%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : CSR153^3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v5.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n003.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 07:46:42 AM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 1.51s 1.69s
% Output : CNFRefutation 1.51s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 16 ( 4 unt; 0 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 27 ( 12 equ; 0 cnn)
% Maximal formula atoms : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 102 ( 27 ~; 5 |; 18 &; 52 @)
% ( 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 : 8 ( 6 usr; 5 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 13 ( 0 ^; 11 !; 2 ?; 13 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thf(decl_1452,type,
brother_THFTYPE_IiioI: $i > $i > $o ).
thf(decl_1453,type,
lBill_THFTYPE_i: $i ).
thf(decl_1454,type,
lBob_THFTYPE_i: $i ).
thf(decl_1455,type,
lMary_THFTYPE_i: $i ).
thf(decl_1456,type,
lSue_THFTYPE_i: $i ).
thf(decl_1457,type,
sister_THFTYPE_IiioI: $i > $i > $o ).
thf(con,conjecture,
? [X653: $i > $i > $o] :
( ( X653 @ lBob_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
& ( X653 @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBob_THFTYPE_i )
& ~ ! [X339: $i,X340: $i] : ( X653 @ X339 @ X340 ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.cEWkWzBnYT/E---3.1_2851642.p',con) ).
thf(ax_003,axiom,
( ~ ( sister_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lMary_THFTYPE_i @ lSue_THFTYPE_i )
& ~ ( sister_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lMary_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
& ~ ( brother_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lBob_THFTYPE_i @ lMary_THFTYPE_i ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.cEWkWzBnYT/E---3.1_2851642.p',ax_003) ).
thf(ax_001,axiom,
( ( lMary_THFTYPE_i != lSue_THFTYPE_i )
& ( lMary_THFTYPE_i != lBill_THFTYPE_i )
& ( lBob_THFTYPE_i != lMary_THFTYPE_i ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.cEWkWzBnYT/E---3.1_2851642.p',ax_001) ).
thf(ax,axiom,
( ( sister_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
& ( sister_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBob_THFTYPE_i )
& ( brother_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lBob_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.cEWkWzBnYT/E---3.1_2851642.p',ax) ).
thf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ? [X653: $i > $i > $o] :
( ( X653 @ lBob_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
& ( X653 @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBob_THFTYPE_i )
& ~ ! [X339: $i,X340: $i] : ( X653 @ X339 @ X340 ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[con]) ).
thf(c_0_5,plain,
( ~ ( sister_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lMary_THFTYPE_i @ lSue_THFTYPE_i )
& ~ ( sister_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lMary_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
& ~ ( brother_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lBob_THFTYPE_i @ lMary_THFTYPE_i ) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[ax_003]) ).
thf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
! [X657: $i > $i > $o,X658: $i,X659: $i] :
( ~ ( X657 @ lBob_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
| ~ ( X657 @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBob_THFTYPE_i )
| ( X657 @ X658 @ X659 ) ),
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,
( ( lMary_THFTYPE_i != lSue_THFTYPE_i )
& ( lMary_THFTYPE_i != lBill_THFTYPE_i )
& ( lBob_THFTYPE_i != lMary_THFTYPE_i ) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[ax_001]) ).
thf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ ( sister_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lMary_THFTYPE_i @ lSue_THFTYPE_i )
& ~ ( sister_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lMary_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
& ~ ( brother_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lBob_THFTYPE_i @ lMary_THFTYPE_i ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
thf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
! [X1: $i,X2: $i,X7: $i > $i > $o] :
( ( X7 @ X1 @ X2 )
| ~ ( X7 @ lBob_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i )
| ~ ( X7 @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBob_THFTYPE_i ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
thf(c_0_10,plain,
( ( lMary_THFTYPE_i != lSue_THFTYPE_i )
& ( lMary_THFTYPE_i != lBill_THFTYPE_i )
& ( lBob_THFTYPE_i != lMary_THFTYPE_i ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
thf(c_0_11,plain,
~ ( sister_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lMary_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
thf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
! [X1: $i] :
( ( lSue_THFTYPE_i = X1 )
| ( lBob_THFTYPE_i = X1 ) ),
inference(eliminate_leibniz_eq,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[]),c_0_9]) ).
thf(c_0_13,plain,
sister_THFTYPE_IiioI @ lSue_THFTYPE_i @ lBill_THFTYPE_i,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[ax]) ).
thf(c_0_14,plain,
lBob_THFTYPE_i != lMary_THFTYPE_i,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
thf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]),c_0_13])]),c_0_14]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : CSR153^3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v5.3.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.18 % Computer : n003.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.18 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.18 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.18 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/0.18 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.18 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.18 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.09/0.18 % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 17:59:58 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.18 % CPUTime :
% 0.09/0.18 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.23 Running higher-order theorem proving
% 1.46/1.53 Running: /export/starexec/sandbox/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/sandbox/tmp/tmp.cEWkWzBnYT/E---3.1_2851642.p
% 1.51/1.69 % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 1.51/1.69 % Preprocessing class: HMLLSMSLSSMCHSA.
