%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : ALG417-1 : 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 : n004.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 11:56:04 AM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.24s 0.60s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.24s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 3
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 13 ( 10 unt; 0 nHn; 13 RR)
% Number of literals : 16 ( 10 equ; 6 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 6 ( 6 usr; 3 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 3 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_pCons__0__0_0,axiom,
( ~ class_HOL_Ozero(X1)
| c_Polynomial_OpCons(c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(X1),c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Polynomial_Opoly(X1)),X1) = c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Polynomial_Opoly(X1)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_pCons__0__0_0) ).
cnf(cls_sne_0,axiom,
v_s____ != c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_sne_0) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
v_k____ = c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Complex_Ocomplex),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_0) ).
cnf(cls_kpn_0,axiom,
v_s____ = c_Polynomial_OpCons(v_k____,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)),tc_Complex_Ocomplex),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_kpn_0) ).
cnf(clsarity_Complex__Ocomplex__HOL_Ozero,axiom,
class_HOL_Ozero(tc_Complex_Ocomplex),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',clsarity_Complex__Ocomplex__HOL_Ozero) ).
cnf(c_0_5,plain,
( ~ class_HOL_Ozero(X1)
| c_Polynomial_OpCons(c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(X1),c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Polynomial_Opoly(X1)),X1) = c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Polynomial_Opoly(X1)) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_pCons__0__0_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
v_s____ != c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_sne_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ class_HOL_Ozero(X1)
| c_Polynomial_OpCons(c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(X1),c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Polynomial_Opoly(X1)),X1) = c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Polynomial_Opoly(X1)) ),
c_0_5 ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
v_k____ = c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Complex_Ocomplex),
cls_conjecture_0 ).
cnf(c_0_9,axiom,
v_s____ = c_Polynomial_OpCons(v_k____,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)),tc_Complex_Ocomplex),
cls_kpn_0 ).
cnf(c_0_10,axiom,
class_HOL_Ozero(tc_Complex_Ocomplex),
clsarity_Complex__Ocomplex__HOL_Ozero ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
v_s____ != c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)),
c_0_6 ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]),c_0_9]),c_0_10])]),c_0_11]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : ALG417-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.20/0.46 % Computer : n004.cluster.edu
% 0.20/0.46 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.20/0.46 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.20/0.46 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.20/0.46 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.20/0.46 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.20/0.46 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.20/0.46 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 13:19:50 UTC 2026
% 0.20/0.47 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.47 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.24/0.53 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.24/0.53 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
% 0.24/0.60 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.24/0.60 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.60 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % new_bool_3 with pid 3223994 completed with status 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.24/0.60 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.60 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.24/0.60 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.24/0.60 % Search class: FGUSF-FFLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.24/0.60 % partial match(1): FGUSF-FFMM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.24/0.60 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3223997 completed with status 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.24/0.60 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.60 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.24/0.60 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.24/0.60 % Search class: FGUSF-FFLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.24/0.60 % partial match(1): FGUSF-FFMM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.24/0.60 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.24/0.60
% 0.24/0.60 % Proof found!
% 0.24/0.60 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.24/0.60 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.24/0.60 % Parsed axioms : 539
% 0.24/0.60 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 392
% 0.24/0.60 % Initial clauses : 147
% 0.24/0.60 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Initial clauses in saturation : 147
% 0.24/0.60 % Processed clauses : 143
% 0.24/0.60 % ...of these trivial : 22
% 0.24/0.60 % ...subsumed : 31
% 0.24/0.60 % ...remaining for further processing : 90
% 0.24/0.60 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 2
% 0.24/0.60 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.24/0.60 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Generated clauses : 335
% 0.24/0.60 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 225
% 0.24/0.60 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Paramodulations : 330
% 0.24/0.60 % Factorizations : 3
% 0.24/0.60 % NegExts : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Equation resolutions : 2
% 0.24/0.60 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Total rewrite steps : 287
% 0.24/0.60 % ...of those cached : 247
% 0.24/0.60 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.60 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.60 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.60 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.60 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.60 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.60 % Current number of processed clauses : 89
% 0.24/0.60 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 37
% 0.24/0.60 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 4
% 0.24/0.60 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.24/0.60 % Non-unit-clauses : 47
% 0.24/0.60 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 226
% 0.24/0.60 % ...number of literals in the above : 622
% 0.24/0.60 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.24/0.60 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 98
% 0.24/0.60 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 98
% 0.24/0.60 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 31
% 0.24/0.60 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% 0.24/0.60 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % BW rewrite match attempts : 116
% 0.24/0.60 % BW rewrite match successes : 12
% 0.24/0.60 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Termbank termtop insertions : 10174
% 0.24/0.60 % Search garbage collected termcells : 1451
% 0.24/0.60
% 0.24/0.60 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/0.60 % User time : 0.010 s
% 0.24/0.60 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.24/0.60 % Total time : 0.015 s
% 0.24/0.60 % Maximum resident set size: 4260 pages
% 0.24/0.60
% 0.24/0.60 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/0.60 % User time : 0.022 s
% 0.24/0.60 % System time : 0.009 s
% 0.24/0.60 % Total time : 0.031 s
% 0.24/0.60 % Maximum resident set size: 5120 pages
% 0.24/0.60 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------