%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : COL054-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n012.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 0.06s 0.33s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.06s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 12 ( 9 unt; 0 nHn; 6 RR)
% Number of literals : 15 ( 14 equ; 8 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 6 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 0 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 21 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(prove_birds_are_compatible,negated_conjecture,
( response(b,X2) != X1
| response(a,X1) != X2 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_birds_are_compatible) ).
cnf(mocking_bird_exists,axiom,
response(mocking_bird,X1) = response(X1,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',mocking_bird_exists) ).
cnf(composer_exists,hypothesis,
response(compose(X1,X2),X3) = response(X1,response(X2,X3)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',composer_exists) ).
cnf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
( response(b,X2) != X1
| response(a,X1) != X2 ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_birds_are_compatible]) ).
cnf(c_0_4,axiom,
response(mocking_bird,X1) = response(X1,X1),
mocking_bird_exists ).
cnf(c_0_5,hypothesis,
response(compose(X1,X2),X3) = response(X1,response(X2,X3)),
composer_exists ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( response(b,X2) != X1
| response(a,X1) != X2 ),
c_0_3 ).
cnf(c_0_7,hypothesis,
response(X1,response(X2,compose(X1,X2))) = response(mocking_bird,compose(X1,X2)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
response(b,response(a,X1)) != X1,
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,hypothesis,
response(X1,response(X2,response(X3,compose(compose(X1,X2),X3)))) = response(mocking_bird,compose(compose(X1,X2),X3)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
response(mocking_bird,compose(compose(b,a),X1)) != response(X1,compose(compose(b,a),X1)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.01 % Problem : COL054-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.02 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.03/0.30 % Computer : n012.cluster.edu
% 0.03/0.30 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.03/0.30 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.03/0.30 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.03/0.30 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.03/0.30 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.03/0.30 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.03/0.30 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 14:06:39 UTC 2026
% 0.03/0.30 % CPUTime :
% 0.03/0.30 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.03/0.32 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.03/0.32 Running: /export/starexec/sandbox/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/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.06/0.33 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.06/0.33 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.06/0.33 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.06/0.33 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.06/0.33 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.06/0.33 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.06/0.33 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.06/0.33 % sh5l with pid 2532252 completed with status 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.06/0.33 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.06/0.33 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.06/0.33 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.06/0.33 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.06/0.33 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.06/0.33 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.06/0.33 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.06/0.33 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.06/0.33 % Search class: FUHPS-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.06/0.33 % partial match(1): FUUPS-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.06/0.33 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.06/0.33 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.06/0.33 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2532259 completed with status 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.06/0.33 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.06/0.33 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.06/0.33 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.06/0.33 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.06/0.33 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.06/0.33 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.06/0.33 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.06/0.33 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.06/0.33 % Search class: FUHPS-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.06/0.33 % partial match(1): FUUPS-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.06/0.33 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.06/0.33 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.06/0.33 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.06/0.33
% 0.06/0.33 % Proof found!
% 0.06/0.33 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.06/0.33 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.06/0.33 % Parsed axioms : 3
% 0.06/0.33 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Initial clauses : 3
% 0.06/0.33 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Initial clauses in saturation : 3
% 0.06/0.33 % Processed clauses : 10
% 0.06/0.33 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % ...remaining for further processing : 10
% 0.06/0.33 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 1
% 0.06/0.33 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Generated clauses : 15
% 0.06/0.33 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 13
% 0.06/0.33 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Paramodulations : 13
% 0.06/0.33 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % NegExts : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Equation resolutions : 2
% 0.06/0.33 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Total rewrite steps : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.06/0.33 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.06/0.33 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.06/0.33 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.06/0.33 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.06/0.33 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.06/0.33 % Current number of processed clauses : 9
% 0.06/0.33 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 3
% 0.06/0.33 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.06/0.33 % Negative unit clauses : 5
% 0.06/0.33 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 6
% 0.06/0.33 % ...number of literals in the above : 6
% 0.06/0.33 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.06/0.33 % Termbank termtop insertions : 289
% 0.06/0.33 % Search garbage collected termcells : 5
% 0.06/0.33
% 0.06/0.33 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.06/0.33 % User time : 0.001 s
% 0.06/0.33 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.06/0.33 % Total time : 0.003 s
% 0.06/0.33 % Maximum resident set size: 3628 pages
% 0.06/0.33
% 0.06/0.33 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.06/0.33 % User time : 0.002 s
% 0.06/0.33 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.06/0.33 % Total time : 0.006 s
% 0.06/0.33 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.06/0.33 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------