%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : BOO005-2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v1.2.1.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/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 12:06:54 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.25s 0.82s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.25s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 6
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 18 ( 18 unt; 0 nHn; 5 RR)
% Number of literals : 18 ( 17 equ; 4 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 0 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 20 ( 2 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(distributivity2,axiom,
add(X1,multiply(X2,X3)) = multiply(add(X1,X2),add(X1,X3)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/BOO003-0.ax',distributivity2) ).
cnf(additive_inverse1,axiom,
add(X1,inverse(X1)) = multiplicative_identity,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/BOO003-0.ax',additive_inverse1) ).
cnf(multiplicative_id1,axiom,
multiply(X1,multiplicative_identity) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/BOO003-0.ax',multiplicative_id1) ).
cnf(prove_a_plus_1_is_a,negated_conjecture,
add(a,multiplicative_identity) != multiplicative_identity,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_a_plus_1_is_a) ).
cnf(multiplicative_id2,axiom,
multiply(multiplicative_identity,X1) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/BOO003-0.ax',multiplicative_id2) ).
cnf(commutativity_of_add,axiom,
add(X1,X2) = add(X2,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/BOO003-0.ax',commutativity_of_add) ).
cnf(c_0_6,axiom,
add(X1,multiply(X2,X3)) = multiply(add(X1,X2),add(X1,X3)),
distributivity2 ).
cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
add(X1,inverse(X1)) = multiplicative_identity,
additive_inverse1 ).
cnf(c_0_8,axiom,
multiply(X1,multiplicative_identity) = X1,
multiplicative_id1 ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
add(a,multiplicative_identity) != multiplicative_identity,
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_a_plus_1_is_a]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
add(X1,multiply(X2,inverse(X1))) = add(X1,X2),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]),c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,axiom,
multiply(multiplicative_identity,X1) = X1,
multiplicative_id2 ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
add(a,multiplicative_identity) != multiplicative_identity,
c_0_9 ).
cnf(c_0_13,axiom,
add(X1,X2) = add(X2,X1),
commutativity_of_add ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
add(X1,multiplicative_identity) = multiplicative_identity,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]),c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
add(multiplicative_identity,a) != multiplicative_identity,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
add(multiplicative_identity,X1) = multiplicative_identity,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : BOO005-2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v1.2.1.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.06/0.70 % Computer : n004.cluster.edu
% 0.06/0.70 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.06/0.70 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.06/0.70 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.06/0.70 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.06/0.70 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.06/0.70 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.06/0.70 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 13:46:40 UTC 2026
% 0.06/0.70 % CPUTime :
% 0.06/0.70 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.06/0.77 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.06/0.77 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
% 0.25/0.82 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.25/0.82 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.82 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.82 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.82 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.82 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.82 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.82 % new_bool_3 with pid 3288835 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.82 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.25/0.82 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.82 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.82 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.82 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.82 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.25/0.82 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.25/0.82 % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.82 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.82 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.82 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3288841 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.82 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.25/0.82 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.82 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.82 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.82 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.82 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.25/0.82 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.25/0.82 % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.82 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.82 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.82 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.25/0.82
% 0.25/0.82 % Proof found!
% 0.25/0.82 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.25/0.82 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.25/0.82 % Parsed axioms : 15
% 0.25/0.82 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.25/0.82 % Initial clauses : 15
% 0.25/0.82 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.25/0.82 % Initial clauses in saturation : 15
% 0.25/0.82 % Processed clauses : 19
% 0.25/0.82 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.25/0.82 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.82 % ...remaining for further processing : 19
% 0.25/0.82 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.25/0.82 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.25/0.82 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.82 % Backward-rewritten : 4
% 0.25/0.82 % Generated clauses : 54
% 0.25/0.82 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 24
% 0.25/0.82 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.82 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.25/0.82 % Paramodulations : 54
% 0.25/0.82 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.25/0.82 % NegExts : 0
% 0.25/0.82 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.25/0.82 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.25/0.82 % Total rewrite steps : 48
% 0.25/0.82 % ...of those cached : 20
% 0.25/0.82 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.25/0.82 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.25/0.82 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.25/0.82 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.82 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.25/0.82 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.25/0.82 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.82 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.82 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.82 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.82 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.82 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.82 % Current number of processed clauses : 15
% 0.25/0.82 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 13
% 0.25/0.82 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 2
% 0.25/0.82 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.82 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.82 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 20
% 0.25/0.82 % ...number of literals in the above : 20
% 0.25/0.82 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.25/0.82 % Current number of archived clauses : 4
% 0.25/0.82 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.25/0.82 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.25/0.82 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.25/0.82 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.25/0.82 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.25/0.82 % BW rewrite match attempts : 29
% 0.25/0.82 % BW rewrite match successes : 19
% 0.25/0.82 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.25/0.82 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.25/0.82 % Termbank termtop insertions : 494
% 0.25/0.82 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2
% 0.25/0.82
% 0.25/0.82 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.82 % User time : 0.006 s
% 0.25/0.82 % System time : 0.001 s
% 0.25/0.82 % Total time : 0.007 s
% 0.25/0.82 % Maximum resident set size: 3640 pages
% 0.25/0.82
% 0.25/0.82 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.82 % User time : 0.009 s
% 0.25/0.82 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.25/0.82 % Total time : 0.015 s
% 0.25/0.82 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.25/0.82 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------