%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : MSC019+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/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 01:29:39 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.10s 0.46s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.10s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 14 ( 10 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 21 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 16 ( 9 ~; 5 |; 1 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 1 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 7 ( 2 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 3 ( 3 usr; 3 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 10 ( 0 sgn 6 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(mexico_in_america_1,conjecture,
s_contains(s_g019,s_MX),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',mexico_in_america_1) ).
fof(axiom1,axiom,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( ( s_contains(X2,X3)
& s_contains(X1,X2) )
=> s_contains(X1,X3) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',axiom1) ).
fof(kb74,axiom,
s_contains(s_g013,s_MX),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',kb74) ).
fof(kb18,axiom,
s_contains(s_g019,s_g013),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',kb18) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ s_contains(s_g019,s_MX),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[mexico_in_america_1]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ s_contains(s_g019,s_MX),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X4,X5,X6] :
( s_contains(X4,X6)
| ~ s_contains(X5,X6)
| ~ s_contains(X4,X5) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[axiom1])])]) ).
fof(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
~ s_contains(s_g019,s_MX),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ s_contains(X2,X3)
| ~ s_contains(X1,X2)
| s_contains(X1,X3) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
s_contains(s_g013,s_MX),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[kb74]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
~ s_contains(s_g019,s_MX),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( ~ s_contains(X1,s_g013)
| s_contains(X1,s_MX) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
s_contains(s_g019,s_g013),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[kb18]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]),c_0_12])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : MSC019+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.37 % Computer : n008.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.38 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 01:29:24 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.38 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/0.38 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.42 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.10/0.42 Running: /export/starexec/sandbox2/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/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.10/0.46 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.10/0.46 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.10/0.46 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.10/0.46 % Starting G-E--_008_C45_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_S4SI with 900s (3) cores
% 0.10/0.46 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.10/0.46 % Starting new_bool_1 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.10/0.46 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.46 % new_bool_3 with pid 4059517 completed with status 0
% 0.10/0.46 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.10/0.46 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.10/0.46 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.10/0.46 % Starting G-E--_008_C45_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_S4SI with 900s (3) cores
% 0.10/0.46 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.10/0.46 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.10/0.46 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.10/0.46 % Search class: FHUNF-FFSM00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.10/0.46 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 2 cores with 600 seconds (600 total)
% 0.10/0.46 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 61s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.46 % Starting SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with 361s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.46 % SubtermCWHack with pid 4059520 completed with status 0
% 0.10/0.46 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.10/0.46 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.10/0.46 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.10/0.46 % Starting G-E--_008_C45_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_S4SI with 900s (3) cores
% 0.10/0.46 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.10/0.46 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.10/0.46 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.10/0.46 % Search class: FHUNF-FFSM00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.10/0.46 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 2 cores with 600 seconds (600 total)
% 0.10/0.46 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 61s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.46 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.10/0.46
% 0.10/0.46 % Proof found!
% 0.10/0.46 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.10/0.46 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.10/0.46 % Parsed axioms : 604
% 0.10/0.46 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 544
% 0.10/0.46 % Initial clauses : 60
% 0.10/0.46 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.10/0.46 % Initial clauses in saturation : 60
% 0.10/0.46 % Processed clauses : 61
% 0.10/0.46 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.10/0.46 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.10/0.46 % ...remaining for further processing : 61
% 0.10/0.46 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.10/0.46 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.10/0.46 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.10/0.46 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.10/0.46 % Generated clauses : 59
% 0.10/0.46 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 28
% 0.10/0.46 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.10/0.46 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.10/0.46 % Paramodulations : 59
% 0.10/0.46 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.10/0.46 % NegExts : 0
% 0.10/0.46 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.10/0.46 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.10/0.46 % Total rewrite steps : 29
% 0.10/0.46 % ...of those cached : 1
% 0.10/0.46 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.10/0.46 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.10/0.46 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.10/0.46 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.10/0.46 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.10/0.46 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.10/0.46 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.10/0.46 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.10/0.46 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.10/0.46 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.10/0.46 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.10/0.46 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.10/0.46 % Current number of processed clauses : 61
% 0.10/0.46 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 56
% 0.10/0.46 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.10/0.46 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.10/0.46 % Non-unit-clauses : 4
% 0.10/0.46 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 27
% 0.10/0.46 % ...number of literals in the above : 54
% 0.10/0.46 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.10/0.46 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.10/0.46 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 4
% 0.10/0.46 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 4
% 0.10/0.46 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.10/0.46 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.10/0.46 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.10/0.46 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.10/0.46 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.10/0.46 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.10/0.46 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.10/0.46 % Termbank termtop insertions : 3854
% 0.10/0.46 % Search garbage collected termcells : 1376
% 0.10/0.46
% 0.10/0.46 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.10/0.46 % User time : 0.007 s
% 0.10/0.46 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.10/0.46 % Total time : 0.011 s
% 0.10/0.46 % Maximum resident set size: 4496 pages
% 0.10/0.46
% 0.10/0.46 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.10/0.46 % User time : 0.016 s
% 0.10/0.46 % System time : 0.012 s
% 0.10/0.46 % Total time : 0.028 s
% 0.10/0.46 % Maximum resident set size: 5120 pages
% 0.10/0.46 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------