%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : ALG424-1 : 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 : n002.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 11:56:05 AM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.33s 0.69s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.33s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 6
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 17 ( 12 unt; 2 nHn; 17 RR)
% Number of literals : 28 ( 17 equ; 15 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 11 ( 11 usr; 6 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 9 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
~ c_Ring__and__Field_Odvd__class_Odvd(v_pa____,c_Power_Opower__class_Opower(v_qa____,v_na____,tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)),tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_0) ).
cnf(cls_CHAINED_0_01,axiom,
( c_Polynomial_Opoly(X3,X2,X1) != c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(X1)
| c_Polynomial_Oorder(X2,X3,X1) != c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)
| ~ class_Ring__and__Field_Oidom(X1)
| X3 = c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Polynomial_Opoly(X1)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_CHAINED_0_01) ).
cnf(cls_CHAINED_0_03,axiom,
( c_Polynomial_Oorder(v_a____,v_pa____,tc_Complex_Ocomplex) = c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)
| c_Ring__and__Field_Odvd__class_Odvd(v_pa____,c_Power_Opower__class_Opower(v_qa____,v_na____,tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)),tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_CHAINED_0_03) ).
cnf(cls_pne_0,axiom,
v_pa____ != c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_pne_0) ).
cnf(cls_CHAINED_0_02,axiom,
c_Polynomial_Opoly(v_pa____,v_a____,tc_Complex_Ocomplex) = c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Complex_Ocomplex),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_CHAINED_0_02) ).
cnf(clsarity_Complex__Ocomplex__Ring__and__Field_Oidom,axiom,
class_Ring__and__Field_Oidom(tc_Complex_Ocomplex),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',clsarity_Complex__Ocomplex__Ring__and__Field_Oidom) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
~ c_Ring__and__Field_Odvd__class_Odvd(v_pa____,c_Power_Opower__class_Opower(v_qa____,v_na____,tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)),tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( c_Polynomial_Opoly(X3,X2,X1) != c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(X1)
| c_Polynomial_Oorder(X2,X3,X1) != c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)
| ~ class_Ring__and__Field_Oidom(X1)
| X3 = c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Polynomial_Opoly(X1)) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_CHAINED_0_01]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,axiom,
( c_Polynomial_Oorder(v_a____,v_pa____,tc_Complex_Ocomplex) = c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)
| c_Ring__and__Field_Odvd__class_Odvd(v_pa____,c_Power_Opower__class_Opower(v_qa____,v_na____,tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)),tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)) ),
cls_CHAINED_0_03 ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
~ c_Ring__and__Field_Odvd__class_Odvd(v_pa____,c_Power_Opower__class_Opower(v_qa____,v_na____,tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)),tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)),
c_0_6 ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
v_pa____ != c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_pne_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( c_Polynomial_Opoly(X3,X2,X1) != c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(X1)
| c_Polynomial_Oorder(X2,X3,X1) != c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)
| ~ class_Ring__and__Field_Oidom(X1)
| X3 = c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Polynomial_Opoly(X1)) ),
c_0_7 ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
c_Polynomial_Oorder(v_a____,v_pa____,tc_Complex_Ocomplex) = c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,axiom,
c_Polynomial_Opoly(v_pa____,v_a____,tc_Complex_Ocomplex) = c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Complex_Ocomplex),
cls_CHAINED_0_02 ).
