%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : COL042-2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.2.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n008.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 12:09:22 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 12.63s 2.47s
% Output : CNFRefutation 12.63s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 17 ( 14 unt; 0 nHn; 9 RR)
% Number of literals : 20 ( 13 equ; 8 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 8 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 24 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(w1_definition,axiom,
apply(apply(w1,X1),X2) = apply(apply(X2,X1),X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',w1_definition) ).
cnf(b_definition,axiom,
apply(apply(apply(b,X1),X2),X3) = apply(X1,apply(X2,X3)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',b_definition) ).
cnf(prove_strong_fixed_point,negated_conjecture,
~ fixed_point(apply(apply(b,apply(apply(b,apply(apply(b,apply(w1,w1)),apply(b,w1))),b)),b)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_strong_fixed_point) ).
cnf(strong_fixed_point,axiom,
( apply(X1,fixed_pt) != apply(fixed_pt,apply(X1,fixed_pt))
| fixed_point(X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',strong_fixed_point) ).
cnf(c_0_4,axiom,
apply(apply(w1,X1),X2) = apply(apply(X2,X1),X1),
w1_definition ).
cnf(c_0_5,axiom,
apply(apply(apply(b,X1),X2),X3) = apply(X1,apply(X2,X3)),
b_definition ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
~ fixed_point(apply(apply(b,apply(apply(b,apply(apply(b,apply(w1,w1)),apply(b,w1))),b)),b)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_strong_fixed_point]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( apply(X1,fixed_pt) != apply(fixed_pt,apply(X1,fixed_pt))
| fixed_point(X1) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[strong_fixed_point]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
apply(apply(w1,X1),apply(apply(b,X2),X3)) = apply(apply(X2,apply(X3,X1)),X1),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
~ fixed_point(apply(apply(b,apply(apply(b,apply(apply(b,apply(w1,w1)),apply(b,w1))),b)),b)),
c_0_6 ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( apply(X1,fixed_pt) != apply(fixed_pt,apply(X1,fixed_pt))
| fixed_point(X1) ),
c_0_7 ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
apply(apply(w1,X1),apply(apply(b,apply(b,X2)),X3)) = apply(X2,apply(apply(X3,X1),X1)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
apply(fixed_pt,apply(apply(w1,w1),apply(apply(b,w1),apply(b,apply(b,fixed_pt))))) != apply(apply(w1,w1),apply(apply(b,w1),apply(b,apply(b,fixed_pt)))),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_5]),c_0_5]),c_0_5]),c_0_5]),c_0_5]),c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
apply(apply(w1,X1),apply(apply(b,apply(b,X2)),X3)) = apply(X2,apply(apply(w1,X1),X3)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
apply(fixed_pt,apply(apply(w1,apply(apply(b,apply(b,fixed_pt)),w1)),w1)) != apply(apply(w1,apply(apply(b,apply(b,fixed_pt)),w1)),w1),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_8]),c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
apply(X1,apply(apply(w1,apply(apply(b,apply(b,X1)),X2)),X2)) = apply(apply(w1,apply(apply(b,apply(b,X1)),X2)),w1),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : COL042-2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.2.0.
