%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : CSR128_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 12:17:32 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.13s 0.42s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.13s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : CSR128_8 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v8.0.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.36 % Computer : n008.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.36 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.36 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.36 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 15:12:39 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/0.36 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.13/0.41 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.13/0.41 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
% 0.13/0.42 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.13/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % sh5l with pid 1276605 completed with status 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.13/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.13/0.42 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.13/0.42 % Search class: FGHNF-FFSF11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.13/0.42 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1276609 completed with status 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.13/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.13/0.42 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.13/0.42 % Search class: FGHNF-FFSF11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.13/0.42 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.13/0.42
% 0.13/0.42 % Proof found!
% 0.13/0.42 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.13/0.42 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% 0.13/0.42 tff(decl_23, type, holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI: ($i * $o) > $o).
% 0.13/0.42 tff(decl_24, type, lBill_THFTYPE_i: $i).
% 0.13/0.42 tff(decl_25, type, lMary_THFTYPE_i: $i).
% 0.13/0.42 tff(decl_26, type, lSue_THFTYPE_i: $i).
% 0.13/0.42 tff(decl_27, type, lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI: $i > $i).
% 0.13/0.42 tff(decl_28, type, likes_THFTYPE_IiioI: ($i * $i) > $o).
% 0.13/0.42 tff(decl_29, type, n2009_THFTYPE_i: $i).
% 0.13/0.42 fof(con, conjecture, ?[X2, X3]:(holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(X2,likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lSue_THFTYPE_i,X3))), file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p', con)).
% 0.13/0.42 fof(ax, axiom, holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI(n2009_THFTYPE_i),likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,lBill_THFTYPE_i)), file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p', ax)).
% 0.13/0.42 fof(ax_001, axiom, ![X1]:(holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI(n2009_THFTYPE_i),(likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,X1)=>likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lSue_THFTYPE_i,X1)))), file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p', ax_001)).
% 0.13/0.42 fof(c_0_3, negated_conjecture, ~(?[X2, X3]:(holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(X2,likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lSue_THFTYPE_i,X3)))), inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[con])).
% 0.13/0.42 fof(c_0_4, negated_conjecture, ~(?[X2, X3]:(((~likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lSue_THFTYPE_i,X3)|holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(X2,$true))&(likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lSue_THFTYPE_i,X3)|holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(X2,$false))))), inference(fool_unroll,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])).
% 0.13/0.42 fof(c_0_5, axiom, ((~likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,lBill_THFTYPE_i)|holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI(n2009_THFTYPE_i),$true))&(likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,lBill_THFTYPE_i)|holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI(n2009_THFTYPE_i),$false))), inference(fool_unroll,[status(thm)],[ax])).
% 0.13/0.42 fof(c_0_6, negated_conjecture, ![X4, X5]:((((~likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lSue_THFTYPE_i,X5)|likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lSue_THFTYPE_i,X5))&(~holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(X4,$false)|likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lSue_THFTYPE_i,X5)))&((~likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lSue_THFTYPE_i,X5)|~holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(X4,$true))&(~holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(X4,$false)|~holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(X4,$true))))), inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])])])])).
% 0.13/0.42 fof(c_0_7, plain, ((~likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,lBill_THFTYPE_i)|holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI(n2009_THFTYPE_i),$true))&(likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,lBill_THFTYPE_i)|holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI(n2009_THFTYPE_i),$false))), inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_5])).
% 0.13/0.42 cnf(c_0_8, negated_conjecture, (likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lSue_THFTYPE_i,X2)|~holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(X1,$false)), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6])).
% 0.13/0.42 cnf(c_0_9, plain, (likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,lBill_THFTYPE_i)|holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI(n2009_THFTYPE_i),$false)), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7])).
% 0.13/0.42 fof(c_0_10, axiom, ![X1]:(((~((likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,X1)=>likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lSue_THFTYPE_i,X1)))|holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI(n2009_THFTYPE_i),$true))&((likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,X1)=>likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lSue_THFTYPE_i,X1))|holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI(n2009_THFTYPE_i),$false)))), inference(fool_unroll,[status(thm)],[ax_001])).
% 0.13/0.42 cnf(c_0_11, negated_conjecture, (~likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lSue_THFTYPE_i,X1)|~holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(X2,$true)), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6])).
% 0.13/0.42 cnf(c_0_12, negated_conjecture, (likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,lBill_THFTYPE_i)|likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lSue_THFTYPE_i,X1)), inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8, c_0_9])).
