%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : CSR137^1 : 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 : n026.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 0.26s 0.27s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.26s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 7
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 20 ( 15 unt; 0 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 17 ( 0 equ; 0 cnn)
% Maximal formula atoms : 2 ( 0 avg)
% Number of connectives : 101 ( 18 ~; 9 |; 6 &; 68 @)
% ( 0 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 14 ( 6 avg)
% Number of types : 2 ( 0 usr)
% Number of type conns : 18 ( 18 >; 0 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of symbols : 8 ( 7 usr; 6 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 39 ( 0 ^; 33 !; 6 ?; 39 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thf(decl_23,type,
lAnna_THFTYPE_i: $i ).
thf(decl_25,type,
lBill_THFTYPE_i: $i ).
thf(decl_26,type,
lBob_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(decl_30,type,
parent_THFTYPE_IiioI: $i > $i > $o ).
thf(con,conjecture,
? [X1: $i > $i > $o,X2: $i > $i > $o,X3: $i] :
( ( X2 @ X3 @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
& ( X1 @ X3 @ lAnna_THFTYPE_i )
& ~ ! [X4: $i,X5: $i] : ( X2 @ X4 @ X5 )
& ~ ! [X4: $i,X5: $i] : ( X1 @ X4 @ X5 ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.xjDwRMTX8q/E---3.1_950822.p',con) ).
thf(ax_001,axiom,
~ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lMary_THFTYPE_i ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.xjDwRMTX8q/E---3.1_950822.p',ax_001) ).
thf(ax_007,axiom,
parent_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lAnna_THFTYPE_i,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.xjDwRMTX8q/E---3.1_950822.p',ax_007) ).
thf(ax_009,axiom,
~ ( parent_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lBob_THFTYPE_i @ lAnna_THFTYPE_i ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.xjDwRMTX8q/E---3.1_950822.p',ax_009) ).
thf(ax,axiom,
likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.xjDwRMTX8q/E---3.1_950822.p',ax) ).
thf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ ? [X1: $i > $i > $o,X2: $i > $i > $o,X3: $i] :
( ( X2 @ X3 @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
& ( X1 @ X3 @ lAnna_THFTYPE_i )
& ~ ! [X4: $i,X5: $i] : ( X2 @ X4 @ X5 )
& ~ ! [X4: $i,X5: $i] : ( X1 @ X4 @ X5 ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[con]) ).
thf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
! [X13: $i > $i > $o,X14: $i > $i > $o,X15: $i,X16: $i,X17: $i,X18: $i,X19: $i] :
( ~ ( X14 @ X15 @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
| ~ ( X13 @ X15 @ lAnna_THFTYPE_i )
| ( X14 @ X16 @ X17 )
| ( X13 @ X18 @ X19 ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_5])])])]) ).
thf(c_0_7,plain,
~ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lMary_THFTYPE_i ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[ax_001]) ).
thf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
! [X1: $i > $i > $o,X2: $i > $i > $o,X5: $i,X9: $i,X8: $i,X4: $i,X3: $i] :
( ( X1 @ X4 @ X5 )
| ( X2 @ X8 @ X9 )
| ~ ( X1 @ X3 @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
| ~ ( X2 @ X3 @ lAnna_THFTYPE_i ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
thf(c_0_9,plain,
parent_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lAnna_THFTYPE_i,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[ax_007]) ).
thf(c_0_10,plain,
~ ( parent_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lBob_THFTYPE_i @ lAnna_THFTYPE_i ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[ax_009]) ).
thf(c_0_11,plain,
~ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lMary_THFTYPE_i ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
thf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
! [X4: $i,X3: $i,X8: $i,X5: $i,X1: $i > $i > $o] :
( ( parent_THFTYPE_IiioI @ X3 @ X4 )
| ( X1 @ X5 @ X8 )
| ~ ( X1 @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i ) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).
thf(c_0_13,plain,
likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[ax]) ).
thf(c_0_14,plain,
~ ( parent_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lBob_THFTYPE_i @ lAnna_THFTYPE_i ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
thf(c_0_15,plain,
~ ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lMary_THFTYPE_i ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_11]) ).
thf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
! [X3: $i,X4: $i,X5: $i,X8: $i] :
( ( likes_THFTYPE_IiioI @ X3 @ X4 )
| ( parent_THFTYPE_IiioI @ X5 @ X8 ) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]) ).
thf(c_0_17,plain,
~ ( parent_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lBob_THFTYPE_i @ lAnna_THFTYPE_i ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_14]) ).
