%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : CSR122_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 : n007.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 0.14s 0.42s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.14s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : CSR122_8 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v8.0.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.35 % Computer : n007.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.35 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.35 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/0.35 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 15:09:23 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/0.36 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.14/0.40 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.14/0.40 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
% 0.14/0.42 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.14/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % new_bool_3 with pid 1387047 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.14/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.14/0.42 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.14/0.42 % Search class: FHHNF-FFSF11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.42 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1387055 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.14/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.14/0.42 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.14/0.42 % Search class: FHHNF-FFSF11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.42 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.14/0.42
% 0.14/0.42 % Proof found!
% 0.14/0.42 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.14/0.42 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% 0.14/0.42 tff(decl_23, type, holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI: ($i * $o) > $o).
% 0.14/0.42 tff(decl_24, type, lBill_THFTYPE_i: $i).
% 0.14/0.42 tff(decl_25, type, lMary_THFTYPE_i: $i).
% 0.14/0.42 tff(decl_26, type, lSue_THFTYPE_i: $i).
% 0.14/0.42 tff(decl_27, type, lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI: $i > $i).
% 0.14/0.42 tff(decl_28, type, likes_THFTYPE_IiioI: ($i * $i) > $o).
% 0.14/0.42 tff(decl_29, type, n2009_THFTYPE_i: $i).
% 0.14/0.42 fof(con, conjecture, holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI(n2009_THFTYPE_i),(likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,lBill_THFTYPE_i)&likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lSue_THFTYPE_i,lBill_THFTYPE_i))), file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p', con)).
% 0.14/0.42 fof(ax_002, axiom, ![X1]:(holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(X1,$true)), file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p', ax_002)).
% 0.14/0.42 fof(ax_001, axiom, likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,lBill_THFTYPE_i), file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p', ax_001)).
% 0.14/0.42 fof(ax, axiom, likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lSue_THFTYPE_i,lBill_THFTYPE_i), file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p', ax)).
% 0.14/0.42 fof(c_0_4, negated_conjecture, ~(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)))), inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[con])).
% 0.14/0.42 fof(c_0_5, negated_conjecture, ~(((~((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)],[c_0_4])).
% 0.14/0.42 fof(c_0_6, negated_conjecture, ((((~likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,lBill_THFTYPE_i)|~likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lSue_THFTYPE_i,lBill_THFTYPE_i)|likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,lBill_THFTYPE_i))&(~holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI(n2009_THFTYPE_i),$false)|likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,lBill_THFTYPE_i)))&((~likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,lBill_THFTYPE_i)|~likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lSue_THFTYPE_i,lBill_THFTYPE_i)|likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lSue_THFTYPE_i,lBill_THFTYPE_i))&(~holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI(n2009_THFTYPE_i),$false)|likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lSue_THFTYPE_i,lBill_THFTYPE_i))))&((~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),$true))&(~holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI(n2009_THFTYPE_i),$false)|~holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI(n2009_THFTYPE_i),$true)))), inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_5])])])).
% 0.14/0.42 fof(c_0_7, plain, ![X2]:(holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(X2,$true)), inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[ax_002])).
% 0.14/0.42 cnf(c_0_8, negated_conjecture, (~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),$true)), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6])).
% 0.14/0.42 cnf(c_0_9, plain, (likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,lBill_THFTYPE_i)), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[ax_001])).
% 0.14/0.42 cnf(c_0_10, plain, (likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lSue_THFTYPE_i,lBill_THFTYPE_i)), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[ax])).
% 0.14/0.42 cnf(c_0_11, plain, (holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(X1,$true)), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7])).
% 0.14/0.42 cnf(c_0_12, negated_conjecture, ($false), inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_8, c_0_9]), c_0_10]), c_0_11])]), ['proof']).
% 0.14/0.42 % SZS output end CNFRefutation
% 0.14/0.42 % Parsed axioms : 12
% 0.14/0.42 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 8
% 0.14/0.42 % Initial clauses : 9
% 0.14/0.42 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 2
% 0.14/0.42 % Initial clauses in saturation : 7
% 0.14/0.42 % Processed clauses : 7
% 0.14/0.42 % ...of these trivial : 2
% 0.14/0.42 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % ...remaining for further processing : 4
% 0.14/0.42 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Generated clauses : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Paramodulations : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % NegExts : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Total rewrite steps : 6
% 0.14/0.42 % ...of those cached : 3
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.42 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.42 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.42 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.42 % Current number of processed clauses : 4
% 0.14/0.42 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 3
% 0.14/0.42 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.14/0.42 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.14/0.42 % ...number of literals in the above : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Termbank termtop insertions : 319
% 0.14/0.42 % Search garbage collected termcells : 24
% 0.14/0.42
% 0.14/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.42 % User time : 0.004 s
% 0.14/0.42 % System time : 0.000 s
% 0.14/0.42 % Total time : 0.004 s
% 0.14/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 3592 pages
% 0.14/0.42
% 0.14/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.42 % User time : 0.007 s
% 0.14/0.42 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.14/0.42 % Total time : 0.009 s
% 0.14/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.14/0.42 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------