%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : ALG236-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 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 11:55:43 AM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.53s 0.49s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.53s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 15 ( 15 unt; 0 nHn; 5 RR)
% Number of literals : 15 ( 14 equ; 4 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 6 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 0 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 6 ( 6 usr; 5 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 36 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(c02,axiom,
mult(X1,mult(X2,mult(X3,X4))) = mult(X3,mult(X2,mult(X1,X4))),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',c02) ).
cnf(goals,negated_conjecture,
mult(mult(a,b),mult(c,mult(d,e))) != mult(a,mult(c,mult(mult(d,b),e))),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',goals) ).
cnf(c_0_2,plain,
mult(X1,mult(X2,mult(mult(mult(X1,X3),X4),X2))) = mult(mult(mult(X1,X3),X4),X2) ).
cnf(c_0_3,plain,
mult(X1,mult(X2,mult(mult(X1,X3),X2))) = mult(mult(X1,X3),X2) ).
cnf(c_0_4,plain,
mult(X1,mult(X2,mult(X1,mult(mult(X2,X3),X4)))) = mult(X1,mult(mult(X2,X3),X4)) ).
cnf(c_0_5,axiom,
mult(X1,mult(X2,mult(X3,X4))) = mult(X3,mult(X2,mult(X1,X4))),
c02 ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
mult(mult(a,b),mult(c,mult(d,e))) != mult(a,mult(c,mult(mult(d,b),e))),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[goals]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
mult(mult(mult(X1,X2),X3),X2) = mult(mult(X1,X3),X2),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]),c_0_2]),c_0_5]),c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
mult(X1,mult(X2,mult(mult(X1,X2),X2))) = mult(X1,X2),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
mult(mult(a,b),mult(c,mult(d,e))) != mult(a,mult(c,mult(mult(d,b),e))),
c_0_6 ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
mult(mult(X1,X2),mult(X3,mult(X4,X5))) = mult(X1,mult(X3,mult(mult(X4,X2),X5))),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]),c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
mult(mult(X1,X2),X2) = mult(X1,X2),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
mult(d,mult(c,mult(mult(a,b),e))) != mult(a,mult(c,mult(mult(d,b),e))),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
mult(X1,mult(X2,mult(mult(X3,X4),X5))) = mult(X3,mult(X2,mult(mult(X1,X4),X5))),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]),c_0_10]),c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : ALG236-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.36 % Computer : n008.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.36 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/0.36 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.09/0.36 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 13:10:08 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.09/0.36 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.41 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.09/0.41 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
% 0.53/0.49 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.53/0.49 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.53/0.49 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.53/0.49 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.53/0.49 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.53/0.49 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.53/0.49 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.53/0.49 % G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with pid 1056333 completed with status 0
% 0.53/0.49 % Result found by G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN
% 0.53/0.49 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.53/0.49 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.53/0.49 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.53/0.49 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.53/0.49 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.53/0.49 % Search class: FUUPS-FFSF22-MFFFFFNN
% 0.53/0.49 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.53/0.49 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.53/0.49 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.53/0.49 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y_ni with 136s (1) cores
% 0.53/0.49 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.53/0.49 % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.53/0.49 % G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y_ni with pid 1056342 completed with status 0
% 0.53/0.49 % Result found by G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y_ni
% 0.53/0.49 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.53/0.49 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.53/0.49 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.53/0.49 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.53/0.49 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.53/0.49 % Search class: FUUPS-FFSF22-MFFFFFNN
% 0.53/0.49 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.53/0.49 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.53/0.49 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.53/0.49 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y_ni with 136s (1) cores
% 0.53/0.49 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.53/0.49 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.53/0.49
% 0.53/0.49 % Proof found!
% 0.53/0.49 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.53/0.49 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.53/0.49 % Parsed axioms : 4
% 0.53/0.49 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.53/0.49 % Initial clauses : 4
% 0.53/0.49 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.53/0.49 % Initial clauses in saturation : 4
% 0.53/0.49 % Processed clauses : 231
% 0.53/0.49 % ...of these trivial : 121
% 0.53/0.49 % ...subsumed : 63
% 0.53/0.49 % ...remaining for further processing : 47
% 0.53/0.49 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.53/0.49 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.53/0.49 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.53/0.49 % Backward-rewritten : 10
% 0.53/0.49 % Generated clauses : 6363
% 0.53/0.49 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 4609
% 0.53/0.49 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.53/0.49 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.53/0.49 % Paramodulations : 6363
% 0.53/0.49 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.53/0.49 % NegExts : 0
% 0.53/0.49 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.53/0.49 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.53/0.49 % Total rewrite steps : 7759
% 0.53/0.49 % ...of those cached : 4143
% 0.53/0.49 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.53/0.49 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.53/0.49 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.53/0.49 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.53/0.49 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.53/0.49 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.53/0.49 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.53/0.49 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.53/0.49 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.53/0.49 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.53/0.49 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.53/0.49 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.53/0.49 % Current number of processed clauses : 33
% 0.53/0.49 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 26
% 0.53/0.49 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 7
% 0.53/0.49 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.53/0.49 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.53/0.49 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 4386
% 0.53/0.49 % ...number of literals in the above : 4386
% 0.53/0.49 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.53/0.49 % Current number of archived clauses : 14
% 0.53/0.49 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.53/0.49 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.53/0.49 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.53/0.49 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 102
% 0.53/0.49 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.53/0.49 % BW rewrite match attempts : 4256
% 0.53/0.49 % BW rewrite match successes : 128
% 0.53/0.49 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.53/0.49 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.53/0.49 % Termbank termtop insertions : 98583
% 0.53/0.49 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2
% 0.53/0.49
% 0.53/0.49 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.53/0.49 % User time : 0.050 s
% 0.53/0.49 % System time : 0.008 s
% 0.53/0.49 % Total time : 0.057 s
% 0.53/0.49 % Maximum resident set size: 3356 pages
% 0.53/0.49
% 0.53/0.49 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.53/0.49 % User time : 0.231 s
% 0.53/0.49 % System time : 0.034 s
% 0.53/0.49 % Total time : 0.265 s
% 0.53/0.49 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.53/0.49 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------