 5
% 0.16/0.44 % ...of those cached : 2
% 0.16/0.44 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.16/0.44 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.16/0.44 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.16/0.44 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.16/0.44 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.16/0.44 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.16/0.44 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.16/0.44 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.16/0.44 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.16/0.44 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.16/0.44 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.16/0.44 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.16/0.44 % Current number of processed clauses : 5
% 0.16/0.44 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 3
% 0.16/0.44 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.16/0.44 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.16/0.44 % Non-unit-clauses : 1
% 0.16/0.44 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.16/0.44 % ...number of literals in the above : 0
% 0.16/0.44 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.16/0.44 % Current number of archived clauses : 11
% 0.16/0.44 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 6
% 0.16/0.44 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 6
% 0.16/0.44 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 2
% 0.16/0.44 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% 0.16/0.44 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.16/0.44 % BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.16/0.44 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.16/0.44 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.16/0.44 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.16/0.44 % Termbank termtop insertions : 587
% 0.16/0.44 % Search garbage collected termcells : 50
% 0.16/0.44
% 0.16/0.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.16/0.44 % User time : 0.004 s
% 0.16/0.44 % System time : 0.001 s
% 0.16/0.44 % Total time : 0.004 s
% 0.16/0.44 % Maximum resident set size: 3632 pages
% 0.16/0.44
% 0.16/0.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.16/0.44 % User time : 0.012 s
% 0.16/0.44 % System time : 0.008 s
% 0.16/0.44 % Total time : 0.020 s
% 0.16/0.44 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.16/0.44 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------