% 0.13/0.42 fof(c_0_13, plain, ![X6]:((((likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,X6)|holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI(n2009_THFTYPE_i),$true))&(~likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lSue_THFTYPE_i,X6)|holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI(n2009_THFTYPE_i),$true)))&(~likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,X6)|likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lSue_THFTYPE_i,X6)|holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI(n2009_THFTYPE_i),$false)))), inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_10])])])])).
% 0.13/0.42 cnf(c_0_14, negated_conjecture, (likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,lBill_THFTYPE_i)|~holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(X1,$true)), inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11, c_0_12])).
% 0.13/0.42 cnf(c_0_15, plain, (likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,X1)|holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI(n2009_THFTYPE_i),$true)), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_13])).
% 0.13/0.42 cnf(c_0_16, plain, (likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lSue_THFTYPE_i,X1)|holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI(n2009_THFTYPE_i),$false)|~likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,X1)), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_13])).
% 0.13/0.42 cnf(c_0_17, negated_conjecture, (likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,lBill_THFTYPE_i)|likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,X1)), inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14, c_0_15])).
% 0.13/0.42 cnf(c_0_18, plain, (likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lSue_THFTYPE_i,X1)|~likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,X1)), inference(csr,[status(thm)],[c_0_16, c_0_8])).
% 0.13/0.42 cnf(c_0_19, plain, (holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI(n2009_THFTYPE_i),$true)|~likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,lBill_THFTYPE_i)), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7])).
% 0.13/0.42 cnf(c_0_20, negated_conjecture, (likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,lBill_THFTYPE_i)), inference(ef,[status(thm)],[c_0_17])).
% 0.13/0.42 cnf(c_0_21, negated_conjecture, (~likes_THFTYPE_IiioI(lMary_THFTYPE_i,X1)|~holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(X2,$true)), inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11, c_0_18])).
% 0.13/0.42 cnf(c_0_22, plain, (holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(lYearFn_THFTYPE_IiiI(n2009_THFTYPE_i),$true)), inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_19, c_0_20])])).
% 0.13/0.42 cnf(c_0_23, negated_conjecture, (~holdsDuring_THFTYPE_IiooI(X1,$true)), inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_21, c_0_20])).
% 0.13/0.42 cnf(c_0_24, plain, ($false), inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_22, c_0_23]), ['proof']).
% 0.13/0.42 % SZS output end CNFRefutation
% 0.13/0.42 % Parsed axioms : 11
% 0.13/0.42 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 8
% 0.13/0.42 % Initial clauses : 9
% 0.13/0.42 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 1
% 0.13/0.42 % Initial clauses in saturation : 8
% 0.13/0.42 % Processed clauses : 14
% 0.13/0.42 % ...of these trivial : 1
% 0.13/0.42 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % ...remaining for further processing : 13
% 0.13/0.42 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Backward-subsumed : 5
% 0.13/0.42 % Backward-rewritten : 3
% 0.13/0.42 % Generated clauses : 9
% 0.13/0.42 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 8
% 0.13/0.42 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 1
% 0.13/0.42 % Paramodulations : 6
% 0.13/0.42 % Factorizations : 2
% 0.13/0.42 % NegExts : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Total rewrite steps : 5
% 0.13/0.42 % ...of those cached : 3
% 0.13/0.42 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.42 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.42 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.42 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.42 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.42 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.42 % Current number of processed clauses : 4
% 0.13/0.42 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 1
% 0.13/0.42 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.13/0.42 % Non-unit-clauses : 2
% 0.13/0.42 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.13/0.42 % ...number of literals in the above : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Current number of archived clauses : 9
% 0.13/0.42 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1
% 0.13/0.42 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.13/0.42 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 1
% 0.13/0.42 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 5
% 0.13/0.42 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % BW rewrite match attempts : 2
% 0.13/0.42 % BW rewrite match successes : 2
% 0.13/0.42 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Termbank termtop insertions : 586
% 0.13/0.42 % Search garbage collected termcells : 68
% 0.13/0.42
% 0.13/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.13/0.42 % User time : 0.003 s
% 0.13/0.42 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.13/0.42 % Total time : 0.005 s
% 0.13/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 3632 pages
% 0.13/0.42
% 0.13/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.13/0.42 % User time : 0.005 s
% 0.13/0.42 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.13/0.42 % Total time : 0.009 s
% 0.13/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.13/0.42 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------