%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : LAT270-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.2.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/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 01:04:37 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.87s 0.64s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.87s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 3
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 13 ( 10 unt; 0 nHn; 13 RR)
% Number of literals : 22 ( 0 equ; 12 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 8 ( 8 usr; 6 con; 0-4 aty)
% Number of variables : 9 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_Tarski_O_91_124_Aa1_A_58_AA_59_Ab1_A_58_AA_59_AS1_A_60_61_Ainterval_Ar_Aa1_Ab1_A_124_93_A_61_61_62_AS1_A_60_61_AA_A_61_61_ATrue_0,axiom,
( ~ c_lessequals(X3,c_Tarski_Ointerval(v_r,X2,X1,t_a),tc_set(t_a))
| ~ c_in(X2,v_A,t_a)
| ~ c_in(X1,v_A,t_a)
| c_lessequals(X3,v_A,tc_set(t_a)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/LAT006-2.ax',cls_Tarski_O_91_124_Aa1_A_58_AA_59_Ab1_A_58_AA_59_AS1_A_60_61_Ainterval_Ar_Aa1_Ab1_A_124_93_A_61_61_62_AS1_A_60_61_AA_A_61_61_ATrue_0) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_6,negated_conjecture,
~ c_lessequals(v_S,v_A,tc_set(t_a)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_6) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_2,negated_conjecture,
c_lessequals(v_S,c_Tarski_Ointerval(v_r,v_a,v_b,t_a),tc_set(t_a)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_2) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
c_in(v_a,v_A,t_a),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_0) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_1,negated_conjecture,
c_in(v_b,v_A,t_a),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_1) ).
cnf(c_0_5,plain,
( ~ c_lessequals(X3,c_Tarski_Ointerval(v_r,X2,X1,t_a),tc_set(t_a))
| ~ c_in(X2,v_A,t_a)
| ~ c_in(X1,v_A,t_a)
| c_lessequals(X3,v_A,tc_set(t_a)) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_Tarski_O_91_124_Aa1_A_58_AA_59_Ab1_A_58_AA_59_AS1_A_60_61_Ainterval_Ar_Aa1_Ab1_A_124_93_A_61_61_62_AS1_A_60_61_AA_A_61_61_ATrue_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
~ c_lessequals(v_S,v_A,tc_set(t_a)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ c_lessequals(X3,c_Tarski_Ointerval(v_r,X2,X1,t_a),tc_set(t_a))
| ~ c_in(X2,v_A,t_a)
| ~ c_in(X1,v_A,t_a)
| c_lessequals(X3,v_A,tc_set(t_a)) ),
c_0_5 ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
c_lessequals(v_S,c_Tarski_Ointerval(v_r,v_a,v_b,t_a),tc_set(t_a)),
cls_conjecture_2 ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
c_in(v_a,v_A,t_a),
cls_conjecture_0 ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
c_in(v_b,v_A,t_a),
cls_conjecture_1 ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
~ c_lessequals(v_S,v_A,tc_set(t_a)),
c_0_6 ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]),c_0_9]),c_0_10])]),c_0_11]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : LAT270-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.37 % Computer : n008.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/0.37 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 23:25:09 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.42 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.11/0.42 Running: /export/starexec/sandbox/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/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.87/0.64 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.87/0.64 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.87/0.64 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.87/0.64 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.87/0.64 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.87/0.64 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.87/0.64 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.87/0.64 % new_bool_1 with pid 3815350 completed with status 0
% 0.87/0.64 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.87/0.64 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.87/0.64 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.87/0.64 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.87/0.64 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.87/0.64 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.87/0.64 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.87/0.64 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.87/0.64 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.87/0.64 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.87/0.64 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.87/0.64 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3815352 completed with status 0
% 0.87/0.64 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.87/0.64 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.87/0.64 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.87/0.64 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.87/0.64 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.87/0.64 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.87/0.64 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.87/0.64 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.87/0.64 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.87/0.64 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.87/0.64 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.87/0.64 % Preprocessing time : 0.006 s
% 0.87/0.64
% 0.87/0.64 % Proof found!
% 0.87/0.64 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.87/0.64 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.87/0.64 % Parsed axioms : 2758
% 0.87/0.64 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 2493
% 0.87/0.64 % Initial clauses : 265
% 0.87/0.64 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.87/0.64 % Initial clauses in saturation : 265
% 0.87/0.64 % Processed clauses : 1771
% 0.87/0.64 % ...of these trivial : 28
% 0.87/0.64 % ...subsumed : 1215
% 0.87/0.64 % ...remaining for further processing : 528
% 0.87/0.64 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 94
% 0.87/0.64 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.87/0.64 % Backward-subsumed : 13
% 0.87/0.64 % Backward-rewritten : 62
% 0.87/0.64 % Generated clauses : 4490
% 0.87/0.64 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 3558
% 0.87/0.64 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.87/0.64 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 1
% 0.87/0.64 % Paramodulations : 4383
% 0.87/0.64 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.87/0.64 % NegExts : 0
% 0.87/0.64 % Equation resolutions : 107
% 0.87/0.64 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.87/0.64 % Total rewrite steps : 1863
% 0.87/0.64 % ...of those cached : 1568
% 0.87/0.64 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.87/0.64 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.87/0.64 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.87/0.64 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.87/0.64 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.87/0.64 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.87/0.64 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.87/0.64 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.87/0.64 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.87/0.64 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.87/0.64 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.87/0.64 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.87/0.64 % Current number of processed clauses : 453
% 0.87/0.64 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 112
% 0.87/0.64 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.87/0.64 % Negative unit clauses : 115
% 0.87/0.64 % Non-unit-clauses : 225
% 0.87/0.64 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 1967
% 0.87/0.64 % ...number of literals in the above : 4473
% 0.87/0.64 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.87/0.64 % Current number of archived clauses : 75
% 0.87/0.64 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 9286
% 0.87/0.64 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3899
% 0.87/0.64 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 142
% 0.87/0.64 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3079
% 0.87/0.64 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.87/0.64 % BW rewrite match attempts : 189
% 0.87/0.64 % BW rewrite match successes : 69
% 0.87/0.64 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.87/0.64 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.87/0.64 % Termbank termtop insertions : 75430
% 0.87/0.64 % Search garbage collected termcells : 7683
% 0.87/0.64
% 0.87/0.64 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.87/0.64 % User time : 0.128 s
% 0.87/0.64 % System time : 0.014 s
% 0.87/0.64 % Total time : 0.142 s
% 0.87/0.64 % Maximum resident set size: 6192 pages
% 0.87/0.64
% 0.87/0.64 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.87/0.64 % User time : 0.178 s
% 0.87/0.64 % System time : 0.023 s
% 0.87/0.64 % Total time : 0.201 s
% 0.87/0.64 % Maximum resident set size: 6656 pages
% 0.87/0.64 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------