%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : CSR136^2 : 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 07:46:37 AM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.09s 0.23s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.09s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 14 ( 10 unt; 0 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 10 ( 0 equ; 0 cnn)
% Maximal formula atoms : 1 ( 0 avg)
% Number of connectives : 61 ( 11 ~; 4 |; 4 &; 42 @)
% ( 0 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 9 ( 5 avg)
% Number of types : 2 ( 0 usr)
% Number of type conns : 8 ( 8 >; 0 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of symbols : 5 ( 4 usr; 4 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 14 ( 0 ^; 12 !; 2 ?; 14 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thf(decl_25,type,
lBill_THFTYPE_i: $i ).
thf(decl_27,type,
lMary_THFTYPE_i: $i ).
thf(decl_28,type,
lSue_THFTYPE_i: $i ).
thf(decl_29,type,
likes_THFTYPE_IiioI: $i > $i > $o ).
thf(con,conjecture,
? [X1: $i > $i > $o] :
( ( X1 @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
& ( X1 @ lMary_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
& ~ ! [X2: $i,X3: $i] : ( X1 @ X2 @ X3 ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.L0Kbz5nFvp/E---3.1_2443234.p',con) ).
thf(ax_002,axiom,
~ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lMary_THFTYPE_i ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.L0Kbz5nFvp/E---3.1_2443234.p',ax_002) ).
thf(ax,axiom,
likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.L0Kbz5nFvp/E---3.1_2443234.p',ax) ).
thf(ax_004,axiom,
likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lMary_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.L0Kbz5nFvp/E---3.1_2443234.p',ax_004) ).
thf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ? [X1: $i > $i > $o] :
( ( X1 @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
& ( X1 @ lMary_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
& ~ ! [X2: $i,X3: $i] : ( X1 @ X2 @ X3 ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[con]) ).
thf(c_0_5,plain,
~ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lMary_THFTYPE_i ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[ax_002]) ).
thf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
! [X7: $i > $i > $o,X8: $i,X9: $i] :
( ~ ( X7 @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
| ~ ( X7 @ lMary_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
| ( X7 @ X8 @ X9 ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])])])]) ).
thf(c_0_7,plain,
~ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lMary_THFTYPE_i ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
thf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
! [X3: $i,X2: $i,X1: $i > $i > $o] :
( ( X1 @ X2 @ X3 )
| ~ ( X1 @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
| ~ ( X1 @ lMary_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
thf(c_0_9,plain,
likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[ax]) ).
thf(c_0_10,plain,
likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lMary_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[ax_004]) ).
thf(c_0_11,plain,
~ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lMary_THFTYPE_i ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
thf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
! [X2: $i,X3: $i] : ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ X2 @ X3 ),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]),c_0_10])]) ).
thf(c_0_13,plain,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : CSR136^2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.16 % Computer : n013.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.16 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.16 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.16 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/0.16 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.16 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.16 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.09/0.16 % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 17:55:36 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.16 % CPUTime :
% 0.09/0.17 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.20 Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.09/0.21 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.L0Kbz5nFvp/E---3.1_2443234.p
% 0.09/0.23 % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 0.09/0.23 % Preprocessing class: HSMSSMSSSSSNSSA.
% 0.09/0.23 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.09/0.23 % Starting post_as_ho1 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.09/0.23 % Starting post_as_ho12 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.23 % Starting new_ho_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.23 % Starting ehoh_best2_full_lfho with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.23 % ehoh_best2_full_lfho with pid 2443267 completed with status 0
% 0.09/0.23 % Result found by ehoh_best2_full_lfho
% 0.09/0.23 % Preprocessing class: HSMSSMSSSSSNSSA.
% 0.09/0.23 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.09/0.23 % Starting post_as_ho1 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.09/0.23 % Starting post_as_ho12 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.23 % Starting new_ho_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.23 % Starting ehoh_best2_full_lfho with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.23 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.09/0.23 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.09/0.23 % Search class: HHUNF-FFSM00-SSSFFFBN
% 0.09/0.23 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.09/0.23 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.23 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2443269 completed with status 0
% 0.09/0.23 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.09/0.23 % Preprocessing class: HSMSSMSSSSSNSSA.
% 0.09/0.23 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.09/0.23 % Starting post_as_ho1 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.09/0.23 % Starting post_as_ho12 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.23 % Starting new_ho_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.23 % Starting ehoh_best2_full_lfho with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.23 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.09/0.23 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.09/0.23 % Search class: HHUNF-FFSM00-SSSFFFBN
% 0.09/0.23 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.09/0.23 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.23 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.09/0.23
% 0.09/0.23 % Proof found!
% 0.09/0.23 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.09/0.23 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.09/0.23 % Parsed axioms : 21
% 0.09/0.23 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.09/0.23 % Initial clauses : 21
% 0.09/0.23 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 9
% 0.09/0.23 % Initial clauses in saturation : 12
% 0.09/0.23 % Processed clauses : 13
% 0.09/0.23 % ...of these trivial : 2
% 0.09/0.23 % ...subsumed : 1
% 0.09/0.23 % ...remaining for further processing : 10
% 0.09/0.23 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.09/0.23 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.09/0.23 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.09/0.23 % Backward-rewritten : 4
% 0.09/0.23 % Generated clauses : 2
% 0.09/0.23 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1
% 0.09/0.23 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.09/0.23 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.09/0.23 % Paramodulations : 2
% 0.09/0.23 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.09/0.23 % NegExts : 0
% 0.09/0.23 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.09/0.23 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.09/0.23 % Total rewrite steps : 7
% 0.09/0.23 % ...of those cached : 1
% 0.09/0.23 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.09/0.23 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.09/0.23 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.09/0.23 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.09/0.23 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.09/0.23 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.09/0.23 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.23 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.23 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.23 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.23 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.23 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.23 % Current number of processed clauses : 6
% 0.09/0.23 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 5
% 0.09/0.23 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.09/0.23 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.09/0.23 % Non-unit-clauses : 1
% 0.09/0.23 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.09/0.23 % ...number of literals in the above : 0
% 0.09/0.23 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.09/0.23 % Current number of archived clauses : 4
% 0.09/0.23 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.09/0.23 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.09/0.23 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.09/0.23 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.09/0.23 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.09/0.23 % BW rewrite match attempts : 4
% 0.09/0.23 % BW rewrite match successes : 4
% 0.09/0.23 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.09/0.23 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.09/0.23 % Termbank termtop insertions : 628
% 0.09/0.23 % Search garbage collected termcells : 47
% 0.09/0.23
% 0.09/0.23 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.09/0.23 % User time : 0.003 s
% 0.09/0.23 % System time : 0.001 s
% 0.09/0.23 % Total time : 0.005 s
% 0.09/0.23 % Maximum resident set size: 3636 pages
% 0.09/0.23
% 0.09/0.23 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.09/0.23 % User time : 0.005 s
% 0.09/0.23 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.09/0.23 % Total time : 0.011 s
% 0.09/0.23 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.09/0.23 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------