%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : Twee---2.7
% Problem : CAT001-4 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_twee /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% Computer : n003.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 : Tue Sep 29 09:36:20 AM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.26s 0.38s
% Output : Proof 0.26s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : CAT001-4 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_twee /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.13/0.26 % Computer : n003.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.26 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.26 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.26 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.13/0.26 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.13/0.26 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.26 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.13/0.26 % DateTime : Mon Sep 28 21:13:12 UTC 2026
% 0.13/0.27 % CPUTime :
% 0.13/0.27 Running run_twee /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.26/0.38 Command-line arguments: --no-flatten-goal
% 0.26/0.38
% 0.26/0.38 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.26/0.38
% 0.26/0.38 % SZS output start Proof
% 0.26/0.38 Axiom 1 (bh_equals_bg): compose(b, h) = compose(b, g).
% 0.26/0.38 Axiom 2 (ifeq_axiom): ifeq4(X, X, Y, Z) = Y.
% 0.26/0.38 Axiom 3 (associativity_of_compose): compose(X, compose(Y, Z)) = compose(compose(X, Y), Z).
% 0.26/0.38 Axiom 4 (monomorphism): ifeq4(compose(compose(a, b), X), Y, ifeq4(compose(compose(a, b), Z), Y, Z, X), X) = X.
% 0.26/0.38
% 0.26/0.38 Goal 1 (prove_h_equals_g): h = g.
% 0.26/0.38 Proof:
% 0.26/0.38 h
% 0.26/0.38 = { by axiom 2 (ifeq_axiom) R->L }
% 0.26/0.38 ifeq4(compose(a, compose(b, g)), compose(a, compose(b, g)), h, g)
% 0.26/0.38 = { by axiom 1 (bh_equals_bg) R->L }
% 0.26/0.38 ifeq4(compose(a, compose(b, h)), compose(a, compose(b, g)), h, g)
% 0.26/0.38 = { by axiom 2 (ifeq_axiom) R->L }
% 0.26/0.38 ifeq4(compose(a, compose(b, g)), compose(a, compose(b, g)), ifeq4(compose(a, compose(b, h)), compose(a, compose(b, g)), h, g), g)
% 0.26/0.38 = { by axiom 3 (associativity_of_compose) }
% 0.26/0.38 ifeq4(compose(a, compose(b, g)), compose(a, compose(b, g)), ifeq4(compose(compose(a, b), h), compose(a, compose(b, g)), h, g), g)
% 0.26/0.38 = { by axiom 3 (associativity_of_compose) }
% 0.26/0.38 ifeq4(compose(compose(a, b), g), compose(a, compose(b, g)), ifeq4(compose(compose(a, b), h), compose(a, compose(b, g)), h, g), g)
% 0.26/0.38 = { by axiom 4 (monomorphism) }
% 0.26/0.38 g
% 0.26/0.38 % SZS output end Proof
% 0.26/0.38
% 0.26/0.38 RESULT: Unsatisfiable (the axioms are contradictory).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------