%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : COL052-2 : 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 : n007.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 12:09:26 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.15s 0.44s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.15s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 7
% Number of leaves : 6
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 23 ( 13 unt; 0 nHn; 13 RR)
% Number of literals : 34 ( 16 equ; 15 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 6 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 7 ( 7 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 32 ( 1 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(agreeable1,axiom,
( ~ agreeable(X1)
| response(X1,common_bird(X2)) = response(X2,common_bird(X2)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',agreeable1) ).
cnf(composer_exists,axiom,
response(compose(X1,X2),X3) = response(X1,response(X2,X3)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',composer_exists) ).
cnf(c_composes_a_with_b,hypothesis,
c = compose(a,b),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',c_composes_a_with_b) ).
cnf(agreeable2,axiom,
( response(X1,X2) != response(compatible(X1),X2)
| agreeable(X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',agreeable2) ).
cnf(c_is_agreeable,hypothesis,
agreeable(c),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',c_is_agreeable) ).
cnf(prove_a_is_agreeable,negated_conjecture,
~ agreeable(a),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_a_is_agreeable) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ agreeable(X1)
| response(X1,common_bird(X2)) = response(X2,common_bird(X2)) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[agreeable1]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
response(compose(X1,X2),X3) = response(X1,response(X2,X3)),
composer_exists ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ agreeable(X1)
| response(X1,common_bird(X2)) = response(X2,common_bird(X2)) ),
c_0_6 ).
cnf(c_0_9,hypothesis,
c = compose(a,b),
c_composes_a_with_b ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( response(X1,X2) != response(compatible(X1),X2)
| agreeable(X1) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[agreeable2]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( ~ agreeable(compose(X2,X3))
| response(X1,common_bird(X1)) = response(X2,response(X3,common_bird(X1))) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,hypothesis,
response(a,response(b,X1)) = response(c,X1),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,hypothesis,
agreeable(c),
c_is_agreeable ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
( response(X1,X2) != response(compatible(X1),X2)
| agreeable(X1) ),
c_0_10 ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
( ~ agreeable(X1)
| response(X1,common_bird(compose(X2,X3))) = response(X2,response(X3,common_bird(compose(X2,X3)))) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
~ agreeable(a),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_a_is_agreeable]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,hypothesis,
response(X1,common_bird(X1)) = response(c,common_bird(X1)),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_9]),c_0_12]),c_0_13])]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,plain,
( ~ agreeable(X2)
| response(X2,common_bird(compose(compatible(X1),X3))) != response(X1,response(X3,common_bird(compose(compatible(X1),X3))))
| agreeable(X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
~ agreeable(a),
c_0_16 ).
cnf(c_0_20,hypothesis,
( ~ agreeable(X1)
| response(X1,common_bird(X2)) = response(c,common_bird(X2)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_17]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,hypothesis,
~ agreeable(X1),
inference(csr,[status(thm)],[inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_18,c_0_12]),c_0_19]),c_0_20]) ).
cnf(c_0_22,hypothesis,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_21]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : COL052-2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.37 % Computer : n007.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.37 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 14:04:51 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.42 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/0.42 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
% 0.15/0.44 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.15/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with pid 1286021 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Result found by G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN
% 0.15/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.15/0.44 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.15/0.44 % Search class: FHUSF-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.44 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % new_bool_3 with pid 1286031 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.15/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.15/0.44 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.15/0.44 % Search class: FHUSF-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.44 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.15/0.44 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.15/0.44
% 0.15/0.44 % Proof found!
% 0.15/0.44 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.15/0.44 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.15/0.44 % Parsed axioms : 6
% 0.15/0.44 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Initial clauses : 6
% 0.15/0.44 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Initial clauses in saturation : 6
% 0.15/0.44 % Processed clauses : 85
% 0.15/0.44 % ...of these trivial : 3
% 0.15/0.44 % ...subsumed : 41
% 0.15/0.44 % ...remaining for further processing : 41
% 0.15/0.44 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Backward-subsumed : 24
% 0.15/0.44 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.15/0.44 % Generated clauses : 177
% 0.15/0.44 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 152
% 0.15/0.44 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 1
% 0.15/0.44 % Paramodulations : 174
% 0.15/0.44 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % NegExts : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Equation resolutions : 2
% 0.15/0.44 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Total rewrite steps : 62
% 0.15/0.44 % ...of those cached : 48
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.44 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.44 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.44 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.44 % Current number of processed clauses : 9
% 0.15/0.44 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 4
% 0.15/0.44 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.15/0.44 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.15/0.44 % Non-unit-clauses : 3
% 0.15/0.44 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 79
% 0.15/0.44 % ...number of literals in the above : 252
% 0.15/0.44 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Current number of archived clauses : 32
% 0.15/0.44 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 236
% 0.15/0.44 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 217
% 0.15/0.44 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 39
% 0.15/0.44 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 28
% 0.15/0.44 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % BW rewrite match attempts : 22
% 0.15/0.44 % BW rewrite match successes : 7
% 0.15/0.44 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Termbank termtop insertions : 2828
% 0.15/0.44 % Search garbage collected termcells : 7
% 0.15/0.44
% 0.15/0.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.44 % User time : 0.008 s
% 0.15/0.44 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.15/0.44 % Total time : 0.011 s
% 0.15/0.44 % Maximum resident set size: 3632 pages
% 0.15/0.44
% 0.15/0.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.44 % User time : 0.036 s
% 0.15/0.44 % System time : 0.014 s
% 0.15/0.44 % Total time : 0.050 s
% 0.15/0.44 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.15/0.44 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------