thf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
! [X3: $i,X4: $i] : ( parent_THFTYPE_IiioI @ X3 @ X4 ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16]) ).
thf(c_0_19,plain,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_18])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : CSR137^1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/0.18 % Computer : n026.cluster.edu
% 0.08/0.18 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.08/0.18 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.08/0.18 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.08/0.18 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.08/0.18 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.08/0.18 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.08/0.18 % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 17:58:57 UTC 2026
% 0.08/0.19 % CPUTime :
% 0.08/0.19 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/0.23 Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.08/0.25 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.xjDwRMTX8q/E---3.1_950822.p
% 0.26/0.27 % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 0.26/0.27 % Preprocessing class: HSMSSMSSSSSNSSA.
% 0.26/0.27 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.27 % Starting post_as_ho1 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.27 % Starting post_as_ho12 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.27 % Starting new_ho_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.27 % Starting ehoh_best2_full_lfho with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.27 % ehoh_best2_full_lfho with pid 950860 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.27 % Result found by ehoh_best2_full_lfho
% 0.26/0.27 % Preprocessing class: HSMSSMSSSSSNSSA.
% 0.26/0.27 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.27 % Starting post_as_ho1 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.27 % Starting post_as_ho12 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.27 % Starting new_ho_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.27 % Starting ehoh_best2_full_lfho with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.27 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.26/0.27 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.26/0.27 % Search class: HGUNF-FFSM00-SSSFFFBN
% 0.26/0.27 % partial match(1): HHUNF-FFSM00-SSSFFFBN
% 0.26/0.27 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.26/0.27 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.27 % SubtermCWHack with pid 950861 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.27 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.26/0.27 % Preprocessing class: HSMSSMSSSSSNSSA.
% 0.26/0.27 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.27 % Starting post_as_ho1 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.27 % Starting post_as_ho12 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.27 % Starting new_ho_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.27 % Starting ehoh_best2_full_lfho with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.27 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.26/0.27 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.26/0.27 % Search class: HGUNF-FFSM00-SSSFFFBN
% 0.26/0.27 % partial match(1): HHUNF-FFSM00-SSSFFFBN
% 0.26/0.27 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.26/0.27 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.27 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.26/0.27
% 0.26/0.27 % Proof found!
% 0.26/0.27 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.26/0.27 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.26/0.27 % Parsed axioms : 20
% 0.26/0.27 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.26/0.27 % Initial clauses : 20
% 0.26/0.27 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 9
% 0.26/0.27 % Initial clauses in saturation : 11
% 0.26/0.27 % Processed clauses : 14
% 0.26/0.27 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.26/0.27 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.26/0.27 % ...remaining for further processing : 14
% 0.26/0.27 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.26/0.27 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.26/0.27 % Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.26/0.27 % Backward-rewritten : 7
% 0.26/0.27 % Generated clauses : 8
% 0.26/0.27 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 7
% 0.26/0.27 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.26/0.27 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.26/0.27 % Paramodulations : 8
% 0.26/0.27 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.26/0.27 % NegExts : 0
% 0.26/0.27 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.26/0.27 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.26/0.27 % Total rewrite steps : 2
% 0.26/0.27 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.26/0.27 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.26/0.27 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.26/0.27 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.26/0.27 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.26/0.27 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.26/0.27 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.26/0.27 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.27 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.27 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.27 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.27 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.27 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.27 % Current number of processed clauses : 6
% 0.26/0.27 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 4
% 0.26/0.27 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.26/0.27 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.26/0.27 % Non-unit-clauses : 1
% 0.26/0.27 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 4
% 0.26/0.27 % ...number of literals in the above : 14
% 0.26/0.27 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.26/0.27 % Current number of archived clauses : 8
% 0.26/0.27 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.26/0.27 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.26/0.27 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.26/0.27 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.26/0.27 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.26/0.27 % BW rewrite match attempts : 8
% 0.26/0.27 % BW rewrite match successes : 8
% 0.26/0.27 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.26/0.27 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.26/0.27 % Termbank termtop insertions : 804
% 0.26/0.27 % Search garbage collected termcells : 78
% 0.26/0.27
% 0.26/0.27 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.27 % User time : 0.003 s
% 0.26/0.27 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.26/0.27 % Total time : 0.005 s
% 0.26/0.27 % Maximum resident set size: 3640 pages
% 0.26/0.27
% 0.26/0.27 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.27 % User time : 0.005 s
% 0.26/0.27 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.26/0.27 % Total time : 0.011 s
% 0.26/0.27 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.26/0.27 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------