cnf(c_0_14,axiom,
class_Ring__and__Field_Oidom(tc_Complex_Ocomplex),
clsarity_Complex__Ocomplex__Ring__and__Field_Oidom ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
v_pa____ != c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)),
c_0_10 ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]),c_0_13]),c_0_14])]),c_0_15]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.04 % Problem : ALG424-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.18/0.43 % Computer : n002.cluster.edu
% 0.18/0.43 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.18/0.43 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.18/0.43 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.18/0.43 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.18/0.43 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.18/0.44 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.18/0.44 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 13:23:32 UTC 2026
% 0.18/0.44 % CPUTime :
% 0.18/0.44 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.27/0.51 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.27/0.51 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
% 0.33/0.68 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.33/0.68 % Preprocessing class: FMLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.33/0.68 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.33/0.68 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S4d with 900s (3) cores
% 0.33/0.68 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.33/0.68 % Starting new_bool_1 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.33/0.68 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.33/0.68 % new_bool_1 with pid 3376764 completed with status 0
% 0.33/0.68 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.33/0.68 % Preprocessing class: FMLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.33/0.68 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.33/0.68 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S4d with 900s (3) cores
% 0.33/0.68 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.33/0.68 % Starting new_bool_1 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.33/0.68 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.33/0.68 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.33/0.68 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.33/0.68 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 2 cores with 600 seconds (600 total)
% 0.33/0.68 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 55s (1) cores
% 0.33/0.68 % Starting new_bool_1 with 61s (1) cores
% 0.33/0.68 % new_bool_1 with pid 3376769 completed with status 0
% 0.33/0.69 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.33/0.69 % Preprocessing class: FMLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.33/0.69 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.33/0.69 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S4d with 900s (3) cores
% 0.33/0.69 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.33/0.69 % Starting new_bool_1 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.33/0.69 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.33/0.69 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.33/0.69 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.33/0.69 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 2 cores with 600 seconds (600 total)
% 0.33/0.69 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 55s (1) cores
% 0.33/0.69 % Starting new_bool_1 with 61s (1) cores
% 0.33/0.69 % Preprocessing time : 0.007 s
% 0.33/0.69 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.33/0.69
% 0.33/0.69 % Proof found!
% 0.33/0.69 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.33/0.69 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.33/0.69 % Parsed axioms : 1033
% 0.33/0.69 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 557
% 0.33/0.69 % Initial clauses : 476
% 0.33/0.69 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.33/0.69 % Initial clauses in saturation : 476
% 0.33/0.69 % Processed clauses : 941
% 0.33/0.69 % ...of these trivial : 23
% 0.33/0.69 % ...subsumed : 250
% 0.33/0.69 % ...remaining for further processing : 668
% 0.33/0.69 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 2
% 0.33/0.69 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.33/0.69 % Backward-subsumed : 4
% 0.33/0.69 % Backward-rewritten : 10
% 0.33/0.69 % Generated clauses : 1357
% 0.33/0.69 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 973
% 0.33/0.69 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.33/0.69 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.33/0.69 % Paramodulations : 1347
% 0.33/0.69 % Factorizations : 4
% 0.33/0.69 % NegExts : 0
% 0.33/0.69 % Equation resolutions : 6
% 0.33/0.69 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.33/0.69 % Total rewrite steps : 886
% 0.33/0.69 % ...of those cached : 773
% 0.33/0.69 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.33/0.69 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.33/0.69 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.33/0.69 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.33/0.69 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.33/0.69 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.33/0.69 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.33/0.69 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.33/0.69 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.33/0.69 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.33/0.69 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.33/0.69 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.33/0.69 % Current number of processed clauses : 249
% 0.33/0.69 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 54
% 0.33/0.69 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.33/0.69 % Negative unit clauses : 5
% 0.33/0.69 % Non-unit-clauses : 189
% 0.33/0.69 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 903
% 0.33/0.69 % ...number of literals in the above : 2792
% 0.33/0.69 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.33/0.69 % Current number of archived clauses : 419
% 0.33/0.69 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 35789
% 0.33/0.69 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 13065
% 0.33/0.69 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 193
% 0.33/0.69 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 20
% 0.33/0.69 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.33/0.69 % BW rewrite match attempts : 89
% 0.33/0.69 % BW rewrite match successes : 43
% 0.33/0.69 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.33/0.69 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.33/0.69 % Termbank termtop insertions : 49450
% 0.33/0.69 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2888
% 0.33/0.69
% 0.33/0.69 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.33/0.69 % User time : 0.095 s
% 0.33/0.69 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.33/0.69 % Total time : 0.099 s
% 0.33/0.69 % Maximum resident set size: 4872 pages
% 0.33/0.69
% 0.33/0.69 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.33/0.69 % User time : 0.212 s
% 0.33/0.69 % System time : 0.023 s
% 0.33/0.69 % Total time : 0.235 s
% 0.33/0.69 % Maximum resident set size: 5632 pages
% 0.33/0.69 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------