%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : COL066-3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v1.2.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n020.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 12:10:01 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.24s 0.58s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.24s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 13 ( 13 unt; 0 nHn; 5 RR)
% Number of literals : 13 ( 12 equ; 4 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 10 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 0 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 7 ( 7 usr; 6 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 20 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(prove_p_combinator,negated_conjecture,
apply(apply(apply(apply(apply(apply(b,apply(w,apply(q,apply(q,q)))),q),x),y),y),z) != apply(apply(x,y),apply(apply(x,y),z)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_p_combinator) ).
cnf(w_definition,axiom,
apply(apply(w,X1),X2) = apply(apply(X1,X2),X2),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',w_definition) ).
cnf(q_definition,axiom,
apply(apply(apply(q,X1),X2),X3) = apply(X2,apply(X1,X3)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',q_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(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
apply(apply(apply(apply(apply(apply(b,apply(w,apply(q,apply(q,q)))),q),x),y),y),z) != apply(apply(x,y),apply(apply(x,y),z)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_p_combinator]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,axiom,
apply(apply(w,X1),X2) = apply(apply(X1,X2),X2),
w_definition ).
cnf(c_0_6,axiom,
apply(apply(apply(q,X1),X2),X3) = apply(X2,apply(X1,X3)),
q_definition ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
apply(apply(apply(apply(apply(apply(b,apply(w,apply(q,apply(q,q)))),q),x),y),y),z) != apply(apply(x,y),apply(apply(x,y),z)),
c_0_4 ).
cnf(c_0_8,axiom,
apply(apply(apply(b,X1),X2),X3) = apply(X1,apply(X2,X3)),
b_definition ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
apply(apply(w,apply(q,X1)),X2) = apply(X2,apply(X1,X2)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
apply(apply(apply(w,q),apply(x,y)),z) != apply(apply(x,y),apply(apply(x,y),z)),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]),c_0_9]),c_0_6]),c_0_6]),c_0_6]),c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
apply(apply(apply(w,q),X1),X2) = apply(X1,apply(X1,X2)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : COL066-3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v1.2.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.20/0.46 % Computer : n020.cluster.edu
% 0.20/0.46 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.20/0.46 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.20/0.46 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.20/0.46 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.20/0.46 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.20/0.46 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.20/0.46 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 14:09:48 UTC 2026
% 0.20/0.46 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.46 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.24/0.54 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.24/0.54 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
% 0.24/0.58 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.24/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % new_bool_1 with pid 3133864 completed with status 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.24/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.24/0.58 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.24/0.58 % Search class: FUUPS-FFSF22-DFFFFFNN
% 0.24/0.58 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3133870 completed with status 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.24/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.24/0.58 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.24/0.58 % Search class: FUUPS-FFSF22-DFFFFFNN
% 0.24/0.58 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.24/0.58
% 0.24/0.58 % Proof found!
% 0.24/0.58 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.24/0.58 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.24/0.58 % Parsed axioms : 4
% 0.24/0.58 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Initial clauses : 4
% 0.24/0.58 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Initial clauses in saturation : 4
% 0.24/0.58 % Processed clauses : 12
% 0.24/0.58 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % ...subsumed : 3
% 0.24/0.58 % ...remaining for further processing : 9
% 0.24/0.58 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.24/0.58 % Generated clauses : 125
% 0.24/0.58 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 86
% 0.24/0.58 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Paramodulations : 125
% 0.24/0.58 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % NegExts : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Total rewrite steps : 14
% 0.24/0.58 % ...of those cached : 1
% 0.24/0.58 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.58 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.58 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.58 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.58 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.58 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.58 % Current number of processed clauses : 8
% 0.24/0.58 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 2
% 0.24/0.58 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 6
% 0.24/0.58 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 78
% 0.24/0.58 % ...number of literals in the above : 78
% 0.24/0.58 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.24/0.58 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% 0.24/0.58 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % BW rewrite match attempts : 30
% 0.24/0.58 % BW rewrite match successes : 3
% 0.24/0.58 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Termbank termtop insertions : 1872
% 0.24/0.58 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2
% 0.24/0.58
% 0.24/0.58 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/0.58 % User time : 0.005 s
% 0.24/0.58 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.24/0.58 % Total time : 0.010 s
% 0.24/0.58 % Maximum resident set size: 3640 pages
% 0.24/0.58
% 0.24/0.58 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/0.58 % User time : 0.007 s
% 0.24/0.58 % System time : 0.011 s
% 0.24/0.58 % Total time : 0.018 s
% 0.24/0.58 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.24/0.58 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------