%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : NLP261+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 : n010.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 01:36:00 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.17s 14.52s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.17s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 18 ( 13 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 26 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 18 ( 10 ~; 6 |; 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 : 4 ( 4 usr; 4 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 11 ( 0 sgn 6 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(axiom1,axiom,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( ( hypernym(X2,X3)
& hypernym(X1,X2) )
=> hypernym(X1,X3) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',axiom1) ).
fof(hypernym_transitiviy_1,conjecture,
hypernym(n9986904,n10560637),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',hypernym_transitiviy_1) ).
fof(kb340304,axiom,
hypernym(n10126424,n9855630),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/NLP001+0.ax',kb340304) ).
fof(kb886122,axiom,
hypernym(n9855630,n10560637),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/NLP001+0.ax',kb886122) ).
fof(kb1049,axiom,
hypernym(n9986904,n10126424),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/NLP001+0.ax',kb1049) ).
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,n10560637),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[hypernym_transitiviy_1]) ).
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,n10560637),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
hypernym(n9855630,n10560637),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[kb886122]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( ~ hypernym(X1,n10126424)
| hypernym(X1,n9855630) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
hypernym(n9986904,n10126424),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[kb1049]) ).
fof(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
~ hypernym(n9986904,n10560637),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
( ~ hypernym(X1,n9855630)
| hypernym(X1,n10560637) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
hypernym(n9986904,n9855630),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
~ hypernym(n9986904,n10560637),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,plain,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]),c_0_16]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : NLP261+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v4.0.1.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.44 % Computer : n010.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.44 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.44 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.44 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.44 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.44 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.44 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/0.44 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 01:56:25 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.44 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/0.44 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.49 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/0.49 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
% 0.17/14.52 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.17/14.52 % Preprocessing class: FLLLSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.17/14.52 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 294 seconds (2352 total)
% 0.17/14.52 % Starting G-E--_300_C01_S5PRR_S00 with 1470s (5) cores
% 0.17/14.52 % Starting new_bool_3 with 294s (1) cores
% 0.17/14.52 % Starting new_bool_1 with 294s (1) cores
% 0.17/14.52 % Starting sh5l with 294s (1) cores
% 0.17/14.52 % new_bool_3 with pid 4003097 completed with status 0
% 0.17/14.52 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.17/14.52 % Preprocessing class: FLLLSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.17/14.52 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 294 seconds (2352 total)
% 0.17/14.52 % Starting G-E--_300_C01_S5PRR_S00 with 1470s (5) cores
% 0.17/14.52 % Starting new_bool_3 with 294s (1) cores
% 0.17/14.52 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.17/14.52 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.17/14.52 % Search class: FHUNF-FFMM00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.17/14.52 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 290 seconds (290 total)
% 0.17/14.52 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 30s (1) cores
% 0.17/14.52 % SubtermCWHack with pid 4003100 completed with status 0
% 0.17/14.52 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.17/14.52 % Preprocessing class: FLLLSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.17/14.52 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 294 seconds (2352 total)
% 0.17/14.52 % Starting G-E--_300_C01_S5PRR_S00 with 1470s (5) cores
% 0.17/14.52 % Starting new_bool_3 with 294s (1) cores
% 0.17/14.52 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.17/14.52 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.17/14.52 % Search class: FHUNF-FFMM00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.17/14.52 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 290 seconds (290 total)
% 0.17/14.52 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 30s (1) cores
% 0.17/14.52 % Preprocessing time : 1.254 s
% 0.17/14.52
% 0.17/14.52 % Proof found!
% 0.17/14.52 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.17/14.52 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.17/14.52 % Parsed axioms : 1026861
% 0.17/14.52 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 1026759
% 0.17/14.52 % Initial clauses : 102
% 0.17/14.52 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.17/14.52 % Initial clauses in saturation : 102
% 0.17/14.52 % Processed clauses : 126
% 0.17/14.52 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.17/14.52 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.17/14.52 % ...remaining for further processing : 126
% 0.17/14.52 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.17/14.52 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.17/14.52 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.17/14.52 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.17/14.52 % Generated clauses : 54
% 0.17/14.52 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 31
% 0.17/14.52 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.17/14.52 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.17/14.52 % Paramodulations : 54
% 0.17/14.52 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.17/14.52 % NegExts : 0
% 0.17/14.52 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.17/14.52 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.17/14.52 % Total rewrite steps : 21
% 0.17/14.52 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.17/14.52 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.17/14.52 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.17/14.52 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.17/14.52 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.17/14.52 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.17/14.52 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.17/14.52 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.17/14.52 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.17/14.52 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.17/14.52 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.17/14.52 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.17/14.52 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.17/14.52 % Current number of processed clauses : 126
% 0.17/14.52 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 102
% 0.17/14.52 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.17/14.52 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.17/14.52 % Non-unit-clauses : 23
% 0.17/14.52 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 6
% 0.17/14.52 % ...number of literals in the above : 14
% 0.17/14.52 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.17/14.52 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.17/14.52 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 99
% 0.17/14.52 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 99
% 0.17/14.52 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.17/14.52 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3
% 0.17/14.52 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.17/14.52 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.17/14.52 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.17/14.52 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.17/14.52 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.17/14.52 % Termbank termtop insertions : 4109591
% 0.17/14.52 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2410646
% 0.17/14.52
% 0.17/14.52 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.17/14.52 % User time : 3.988 s
% 0.17/14.52 % System time : 2.442 s
% 0.17/14.52 % Total time : 6.431 s
% 0.17/14.52 % Maximum resident set size: 1441268 pages
% 0.17/14.52
% 0.17/14.52 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.17/14.52 % User time : 10.440 s
% 0.17/14.52 % System time : 3.113 s
% 0.17/14.52 % Total time : 13.553 s
% 0.17/14.52 % Maximum resident set size: 602368 pages
% 0.17/14.52 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------