%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : CSR125^2 : 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 : n013.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 07:46:35 AM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.23s 0.26s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.23s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 7
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 14 ( 4 unt; 0 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 48 ( 0 equ; 0 cnn)
% Maximal formula atoms : 12 ( 3 avg)
% Number of connectives : 108 ( 24 ~; 12 |; 6 &; 66 @)
% ( 0 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 9 ( 5 avg)
% Number of types : 2 ( 0 usr)
% Number of type conns : 0 ( 0 >; 0 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of symbols : 8 ( 6 usr; 5 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 5 ( 0 ^; 5 !; 0 ?; 5 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thf(decl_48,type,
holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI: $i > $o > $o ).
thf(decl_66,type,
lBill_THFTYPE_i: $i ).
thf(decl_109,type,
lSue_THFTYPE_i: $i ).
thf(decl_122,type,
lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI: $i > $i ).
thf(decl_126,type,
likes_THFTYPE_IiioI: $i > $i > $o ).
thf(decl_134,type,
n2009_THFTYPE_i: $i ).
thf(con,conjecture,
holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ ~ $true,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.A7YV3ubMfm/E---3.1_2441106.p',con) ).
thf(ax_068,axiom,
! [X5: $i] :
( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i )
@ ~ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ X5 ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.A7YV3ubMfm/E---3.1_2441106.p',ax_068) ).
thf(ax_082,axiom,
likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.A7YV3ubMfm/E---3.1_2441106.p',ax_082) ).
thf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ ~ $true ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[con]) ).
thf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ( ( ~ ~ $true
| ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ $true ) )
& ( ~ $true
| ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ $false ) ) ),
inference(fool_unroll,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
thf(c_0_5,plain,
! [X5: $i] :
( ( ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ X5 )
| ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ $true ) )
& ( ~ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ X5 )
| ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ $false ) ) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[inference(fool_unroll,[status(thm)],[ax_068])]) ).
thf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( ( $true
| ~ $true )
& ( ~ ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ $false )
| ~ $true )
& ( $true
| ~ ( 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_4])])]) ).
thf(c_0_7,plain,
! [X226: $i] :
( ( ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ X226 )
| ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ $true ) )
& ( ~ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ X226 )
| ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ $false ) ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[c_0_5])]) ).
thf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
( ~ ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ ~ $true )
| ~ $true ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
thf(c_0_9,plain,
! [X1: $i] :
( ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ ~ $true )
| ~ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ X1 ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
thf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
~ ( holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI @ ( lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI @ n2009_THFTYPE_i ) @ ~ $true ),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
thf(c_0_11,plain,
likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[ax_082]) ).
thf(c_0_12,plain,
! [X1: $i] :
~ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ X1 ),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
thf(c_0_13,plain,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : CSR125^2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.16 % Computer : n013.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.16 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.16 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.16 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.16 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.16 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.16 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.16 % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 17:54:36 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.17 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/0.17 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.21 Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.10/0.23 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.A7YV3ubMfm/E---3.1_2441106.p
% 0.23/0.26 % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 0.23/0.26 % Preprocessing class: HSLMSMSMSSSNHFA.
% 0.23/0.26 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/0.26 % Starting new_ho_10_cnf2 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.23/0.26 % Starting new_ho_10 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.26 % Starting new_bool_6 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.26 % Starting lpo8_s with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.26 % lpo8_s with pid 2441122 completed with status 0
% 0.23/0.26 % Result found by lpo8_s
% 0.23/0.26 % Preprocessing class: HSLMSMSMSSSNHFA.
% 0.23/0.26 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/0.26 % Starting new_ho_10_cnf2 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.23/0.26 % Starting new_ho_10 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.26 % Starting new_bool_6 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.26 % Starting lpo8_s with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.26 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,4.0,,6,20000,1.0))
% 0.23/0.26 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,4.0,,6,20000,1.0)
% 0.23/0.26 % Search class: HGHSF-FFMM21-SHFFFFBN
% 0.23/0.26 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.23/0.26 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.26 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2441127 completed with status 0
% 0.23/0.26 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.23/0.26 % Preprocessing class: HSLMSMSMSSSNHFA.
% 0.23/0.26 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/0.26 % Starting new_ho_10_cnf2 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.23/0.26 % Starting new_ho_10 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.26 % Starting new_bool_6 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.26 % Starting lpo8_s with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.26 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,4.0,,6,20000,1.0))
% 0.23/0.26 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,4.0,,6,20000,1.0)
% 0.23/0.26 % Search class: HGHSF-FFMM21-SHFFFFBN
% 0.23/0.26 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.23/0.26 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.26 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.23/0.26
% 0.23/0.26 % Proof found!
% 0.23/0.26 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.23/0.26 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.23/0.27 % Parsed axioms : 410
% 0.23/0.27 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 155
% 0.23/0.27 % Initial clauses : 281
% 0.23/0.27 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 13
% 0.23/0.27 % Initial clauses in saturation : 268
% 0.23/0.27 % Processed clauses : 220
% 0.23/0.27 % ...of these trivial : 11
% 0.23/0.27 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % ...remaining for further processing : 209
% 0.23/0.27 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.23/0.27 % Generated clauses : 62
% 0.23/0.27 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 57
% 0.23/0.27 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Paramodulations : 59
% 0.23/0.27 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % NegExts : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Equation resolutions : 1
% 0.23/0.27 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Total rewrite steps : 14
% 0.23/0.27 % ...of those cached : 7
% 0.23/0.27 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.27 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.27 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.27 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.27 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.27 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.27 % Current number of processed clauses : 206
% 0.23/0.27 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 197
% 0.23/0.27 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.23/0.27 % Non-unit-clauses : 7
% 0.23/0.27 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 104
% 0.23/0.27 % ...number of literals in the above : 215
% 0.23/0.27 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Current number of archived clauses : 3
% 0.23/0.27 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 3
% 0.23/0.27 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3
% 0.23/0.27 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 11
% 0.23/0.27 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.23/0.27 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.23/0.27 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Termbank termtop insertions : 13373
% 0.23/0.27 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2228
% 0.23/0.27
% 0.23/0.27 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.23/0.27 % User time : 0.014 s
% 0.23/0.27 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.23/0.27 % Total time : 0.019 s
% 0.23/0.27 % Maximum resident set size: 4716 pages
% 0.23/0.27
% 0.23/0.27 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.23/0.27 % User time : 0.020 s
% 0.23/0.27 % System time : 0.011 s
% 0.23/0.27 % Total time : 0.030 s
% 0.23/0.27 % Maximum resident set size: 5120 pages
% 0.23/0.27 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------