%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : ALG348-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n026.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 11:55:56 AM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.20s 0.51s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.20s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 3
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 9 ( 6 unt; 0 nHn; 6 RR)
% Number of literals : 12 ( 6 equ; 6 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 7 ( 7 usr; 4 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 12 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
c_Polynomial_Opoly(c_Fundamental__Theorem__Algebra__Mirabelle_Ooffset__poly(v_p,v_a,tc_Complex_Ocomplex),v_x,tc_Complex_Ocomplex) != c_Polynomial_Opoly(v_p,c_HOL_Oplus__class_Oplus(v_a,v_x,tc_Complex_Ocomplex),tc_Complex_Ocomplex),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_0) ).
cnf(cls_poly__offset__poly_0,axiom,
( ~ class_Ring__and__Field_Ocomm__semiring__0(X1)
| c_Polynomial_Opoly(c_Fundamental__Theorem__Algebra__Mirabelle_Ooffset__poly(X2,X3,X1),X4,X1) = c_Polynomial_Opoly(X2,c_HOL_Oplus__class_Oplus(X3,X4,X1),X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_poly__offset__poly_0) ).
cnf(clsarity_Complex__Ocomplex__Ring__and__Field_Ocomm__semiring__0,axiom,
class_Ring__and__Field_Ocomm__semiring__0(tc_Complex_Ocomplex),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',clsarity_Complex__Ocomplex__Ring__and__Field_Ocomm__semiring__0) ).
cnf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
c_Polynomial_Opoly(c_Fundamental__Theorem__Algebra__Mirabelle_Ooffset__poly(v_p,v_a,tc_Complex_Ocomplex),v_x,tc_Complex_Ocomplex) != c_Polynomial_Opoly(v_p,c_HOL_Oplus__class_Oplus(v_a,v_x,tc_Complex_Ocomplex),tc_Complex_Ocomplex),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_4,plain,
( ~ class_Ring__and__Field_Ocomm__semiring__0(X1)
| c_Polynomial_Opoly(c_Fundamental__Theorem__Algebra__Mirabelle_Ooffset__poly(X2,X3,X1),X4,X1) = c_Polynomial_Opoly(X2,c_HOL_Oplus__class_Oplus(X3,X4,X1),X1) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_poly__offset__poly_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
c_Polynomial_Opoly(c_Fundamental__Theorem__Algebra__Mirabelle_Ooffset__poly(v_p,v_a,tc_Complex_Ocomplex),v_x,tc_Complex_Ocomplex) != c_Polynomial_Opoly(v_p,c_HOL_Oplus__class_Oplus(v_a,v_x,tc_Complex_Ocomplex),tc_Complex_Ocomplex),
c_0_3 ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ class_Ring__and__Field_Ocomm__semiring__0(X1)
| c_Polynomial_Opoly(c_Fundamental__Theorem__Algebra__Mirabelle_Ooffset__poly(X2,X3,X1),X4,X1) = c_Polynomial_Opoly(X2,c_HOL_Oplus__class_Oplus(X3,X4,X1),X1) ),
c_0_4 ).
cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
class_Ring__and__Field_Ocomm__semiring__0(tc_Complex_Ocomplex),
clsarity_Complex__Ocomplex__Ring__and__Field_Ocomm__semiring__0 ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]),c_0_7])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : ALG348-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.38 % Computer : n026.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.38 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.38 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.38 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.38 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.38 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.38 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/0.38 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 13:19:36 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.38 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/0.38 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.42 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.11/0.43 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
% 0.20/0.51 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.20/0.51 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.20/0.51 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.20/0.51 % Starting G-E--_208_B07_F1_S5PRR_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with 900s (3) cores
% 0.20/0.51 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.20/0.51 % Starting new_bool_1 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.20/0.51 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.20/0.51 % new_bool_3 with pid 2364167 completed with status 0
% 0.20/0.51 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.20/0.51 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.20/0.51 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.20/0.51 % Starting G-E--_208_B07_F1_S5PRR_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with 900s (3) cores
% 0.20/0.51 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.20/0.51 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.20/0.51 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.20/0.51 % Search class: FGHSF-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.20/0.51 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 2 cores with 600 seconds (600 total)
% 0.20/0.51 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 55s (1) cores
% 0.20/0.51 % Starting new_bool_3 with 61s (1) cores
% 0.20/0.51 % new_bool_3 with pid 2364173 completed with status 0
% 0.20/0.51 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.20/0.51 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.20/0.51 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.20/0.51 % Starting G-E--_208_B07_F1_S5PRR_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with 900s (3) cores
% 0.20/0.51 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.20/0.51 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.20/0.51 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.20/0.51 % Search class: FGHSF-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.20/0.51 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 2 cores with 600 seconds (600 total)
% 0.20/0.51 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 55s (1) cores
% 0.20/0.51 % Starting new_bool_3 with 61s (1) cores
% 0.20/0.51 % Preprocessing time : 0.004 s
% 0.20/0.51 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.20/0.51
% 0.20/0.51 % Proof found!
% 0.20/0.51 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.20/0.51 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.20/0.51 % Parsed axioms : 980
% 0.20/0.51 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 609
% 0.20/0.51 % Initial clauses : 371
% 0.20/0.51 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.20/0.51 % Initial clauses in saturation : 371
% 0.20/0.51 % Processed clauses : 666
% 0.20/0.51 % ...of these trivial : 22
% 0.20/0.51 % ...subsumed : 153
% 0.20/0.51 % ...remaining for further processing : 491
% 0.20/0.51 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 64
% 0.20/0.51 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.20/0.51 % Backward-subsumed : 3
% 0.20/0.51 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.20/0.51 % Generated clauses : 976
% 0.20/0.51 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 650
% 0.20/0.51 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.20/0.51 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.20/0.51 % Paramodulations : 906
% 0.20/0.51 % Factorizations : 2
% 0.20/0.51 % NegExts : 0
% 0.20/0.51 % Equation resolutions : 68
% 0.20/0.51 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.20/0.51 % Total rewrite steps : 693
% 0.20/0.51 % ...of those cached : 627
% 0.20/0.51 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.20/0.51 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.20/0.51 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.20/0.51 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.20/0.51 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.20/0.51 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.20/0.51 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.20/0.51 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.20/0.51 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.20/0.51 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.20/0.51 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.20/0.51 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.20/0.51 % Current number of processed clauses : 169
% 0.20/0.51 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 59
% 0.20/0.51 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.20/0.51 % Negative unit clauses : 3
% 0.20/0.51 % Non-unit-clauses : 106
% 0.20/0.51 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 674
% 0.20/0.51 % ...number of literals in the above : 1881
% 0.20/0.51 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.20/0.51 % Current number of archived clauses : 322
% 0.20/0.51 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 27240
% 0.20/0.51 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 8018
% 0.20/0.51 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 145
% 0.20/0.51 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 67
% 0.20/0.51 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.20/0.51 % BW rewrite match attempts : 74
% 0.20/0.51 % BW rewrite match successes : 6
% 0.20/0.51 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.20/0.51 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.20/0.51 % Termbank termtop insertions : 33509
% 0.20/0.51 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2612
% 0.20/0.51
% 0.20/0.51 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.51 % User time : 0.038 s
% 0.20/0.51 % System time : 0.007 s
% 0.20/0.51 % Total time : 0.045 s
% 0.20/0.51 % Maximum resident set size: 4800 pages
% 0.20/0.51
% 0.20/0.51 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.51 % User time : 0.089 s
% 0.20/0.51 % System time : 0.018 s
% 0.20/0.51 % Total time : 0.107 s
% 0.20/0.51 % Maximum resident set size: 5376 pages
% 0.20/0.51 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------