%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : CAT003-4 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/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 12:07:58 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.14s 0.47s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.14s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 14 ( 9 unt; 0 nHn; 11 RR)
% Number of literals : 22 ( 21 equ; 11 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 0 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 4 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 19 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(epimorphism,hypothesis,
( compose(X3,compose(a,b)) != X2
| compose(X1,compose(a,b)) != X2
| X1 = X3 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',epimorphism) ).
cnf(associativity_of_compose,axiom,
compose(X1,compose(X2,X3)) = compose(compose(X1,X2),X3),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/CAT004-0.ax',associativity_of_compose) ).
cnf(ha_equals_ga,hypothesis,
compose(h,a) = compose(g,a),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',ha_equals_ga) ).
cnf(prove_g_equals_h,negated_conjecture,
g != h,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_g_equals_h) ).
cnf(c_0_4,hypothesis,
( compose(X3,compose(a,b)) != X2
| compose(X1,compose(a,b)) != X2
| X1 = X3 ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[epimorphism]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,hypothesis,
( compose(X3,compose(a,b)) != X2
| compose(X1,compose(a,b)) != X2
| X1 = X3 ),
c_0_4 ).
cnf(c_0_6,axiom,
compose(X1,compose(X2,X3)) = compose(compose(X1,X2),X3),
associativity_of_compose ).
cnf(c_0_7,hypothesis,
compose(h,a) = compose(g,a),
ha_equals_ga ).
cnf(c_0_8,hypothesis,
( compose(X1,compose(a,b)) != compose(X2,compose(a,b))
| X1 = X2 ),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,hypothesis,
compose(g,compose(a,X1)) = compose(h,compose(a,X1)),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]),c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
g != h,
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_g_equals_h]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,hypothesis,
( compose(X1,compose(a,b)) != compose(h,compose(a,b))
| X1 = g ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
g != h,
c_0_10 ).
cnf(c_0_13,hypothesis,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_11]),c_0_12]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : CAT003-4 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.36 % Computer : n009.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.36 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.36 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/0.36 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 13:55:29 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/0.36 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.14/0.43 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.14/0.43 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
% 0.14/0.47 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.14/0.47 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.47 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.47 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.47 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.47 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.47 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.47 % new_bool_3 with pid 1926276 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.47 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.14/0.47 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.47 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.47 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.47 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.47 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.14/0.47 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.14/0.47 % Search class: FHUSF-FFSS22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.47 % partial match(1): FHUSM-FFSS22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.47 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.14/0.47 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.47 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1926284 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.47 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.14/0.47 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.47 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.47 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.47 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.47 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.14/0.47 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.14/0.47 % Search class: FHUSF-FFSS22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.47 % partial match(1): FHUSM-FFSS22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.47 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.14/0.47 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.47 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.14/0.47
% 0.14/0.47 % Proof found!
% 0.14/0.47 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.14/0.47 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.14/0.47 % Parsed axioms : 16
% 0.14/0.47 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 10
% 0.14/0.47 % Initial clauses : 6
% 0.14/0.47 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.14/0.47 % Initial clauses in saturation : 6
% 0.14/0.47 % Processed clauses : 9
% 0.14/0.47 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.14/0.47 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.47 % ...remaining for further processing : 9
% 0.14/0.47 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 1
% 0.14/0.47 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.14/0.47 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.47 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.14/0.47 % Generated clauses : 11
% 0.14/0.47 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 6
% 0.14/0.47 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.47 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.14/0.47 % Paramodulations : 8
% 0.14/0.47 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.14/0.47 % NegExts : 0
% 0.14/0.47 % Equation resolutions : 3
% 0.14/0.47 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.14/0.47 % Total rewrite steps : 8
% 0.14/0.47 % ...of those cached : 1
% 0.14/0.47 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.14/0.47 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.14/0.47 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.14/0.47 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.14/0.47 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.14/0.47 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.14/0.47 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.47 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.47 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.47 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.47 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.47 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.47 % Current number of processed clauses : 8
% 0.14/0.47 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 5
% 0.14/0.47 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.14/0.47 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.14/0.47 % Non-unit-clauses : 2
% 0.14/0.47 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 3
% 0.14/0.47 % ...number of literals in the above : 6
% 0.14/0.47 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.14/0.47 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.14/0.47 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1
% 0.14/0.47 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.14/0.47 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.14/0.47 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.14/0.47 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.14/0.47 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.14/0.47 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.14/0.47 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.14/0.47 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.14/0.47 % Termbank termtop insertions : 316
% 0.14/0.47 % Search garbage collected termcells : 43
% 0.14/0.47
% 0.14/0.47 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.47 % User time : 0.003 s
% 0.14/0.47 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.14/0.47 % Total time : 0.005 s
% 0.14/0.47 % Maximum resident set size: 3640 pages
% 0.14/0.47
% 0.14/0.47 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.47 % User time : 0.005 s
% 0.14/0.47 % System time : 0.009 s
% 0.14/0.47 % Total time : 0.014 s
% 0.14/0.47 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.14/0.47 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------