%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : LAT270-2 : 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 : n001.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 0.12s 0.41s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.12s
% 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/theBenchmark.p',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
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : LAT270-2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.34 % Computer : n001.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.34 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/0.34 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.34 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.09/0.34 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 23:29:57 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.09/0.35 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.39 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.12/0.39 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
% 0.12/0.41 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.12/0.41 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.41 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.41 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.41 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.41 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.41 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.41 % new_bool_1 with pid 1628128 completed with status 0
% 0.12/0.41 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.12/0.41 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.41 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.41 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.41 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.41 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.41 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.12/0.41 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.12/0.41 % Search class: FHUNF-FFSS32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.12/0.41 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.12/0.41 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.41 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1628130 completed with status 0
% 0.12/0.41 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.12/0.41 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.41 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.41 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.41 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.41 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.41 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.12/0.41 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.12/0.41 % Search class: FHUNF-FFSS32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.12/0.41 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.12/0.41 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.41 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.12/0.41
% 0.12/0.41 % Proof found!
% 0.12/0.41 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.12/0.41 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.12/0.41 % Parsed axioms : 5
% 0.12/0.41 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.12/0.41 % Initial clauses : 5
% 0.12/0.41 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.12/0.41 % Initial clauses in saturation : 5
% 0.12/0.41 % Processed clauses : 5
% 0.12/0.41 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.12/0.41 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.12/0.41 % ...remaining for further processing : 5
% 0.12/0.41 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.12/0.41 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.12/0.41 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.12/0.41 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.12/0.41 % Generated clauses : 1
% 0.12/0.41 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 0
% 0.12/0.41 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.12/0.41 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.12/0.41 % Paramodulations : 1
% 0.12/0.41 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.12/0.41 % NegExts : 0
% 0.12/0.41 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.12/0.41 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.12/0.41 % Total rewrite steps : 2
% 0.12/0.41 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.12/0.41 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.12/0.41 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.12/0.41 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.12/0.41 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.12/0.41 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.12/0.41 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.12/0.41 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.41 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.41 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.41 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.41 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.41 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.41 % Current number of processed clauses : 5
% 0.12/0.41 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 3
% 0.12/0.41 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.12/0.41 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.12/0.41 % Non-unit-clauses : 1
% 0.12/0.41 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.12/0.41 % ...number of literals in the above : 0
% 0.12/0.41 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.12/0.41 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.12/0.41 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.12/0.41 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.12/0.41 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.12/0.41 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.12/0.41 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.12/0.41 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.12/0.41 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.12/0.41 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.12/0.41 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.12/0.41 % Termbank termtop insertions : 172
% 0.12/0.41 % Search garbage collected termcells : 11
% 0.12/0.41
% 0.12/0.41 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.12/0.41 % User time : 0.004 s
% 0.12/0.41 % System time : 0.000 s
% 0.12/0.41 % Total time : 0.004 s
% 0.12/0.41 % Maximum resident set size: 3632 pages
% 0.12/0.41
% 0.12/0.41 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.12/0.41 % User time : 0.007 s
% 0.12/0.41 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.12/0.41 % Total time : 0.009 s
% 0.12/0.41 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.12/0.41 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------