% 1.51/1.69 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 1.51/1.69 % Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 1.51/1.69 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 1.51/1.69 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 1.51/1.69 % Starting new_bool_2 with 300s (1) cores
% 1.51/1.69 % new_ho_10 with pid 2851782 completed with status 0
% 1.51/1.69 % Result found by new_ho_10
% 1.51/1.69 % Preprocessing class: HMLLSMSLSSMCHSA.
% 1.51/1.69 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 1.51/1.69 % Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 1.51/1.69 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 1.51/1.69 % SinE strategy is gf600_h_gu_R05_F100_L20000
% 1.51/1.69 % Search class: HHUSF-FFSS00-SHSFFFBN
% 1.51/1.69 % partial match(3): HHUSF-FFSF00-SSSFFFNN
% 1.51/1.69 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 1.51/1.69 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 151s (1) cores
% 1.51/1.69 % Starting new_ho_10 with 901s (1) cores
% 1.51/1.69 % Starting sh5l with 151s (1) cores
% 1.51/1.69 % Starting new_bool_1 with 151s (1) cores
% 1.51/1.69 % Starting new_bool_2 with 146s (1) cores
% 1.51/1.69 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2851789 completed with status 10
% 1.51/1.69 % new_ho_10 with pid 2851790 completed with status 10
% 1.51/1.69 % new_bool_2 with pid 2851793 completed with status 0
% 1.51/1.69 % Result found by new_bool_2
% 1.51/1.69 % Preprocessing class: HMLLSMSLSSMCHSA.
% 1.51/1.69 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 1.51/1.69 % Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 1.51/1.69 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 1.51/1.69 % SinE strategy is gf600_h_gu_R05_F100_L20000
% 1.51/1.69 % Search class: HHUSF-FFSS00-SHSFFFBN
% 1.51/1.69 % partial match(3): HHUSF-FFSF00-SSSFFFNN
% 1.51/1.69 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 1.51/1.69 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 151s (1) cores
% 1.51/1.69 % Starting new_ho_10 with 901s (1) cores
% 1.51/1.69 % Starting sh5l with 151s (1) cores
% 1.51/1.69 % Starting new_bool_1 with 151s (1) cores
% 1.51/1.69 % Starting new_bool_2 with 146s (1) cores
% 1.51/1.69 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 1.51/1.69 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 1.51/1.69
% 1.51/1.69 % Proof found!
% 1.51/1.69 % SZS status Theorem
% 1.51/1.69 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 1.51/1.69 % Parsed axioms : 5019
% 1.51/1.69 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 5013
% 1.51/1.69 % Initial clauses : 13
% 1.51/1.69 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 1.51/1.69 % Initial clauses in saturation : 13
% 1.51/1.69 % Processed clauses : 28
% 1.51/1.69 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 1.51/1.69 % ...subsumed : 1
% 1.51/1.69 % ...remaining for further processing : 27
% 1.51/1.69 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 1.51/1.69 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 1.51/1.69 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 1.51/1.69 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 1.51/1.69 % Generated clauses : 33
% 1.51/1.69 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 16
% 1.51/1.69 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 1.51/1.69 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 1.51/1.69 % Paramodulations : 19
% 1.51/1.69 % Factorizations : 2
% 1.51/1.69 % NegExts : 0
% 1.51/1.69 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 1.51/1.69 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 1.51/1.69 % Total rewrite steps : 3
% 1.51/1.69 % ...of those cached : 1
% 1.51/1.69 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 1.51/1.69 % Propositional check models : 0
% 1.51/1.69 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 1.51/1.69 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 1.51/1.69 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 1.51/1.69 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 1.51/1.69 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 1.51/1.69 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 1.51/1.69 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 1.51/1.69 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 1.51/1.69 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 1.51/1.69 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 1.51/1.69 % Current number of processed clauses : 14
% 1.51/1.69 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 3
% 1.51/1.69 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 1.51/1.69 % Negative unit clauses : 9
% 1.51/1.69 % Non-unit-clauses : 2
% 1.51/1.69 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 9
% 1.51/1.69 % ...number of literals in the above : 22
% 1.51/1.69 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 1.51/1.69 % Current number of archived clauses : 13
% 1.51/1.69 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 1.51/1.69 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 1.51/1.69 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 1.51/1.69 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 1.51/1.69 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 1.51/1.69 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 1.51/1.69 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 1.51/1.69 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 1.51/1.69 % Condensation successes : 0
% 1.51/1.69 % Termbank termtop insertions : 35069
% 1.51/1.69 % Search garbage collected termcells : 17467
% 1.51/1.70
% 1.51/1.70 % -------------------------------------------------
% 1.51/1.70 % User time : 0.023 s
% 1.51/1.70 % System time : 0.028 s
% 1.51/1.70 % Total time : 0.051 s
% 1.51/1.70 % Maximum resident set size: 10936 pages
% 1.51/1.70
% 1.51/1.70 % -------------------------------------------------
% 1.51/1.70 % User time : 0.129 s
% 1.51/1.70 % System time : 0.045 s
% 1.51/1.70 % Total time : 0.174 s
% 1.51/1.70 % Maximum resident set size: 8960 pages
% 1.51/1.70 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------