% 0.00/0.06 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.43 % Computer : n008.cluster.edu
% 0.15/0.43 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.15/0.43 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.15/0.43 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.15/0.43 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.15/0.44 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.15/0.44 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.15/0.44 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 14:06:41 UTC 2026
% 0.15/0.44 % CPUTime :
% 0.15/0.44 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.49 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/0.49 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
% 12.63/2.47 % Version: 3.5.1
% 12.63/2.47 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 12.63/2.47 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 12.63/2.47 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 12.63/2.47 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 12.63/2.47 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 12.63/2.47 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 12.63/2.47 % G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with pid 1175760 completed with status 0
% 12.63/2.47 % Result found by G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN
% 12.63/2.47 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 12.63/2.47 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 12.63/2.47 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 12.63/2.47 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 12.63/2.47 % No SInE strategy applied
% 12.63/2.47 % Search class: FHUSS-FFSF22-DFFFFFNN
% 12.63/2.47 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 12.63/2.47 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 12.63/2.47 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 12.63/2.47 % Starting U----_206e_05_B11_00_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 136s (1) cores
% 12.63/2.47 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 12.63/2.47 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 12.63/2.47 % G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with pid 1175768 completed with status 0
% 12.63/2.47 % Result found by G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y
% 12.63/2.47 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 12.63/2.47 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 12.63/2.47 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 12.63/2.47 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 12.63/2.47 % No SInE strategy applied
% 12.63/2.47 % Search class: FHUSS-FFSF22-DFFFFFNN
% 12.63/2.47 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 12.63/2.47 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 12.63/2.47 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 12.63/2.47 % Starting U----_206e_05_B11_00_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 136s (1) cores
% 12.63/2.47 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 12.63/2.47 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 12.63/2.47 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 12.63/2.47
% 12.63/2.47 % Proof found!
% 12.63/2.47 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 12.63/2.47 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 12.63/2.47 % Parsed axioms : 4
% 12.63/2.47 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 12.63/2.47 % Initial clauses : 4
% 12.63/2.47 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 12.63/2.47 % Initial clauses in saturation : 4
% 12.63/2.47 % Processed clauses : 932
% 12.63/2.47 % ...of these trivial : 360
% 12.63/2.47 % ...subsumed : 155
% 12.63/2.47 % ...remaining for further processing : 417
% 12.63/2.47 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 12.63/2.47 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 12.63/2.47 % Backward-subsumed : 2
% 12.63/2.47 % Backward-rewritten : 60
% 12.63/2.47 % Generated clauses : 34034
% 12.63/2.47 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 32665
% 12.63/2.47 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 12.63/2.47 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 12.63/2.47 % Paramodulations : 34034
% 12.63/2.47 % Factorizations : 0
% 12.63/2.47 % NegExts : 0
% 12.63/2.47 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 12.63/2.47 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 12.63/2.47 % Total rewrite steps : 32083
% 12.63/2.47 % ...of those cached : 24982
% 12.63/2.47 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 12.63/2.47 % Propositional check models : 0
% 12.63/2.47 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 12.63/2.47 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 12.63/2.47 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 12.63/2.47 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 12.63/2.47 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 12.63/2.47 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 12.63/2.47 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 12.63/2.47 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 12.63/2.47 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 12.63/2.47 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 12.63/2.47 % Current number of processed clauses : 351
% 12.63/2.47 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 304
% 12.63/2.47 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 45
% 12.63/2.47 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 12.63/2.47 % Non-unit-clauses : 1
% 12.63/2.47 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 31625
% 12.63/2.47 % ...number of literals in the above : 31625
% 12.63/2.47 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 12.63/2.47 % Current number of archived clauses : 66
% 12.63/2.47 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 12.63/2.47 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 12.63/2.47 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 12.63/2.47 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 4522
% 12.63/2.47 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 12.63/2.47 % BW rewrite match attempts : 10527
% 12.63/2.47 % BW rewrite match successes : 356
% 12.63/2.47 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 12.63/2.47 % Condensation successes : 0
% 12.63/2.47 % Termbank termtop insertions : 1338878
% 12.63/2.47 % Search garbage collected termcells : 5
% 12.63/2.47
% 12.63/2.47 % -------------------------------------------------
% 12.63/2.47 % User time : 1.525 s
% 12.63/2.47 % System time : 0.069 s
% 12.63/2.47 % Total time : 1.594 s
% 12.63/2.47 % Maximum resident set size: 3636 pages
% 12.63/2.47
% 12.63/2.47 % -------------------------------------------------
% 12.63/2.47 % User time : 8.514 s
% 12.63/2.47 % System time : 0.361 s
% 12.63/2.47 % Total time : 8.876 s
% 12.63/2.47 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 12.63/2.47 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------