%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : ALG396-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n011.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 11:56:02 AM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.33s 0.70s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.33s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 3
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 6 ( 6 unt; 0 nHn; 4 RR)
% Number of literals : 6 ( 5 equ; 3 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 0 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 7 ( 7 usr; 5 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 2 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
c_Polynomial_Opoly(v_pa____,v_x____,tc_Complex_Ocomplex) != c_Polynomial_Opoly(v_q____,c_HOL_Ominus__class_Ominus(v_x____,v_c____,tc_Complex_Ocomplex),tc_Complex_Ocomplex),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_0) ).
cnf(cls_th_0,axiom,
c_Polynomial_Opoly(v_q____,c_HOL_Ominus__class_Ominus(X1,v_c____,tc_Complex_Ocomplex),tc_Complex_Ocomplex) = c_Polynomial_Opoly(v_pa____,X1,tc_Complex_Ocomplex),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_th_0) ).
cnf(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
c_Polynomial_Opoly(v_pa____,v_x____,tc_Complex_Ocomplex) != c_Polynomial_Opoly(v_q____,c_HOL_Ominus__class_Ominus(v_x____,v_c____,tc_Complex_Ocomplex),tc_Complex_Ocomplex),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
c_Polynomial_Opoly(v_pa____,v_x____,tc_Complex_Ocomplex) != c_Polynomial_Opoly(v_q____,c_HOL_Ominus__class_Ominus(v_x____,v_c____,tc_Complex_Ocomplex),tc_Complex_Ocomplex),
c_0_2 ).
cnf(c_0_4,axiom,
c_Polynomial_Opoly(v_q____,c_HOL_Ominus__class_Ominus(X1,v_c____,tc_Complex_Ocomplex),tc_Complex_Ocomplex) = c_Polynomial_Opoly(v_pa____,X1,tc_Complex_Ocomplex),
cls_th_0 ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_3,c_0_4])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : ALG396-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.19/0.46 % Computer : n011.cluster.edu
% 0.19/0.46 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.19/0.46 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.19/0.46 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.19/0.46 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.19/0.46 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.19/0.46 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.19/0.46 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 13:19:11 UTC 2026
% 0.19/0.46 % CPUTime :
% 0.19/0.46 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.23/0.55 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.23/0.55 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
% 0.33/0.70 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.33/0.70 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.33/0.70 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.33/0.70 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.33/0.70 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.33/0.70 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.33/0.70 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.33/0.70 % G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with pid 1997384 completed with status 0
% 0.33/0.70 % Result found by G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S
% 0.33/0.70 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.33/0.70 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.33/0.70 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.33/0.70 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.33/0.70 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.33/0.70 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.33/0.70 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.33/0.70 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.33/0.70 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 151s (1) cores
% 0.33/0.70 % Starting G-E--_107_B42_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 123s (1) cores
% 0.33/0.70 % Starting U----_100_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_ND_S04AN with 123s (1) cores
% 0.33/0.70 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S032N with 123s (1) cores
% 0.33/0.70 % G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S032N with pid 1997395 completed with status 0
% 0.33/0.70 % Result found by G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S032N
% 0.33/0.70 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.33/0.70 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.33/0.70 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.33/0.70 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.33/0.70 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.33/0.70 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.33/0.70 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.33/0.70 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.33/0.70 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 151s (1) cores
% 0.33/0.70 % Starting G-E--_107_B42_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 123s (1) cores
% 0.33/0.70 % Starting U----_100_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_ND_S04AN with 123s (1) cores
% 0.33/0.70 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S032N with 123s (1) cores
% 0.33/0.70 % Preprocessing time : 0.018 s
% 0.33/0.70 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.33/0.70
% 0.33/0.70 % Proof found!
% 0.33/0.70 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.33/0.70 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.33/0.70 % Parsed axioms : 873
% 0.33/0.70 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.33/0.70 % Initial clauses : 873
% 0.33/0.70 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.33/0.70 % Initial clauses in saturation : 873
% 0.33/0.70 % Processed clauses : 59
% 0.33/0.70 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.33/0.70 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.33/0.70 % ...remaining for further processing : 59
% 0.33/0.70 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.33/0.70 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.33/0.70 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.33/0.70 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.33/0.70 % Generated clauses : 0
% 0.33/0.70 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 0
% 0.33/0.70 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.33/0.70 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.33/0.70 % Paramodulations : 0
% 0.33/0.70 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.33/0.70 % NegExts : 0
% 0.33/0.70 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.33/0.70 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.33/0.70 % Total rewrite steps : 1
% 0.33/0.70 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.33/0.70 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.33/0.70 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.33/0.70 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.33/0.70 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.33/0.70 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.33/0.70 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.33/0.70 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.33/0.70 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.33/0.70 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.33/0.70 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.33/0.70 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.33/0.70 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.33/0.70 % Current number of processed clauses : 58
% 0.33/0.70 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 57
% 0.33/0.70 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.33/0.70 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.33/0.70 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.33/0.70 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 814
% 0.33/0.70 % ...number of literals in the above : 2427
% 0.33/0.70 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.33/0.70 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.33/0.70 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.33/0.70 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.33/0.70 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.33/0.70 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.33/0.70 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.33/0.70 % BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.33/0.70 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.33/0.70 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.33/0.70 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.33/0.70 % Termbank termtop insertions : 28482
% 0.33/0.70 % Search garbage collected termcells : 1665
% 0.33/0.70
% 0.33/0.70 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.33/0.70 % User time : 0.035 s
% 0.33/0.70 % System time : 0.012 s
% 0.33/0.70 % Total time : 0.047 s
% 0.33/0.70 % Maximum resident set size: 4972 pages
% 0.33/0.70
% 0.33/0.70 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.33/0.70 % User time : 0.119 s
% 0.33/0.70 % System time : 0.033 s
% 0.33/0.70 % Total time : 0.152 s
% 0.33/0.70 % Maximum resident set size: 5120 pages
% 0.33/0.70 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------