%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : ALG434-1 : 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 11:56:06 AM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.24s 0.95s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.24s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 3
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 11 ( 8 unt; 0 nHn; 8 RR)
% Number of literals : 17 ( 0 equ; 9 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 6 ( 6 usr; 4 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 12 ( 3 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
~ c_Ring__and__Field_Odvd__class_Odvd(v_p,c_Polynomial_Osmult(v_a,v_q,tc_Complex_Ocomplex),tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_0) ).
cnf(cls_dvd__smult_0,axiom,
( ~ c_Ring__and__Field_Odvd__class_Odvd(X2,X4,tc_Polynomial_Opoly(X1))
| ~ class_Ring__and__Field_Ocomm__semiring__1(X1)
| c_Ring__and__Field_Odvd__class_Odvd(X2,c_Polynomial_Osmult(X3,X4,X1),tc_Polynomial_Opoly(X1)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_dvd__smult_0) ).
cnf(clsarity_Complex__Ocomplex__Ring__and__Field_Ocomm__semiring__1,axiom,
class_Ring__and__Field_Ocomm__semiring__1(tc_Complex_Ocomplex),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',clsarity_Complex__Ocomplex__Ring__and__Field_Ocomm__semiring__1) ).
cnf(cls_pq_0,axiom,
c_Ring__and__Field_Odvd__class_Odvd(v_p,v_q,tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_pq_0) ).
cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ c_Ring__and__Field_Odvd__class_Odvd(v_p,c_Polynomial_Osmult(v_a,v_q,tc_Complex_Ocomplex),tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,plain,
( ~ c_Ring__and__Field_Odvd__class_Odvd(X2,X4,tc_Polynomial_Opoly(X1))
| ~ class_Ring__and__Field_Ocomm__semiring__1(X1)
| c_Ring__and__Field_Odvd__class_Odvd(X2,c_Polynomial_Osmult(X3,X4,X1),tc_Polynomial_Opoly(X1)) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_dvd__smult_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
~ c_Ring__and__Field_Odvd__class_Odvd(v_p,c_Polynomial_Osmult(v_a,v_q,tc_Complex_Ocomplex),tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)),
c_0_4 ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ c_Ring__and__Field_Odvd__class_Odvd(X2,X4,tc_Polynomial_Opoly(X1))
| ~ class_Ring__and__Field_Ocomm__semiring__1(X1)
| c_Ring__and__Field_Odvd__class_Odvd(X2,c_Polynomial_Osmult(X3,X4,X1),tc_Polynomial_Opoly(X1)) ),
c_0_5 ).
cnf(c_0_8,axiom,
class_Ring__and__Field_Ocomm__semiring__1(tc_Complex_Ocomplex),
clsarity_Complex__Ocomplex__Ring__and__Field_Ocomm__semiring__1 ).
cnf(c_0_9,axiom,
c_Ring__and__Field_Odvd__class_Odvd(v_p,v_q,tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)),
cls_pq_0 ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]),c_0_8]),c_0_9])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : ALG434-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.20/0.82 % Computer : n002.cluster.edu
% 0.20/0.82 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.20/0.82 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.20/0.82 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.20/0.82 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.20/0.82 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.20/0.82 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.20/0.82 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 13:23:48 UTC 2026
% 0.20/0.82 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.82 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.20/0.88 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.20/0.88 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
% 0.24/0.95 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.24/0.95 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.95 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.95 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.95 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.95 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.95 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.95 % G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with pid 3377173 completed with status 0
% 0.24/0.95 % Result found by G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S
% 0.24/0.95 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.95 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.95 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.95 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.24/0.95 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.24/0.95 % Search class: FGHSF-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.24/0.95 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.24/0.95 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.95 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 151s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.95 % Starting G-E--_300_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.95 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.95 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0U with 136s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.95 % G-E--_300_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_S0Y with pid 3377181 completed with status 0
% 0.24/0.95 % Result found by G-E--_300_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_S0Y
% 0.24/0.95 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.95 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.95 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.95 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.24/0.95 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.24/0.95 % Search class: FGHSF-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.24/0.95 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.24/0.95 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.95 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 151s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.95 % Starting G-E--_300_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.95 % Preprocessing time : 0.009 s
% 0.24/0.95
% 0.24/0.95 % Proof found!
% 0.24/0.95 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.24/0.95 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.24/0.95 % Parsed axioms : 441
% 0.24/0.95 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.24/0.95 % Initial clauses : 441
% 0.24/0.95 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.24/0.95 % Initial clauses in saturation : 441
% 0.24/0.95 % Processed clauses : 105
% 0.24/0.95 % ...of these trivial : 1
% 0.24/0.95 % ...subsumed : 3
% 0.24/0.95 % ...remaining for further processing : 101
% 0.24/0.95 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.24/0.95 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.24/0.95 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.24/0.95 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.24/0.95 % Generated clauses : 17
% 0.24/0.95 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 14
% 0.24/0.95 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.24/0.95 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.24/0.95 % Paramodulations : 17
% 0.24/0.95 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.24/0.95 % NegExts : 0
% 0.24/0.95 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.24/0.95 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.24/0.95 % Total rewrite steps : 3
% 0.24/0.95 % ...of those cached : 1
% 0.24/0.95 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.24/0.95 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.24/0.95 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.24/0.95 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.24/0.95 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.24/0.95 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.24/0.95 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.95 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.95 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.95 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.95 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.95 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.95 % Current number of processed clauses : 101
% 0.24/0.95 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 40
% 0.24/0.95 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.24/0.95 % Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.24/0.95 % Non-unit-clauses : 59
% 0.24/0.95 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 350
% 0.24/0.95 % ...number of literals in the above : 873
% 0.24/0.95 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.24/0.95 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.24/0.95 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 658
% 0.24/0.95 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 582
% 0.24/0.95 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 3
% 0.24/0.95 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 101
% 0.24/0.95 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.24/0.95 % BW rewrite match attempts : 13
% 0.24/0.95 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.24/0.95 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.24/0.95 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.24/0.95 % Termbank termtop insertions : 12505
% 0.24/0.95 % Search garbage collected termcells : 751
% 0.24/0.95
% 0.24/0.95 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/0.95 % User time : 0.024 s
% 0.24/0.95 % System time : 0.009 s
% 0.24/0.95 % Total time : 0.033 s
% 0.24/0.95 % Maximum resident set size: 4464 pages
% 0.24/0.95
% 0.24/0.95 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/0.95 % User time : 0.104 s
% 0.24/0.95 % System time : 0.034 s
% 0.24/0.95 % Total time : 0.137 s
% 0.24/0.95 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.24/0.95 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------