%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : ALG428-1 : 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 : n009.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 0.35s 0.64s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.35s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 17 ( 9 unt; 2 nHn; 15 RR)
% Number of literals : 25 ( 12 equ; 14 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 5 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 2 usr; 2 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 7 ( 7 usr; 3 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 9 ( 4 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_conjecture_1,negated_conjecture,
( c_Polynomial_Odegree(v_p,tc_Complex_Ocomplex) != c_Suc(X1)
| v_thesis____ ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_1) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
~ v_thesis____,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_0) ).
cnf(cls_Suc__pred_0,axiom,
( ~ c_HOL_Oord__class_Oless(c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat),X1,tc_nat)
| c_Suc(c_HOL_Ominus__class_Ominus(X1,c_Suc(c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),tc_nat)) = X1 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_Suc__pred_0) ).
cnf(cls_dp_0,axiom,
c_Polynomial_Odegree(v_p,tc_Complex_Ocomplex) != c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_dp_0) ).
cnf(cls_gr0I_0,axiom,
( X1 = c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)
| c_HOL_Oord__class_Oless(c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat),X1,tc_nat) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_gr0I_0) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
( c_Polynomial_Odegree(v_p,tc_Complex_Ocomplex) != c_Suc(X1)
| v_thesis____ ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_1]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
~ v_thesis____,
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
( c_Polynomial_Odegree(v_p,tc_Complex_Ocomplex) != c_Suc(X1)
| v_thesis____ ),
c_0_5 ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
~ v_thesis____,
c_0_6 ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ c_HOL_Oord__class_Oless(c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat),X1,tc_nat)
| c_Suc(c_HOL_Ominus__class_Ominus(X1,c_Suc(c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),tc_nat)) = X1 ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_Suc__pred_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
c_Polynomial_Odegree(v_p,tc_Complex_Ocomplex) != c_Suc(X1),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( ~ c_HOL_Oord__class_Oless(c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat),X1,tc_nat)
| c_Suc(c_HOL_Ominus__class_Ominus(X1,c_Suc(c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),tc_nat)) = X1 ),
c_0_9 ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
c_Polynomial_Odegree(v_p,tc_Complex_Ocomplex) != c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_dp_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
~ c_HOL_Oord__class_Oless(c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat),c_Polynomial_Odegree(v_p,tc_Complex_Ocomplex),tc_nat),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11])]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,axiom,
( X1 = c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)
| c_HOL_Oord__class_Oless(c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat),X1,tc_nat) ),
cls_gr0I_0 ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
c_Polynomial_Odegree(v_p,tc_Complex_Ocomplex) != c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat),
c_0_12 ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]),c_0_15]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : ALG428-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.18/0.44 % Computer : n009.cluster.edu
% 0.18/0.44 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.18/0.44 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.18/0.44 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.18/0.44 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.18/0.44 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.18/0.44 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.18/0.44 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 13:20:42 UTC 2026
% 0.18/0.44 % CPUTime :
% 0.18/0.44 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.26/0.51 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.26/0.51 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
% 0.35/0.64 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.35/0.64 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.35/0.64 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.35/0.64 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.35/0.64 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.35/0.64 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.35/0.64 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.35/0.64 % new_bool_3 with pid 1849586 completed with status 0
% 0.35/0.64 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.35/0.64 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.35/0.64 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.35/0.64 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.35/0.64 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.35/0.64 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.35/0.64 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.35/0.64 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.35/0.64 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.35/0.64 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.35/0.64 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1849589 completed with status 0
% 0.35/0.64 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.35/0.64 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.35/0.64 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.35/0.64 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.35/0.64 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.35/0.64 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.35/0.64 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.35/0.64 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.35/0.64 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.35/0.64 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.35/0.64 % Preprocessing time : 0.004 s
% 0.35/0.64
% 0.35/0.64 % Proof found!
% 0.35/0.64 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.35/0.64 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.35/0.64 % Parsed axioms : 891
% 0.35/0.64 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 537
% 0.35/0.64 % Initial clauses : 354
% 0.35/0.64 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.35/0.64 % Initial clauses in saturation : 354
% 0.35/0.64 % Processed clauses : 1148
% 0.35/0.64 % ...of these trivial : 103
% 0.35/0.64 % ...subsumed : 755
% 0.35/0.64 % ...remaining for further processing : 290
% 0.35/0.64 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 108
% 0.35/0.64 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.35/0.64 % Backward-subsumed : 2
% 0.35/0.64 % Backward-rewritten : 26
% 0.35/0.64 % Generated clauses : 3358
% 0.35/0.64 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 2488
% 0.35/0.64 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.35/0.64 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.35/0.64 % Paramodulations : 3233
% 0.35/0.64 % Factorizations : 8
% 0.35/0.64 % NegExts : 0
% 0.35/0.64 % Equation resolutions : 117
% 0.35/0.64 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.35/0.64 % Total rewrite steps : 1490
% 0.35/0.64 % ...of those cached : 1264
% 0.35/0.64 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.35/0.64 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.35/0.64 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.35/0.64 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.35/0.64 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.35/0.64 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.35/0.64 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.35/0.64 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.35/0.64 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.35/0.64 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.35/0.64 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.35/0.64 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.35/0.64 % Current number of processed clauses : 262
% 0.35/0.64 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 81
% 0.35/0.64 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 6
% 0.35/0.64 % Negative unit clauses : 56
% 0.35/0.64 % Non-unit-clauses : 119
% 0.35/0.64 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 1675
% 0.35/0.64 % ...number of literals in the above : 3318
% 0.35/0.64 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.35/0.64 % Current number of archived clauses : 28
% 0.35/0.64 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1555
% 0.35/0.64 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1474
% 0.35/0.64 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 124
% 0.35/0.64 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 800
% 0.35/0.64 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.35/0.64 % BW rewrite match attempts : 200
% 0.35/0.64 % BW rewrite match successes : 38
% 0.35/0.64 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.35/0.64 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.35/0.64 % Termbank termtop insertions : 44743
% 0.35/0.64 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2202
% 0.35/0.64
% 0.35/0.64 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.35/0.64 % User time : 0.047 s
% 0.35/0.64 % System time : 0.010 s
% 0.35/0.64 % Total time : 0.057 s
% 0.35/0.64 % Maximum resident set size: 4408 pages
% 0.35/0.64
% 0.35/0.64 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.35/0.64 % User time : 0.084 s
% 0.35/0.64 % System time : 0.017 s
% 0.35/0.64 % Total time : 0.101 s
% 0.35/0.64 % Maximum resident set size: 5376 pages
% 0.35/0.64 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------