%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : CAT004-4 : 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 : n010.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 0.25s 0.63s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.25s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 9
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 21 ( 9 unt; 0 nHn; 19 RR)
% Number of literals : 39 ( 38 equ; 21 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 : 35 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cancellation_for_product2,hypothesis,
( compose(X3,b) != X2
| compose(X1,b) != X2
| X1 = X3 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cancellation_for_product2) ).
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(h_ab_equals_g_ab,hypothesis,
compose(h,compose(a,b)) = compose(g,compose(a,b)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',h_ab_equals_g_ab) ).
cnf(cancellation_for_product1,hypothesis,
( compose(X3,a) != X2
| compose(X1,a) != X2
| X1 = X3 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cancellation_for_product1) ).
cnf(prove_h_equals_g,negated_conjecture,
h != g,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_h_equals_g) ).
cnf(c_0_5,hypothesis,
( compose(X3,b) != X2
| compose(X1,b) != X2
| X1 = X3 ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cancellation_for_product2]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,hypothesis,
( compose(X3,b) != X2
| compose(X1,b) != X2
| X1 = X3 ),
c_0_5 ).
cnf(c_0_7,hypothesis,
( compose(X1,b) != compose(X2,b)
| X1 = X2 ),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,axiom,
compose(X1,compose(X2,X3)) = compose(compose(X1,X2),X3),
associativity_of_compose ).
cnf(c_0_9,hypothesis,
( compose(X1,b) != compose(X2,compose(X3,b))
| X1 = compose(X2,X3) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,hypothesis,
compose(h,compose(a,b)) = compose(g,compose(a,b)),
h_ab_equals_g_ab ).
cnf(c_0_11,hypothesis,
( compose(X3,a) != X2
| compose(X1,a) != X2
| X1 = X3 ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cancellation_for_product1]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,hypothesis,
( compose(X1,b) != compose(h,compose(a,b))
| X1 = compose(g,a) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,hypothesis,
( compose(X3,a) != X2
| compose(X1,a) != X2
| X1 = X3 ),
c_0_11 ).
cnf(c_0_14,hypothesis,
( compose(X1,compose(X2,b)) != compose(h,compose(a,b))
| compose(X1,X2) = compose(g,a) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,hypothesis,
( compose(X1,a) != compose(X2,a)
| X1 = X2 ),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,hypothesis,
compose(g,a) = compose(h,a),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
h != g,
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_h_equals_g]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,hypothesis,
( compose(h,a) != compose(X1,a)
| g = X1 ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
h != g,
c_0_17 ).
cnf(c_0_20,hypothesis,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_18]),c_0_19]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : CAT004-4 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.21/0.47 % Computer : n010.cluster.edu
% 0.21/0.47 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.21/0.47 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.21/0.47 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.21/0.47 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.21/0.47 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.21/0.47 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.21/0.47 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 13:55:56 UTC 2026
% 0.21/0.47 % CPUTime :
% 0.21/0.47 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.25/0.55 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.25/0.55 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
% 0.25/0.63 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.25/0.63 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.63 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.63 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.63 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.63 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.63 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.63 % new_bool_1 with pid 1032610 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.63 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.25/0.63 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.63 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.63 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.63 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.63 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.63 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.25/0.63 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.25/0.63 % Search class: FHUSF-FFSS22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.63 % partial match(1): FHUSM-FFSS22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.63 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.63 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.63 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1032614 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.63 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.25/0.63 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.63 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.63 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.63 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.63 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.63 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.25/0.63 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.25/0.63 % Search class: FHUSF-FFSS22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.63 % partial match(1): FHUSM-FFSS22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.63 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.63 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.63 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.25/0.63
% 0.25/0.63 % Proof found!
% 0.25/0.63 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.25/0.63 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.25/0.63 % Parsed axioms : 17
% 0.25/0.63 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 10
% 0.25/0.63 % Initial clauses : 7
% 0.25/0.63 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.25/0.63 % Initial clauses in saturation : 7
% 0.25/0.63 % Processed clauses : 24
% 0.25/0.63 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.25/0.63 % ...subsumed : 4
% 0.25/0.63 % ...remaining for further processing : 20
% 0.25/0.63 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 2
% 0.25/0.63 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.25/0.63 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.63 % Backward-rewritten : 2
% 0.25/0.63 % Generated clauses : 54
% 0.25/0.63 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 48
% 0.25/0.63 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.63 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.25/0.63 % Paramodulations : 46
% 0.25/0.63 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.25/0.63 % NegExts : 0
% 0.25/0.63 % Equation resolutions : 8
% 0.25/0.63 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.25/0.63 % Total rewrite steps : 28
% 0.25/0.63 % ...of those cached : 13
% 0.25/0.63 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.25/0.63 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.25/0.63 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.25/0.63 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.63 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.25/0.63 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.25/0.63 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.63 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.63 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.63 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.63 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.63 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.63 % Current number of processed clauses : 16
% 0.25/0.63 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 6
% 0.25/0.63 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.25/0.63 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.25/0.63 % Non-unit-clauses : 9
% 0.25/0.63 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 31
% 0.25/0.63 % ...number of literals in the above : 61
% 0.25/0.63 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.25/0.63 % Current number of archived clauses : 2
% 0.25/0.63 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 32
% 0.25/0.63 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 32
% 0.25/0.63 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 4
% 0.25/0.63 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.25/0.63 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.25/0.63 % BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.25/0.63 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.25/0.63 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.25/0.63 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.25/0.63 % Termbank termtop insertions : 872
% 0.25/0.63 % Search garbage collected termcells : 49
% 0.25/0.63
% 0.25/0.63 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.63 % User time : 0.007 s
% 0.25/0.63 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.25/0.63 % Total time : 0.009 s
% 0.25/0.63 % Maximum resident set size: 3640 pages
% 0.25/0.63
% 0.25/0.63 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.63 % User time : 0.009 s
% 0.25/0.63 % System time : 0.009 s
% 0.25/0.63 % Total time : 0.018 s
% 0.25/0.63 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.25/0.63 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------