%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : NLP260+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v4.0.1.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n013.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 01:38:26 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 28.78s 20.13s
% Output : CNFRefutation 28.78s
% 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(hypernym_transitiviy_1,conjecture,
hypernym(n9986904,n9855630),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',hypernym_transitiviy_1) ).
fof(axiom1,axiom,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( ( hypernym(X2,X3)
& hypernym(X1,X2) )
=> hypernym(X1,X3) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',axiom1) ).
fof(kb340304,axiom,
hypernym(n10126424,n9855630),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/NLP001+0.ax',kb340304) ).
fof(kb1049,axiom,
hypernym(n9986904,n10126424),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/NLP001+0.ax',kb1049) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ hypernym(n9986904,n9855630),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[hypernym_transitiviy_1]) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X4,X5,X6] :
( hypernym(X4,X6)
| ~ hypernym(X5,X6)
| ~ hypernym(X4,X5) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[axiom1])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
~ hypernym(n9986904,n9855630),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ hypernym(X2,X3)
| ~ hypernym(X1,X2)
| hypernym(X1,X3) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
hypernym(n10126424,n9855630),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[kb340304]) ).
fof(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
~ hypernym(n9986904,n9855630),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( ~ hypernym(X1,n10126424)
| hypernym(X1,n9855630) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
hypernym(n9986904,n10126424),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[kb1049]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
~ hypernym(n9986904,n9855630),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]),c_0_12]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : NLP260+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v4.0.1.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/0.34 % Computer : n013.cluster.edu
% 0.08/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.08/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.08/0.34 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.08/0.34 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.08/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.08/0.34 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.08/0.34 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 01:55:36 UTC 2026
% 0.08/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.08/0.34 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.39 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.12/0.39 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
% 28.78/20.13 % Version: 3.5.1
% 28.78/20.13 % Preprocessing class: FLLLSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 28.78/20.13 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 286 seconds (2288 total)
% 28.78/20.13 % Starting G-E--_300_C01_S5PRR_S00 with 1430s (5) cores
% 28.78/20.13 % Starting new_bool_3 with 286s (1) cores
% 28.78/20.13 % Starting new_bool_1 with 286s (1) cores
% 28.78/20.13 % Starting sh5l with 286s (1) cores
% 28.78/20.13 % new_bool_1 with pid 3910518 completed with status 0
% 28.78/20.13 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 28.78/20.13 % Preprocessing class: FLLLSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 28.78/20.13 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 286 seconds (2288 total)
% 28.78/20.13 % Starting G-E--_300_C01_S5PRR_S00 with 1430s (5) cores
% 28.78/20.13 % Starting new_bool_3 with 286s (1) cores
% 28.78/20.13 % Starting new_bool_1 with 286s (1) cores
% 28.78/20.13 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 28.78/20.13 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 28.78/20.13 % Search class: FHUNF-FFMM00-SFFFFFNN
% 28.78/20.13 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 284 seconds (284 total)
% 28.78/20.13 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 29s (1) cores
% 28.78/20.13 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3910520 completed with status 0
% 28.78/20.13 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 28.78/20.13 % Preprocessing class: FLLLSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 28.78/20.13 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 286 seconds (2288 total)
% 28.78/20.13 % Starting G-E--_300_C01_S5PRR_S00 with 1430s (5) cores
% 28.78/20.13 % Starting new_bool_3 with 286s (1) cores
% 28.78/20.13 % Starting new_bool_1 with 286s (1) cores
% 28.78/20.13 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 28.78/20.13 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 28.78/20.13 % Search class: FHUNF-FFMM00-SFFFFFNN
% 28.78/20.13 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 284 seconds (284 total)
% 28.78/20.13 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 29s (1) cores
% 28.78/20.13 % Preprocessing time : 1.308 s
% 28.78/20.13
% 28.78/20.13 % Proof found!
% 28.78/20.13 % SZS status Theorem
% 28.78/20.13 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 28.78/20.13 % Parsed axioms : 1026861
% 28.78/20.13 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 1026772
% 28.78/20.13 % Initial clauses : 89
% 28.78/20.13 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 28.78/20.13 % Initial clauses in saturation : 89
% 28.78/20.13 % Processed clauses : 109
% 28.78/20.13 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 28.78/20.13 % ...subsumed : 0
% 28.78/20.13 % ...remaining for further processing : 109
% 28.78/20.13 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 28.78/20.13 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 28.78/20.13 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 28.78/20.13 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 33.84/20.13 % Generated clauses : 46
% 33.84/20.13 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 26
% 33.84/20.13 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 33.84/20.13 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 33.84/20.13 % Paramodulations : 46
% 33.84/20.13 % Factorizations : 0
% 33.84/20.13 % NegExts : 0
% 33.84/20.13 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 33.84/20.13 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 33.84/20.13 % Total rewrite steps : 18
% 33.84/20.13 % ...of those cached : 0
% 33.84/20.13 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 33.84/20.13 % Propositional check models : 0
% 33.84/20.13 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 33.84/20.13 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 33.84/20.13 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 33.84/20.13 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 33.84/20.13 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 33.84/20.13 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 33.84/20.13 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 33.84/20.13 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 33.84/20.13 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 33.84/20.13 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 33.84/20.13 % Current number of processed clauses : 109
% 33.84/20.13 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 88
% 33.84/20.13 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 33.84/20.13 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 33.84/20.13 % Non-unit-clauses : 20
% 33.84/20.13 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 6
% 33.84/20.13 % ...number of literals in the above : 14
% 33.84/20.13 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 33.84/20.13 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 33.84/20.13 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 68
% 33.84/20.13 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 68
% 33.84/20.13 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 33.84/20.13 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3
% 33.84/20.13 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 33.84/20.13 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 33.84/20.13 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 33.84/20.13 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 33.84/20.13 % Condensation successes : 0
% 33.84/20.13 % Termbank termtop insertions : 4109329
% 33.84/20.13 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2410677
% 33.84/20.13
% 33.84/20.13 % -------------------------------------------------
% 33.84/20.13 % User time : 2.519 s
% 33.84/20.13 % System time : 1.846 s
% 33.84/20.13 % Total time : 4.365 s
% 33.84/20.13 % Maximum resident set size: 1441268 pages
% 33.84/20.13
% 33.84/20.13 % -------------------------------------------------
% 33.84/20.13 % User time : 16.390 s
% 33.84/20.13 % System time : 2.780 s
% 33.84/20.13 % Total time : 19.170 s
% 33.84/20.13 % Maximum resident set size: 602368 pages
% 33.84/20.13 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------