%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : COL074-3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.2.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n026.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 12:09:31 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.11s 0.44s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.11s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 6
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 18 ( 15 unt; 3 nHn; 11 RR)
% Number of literals : 21 ( 20 equ; 3 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 0 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 8 ( 8 usr; 6 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 11 ( 3 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(self_referential,axiom,
s = apply(eq,pair(apply(k,s),apply(k,projection2))),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',self_referential) ).
cnf(k_projection2,axiom,
apply(k,projection2) = k_projection2,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',k_projection2) ).
cnf(extensionality1,axiom,
( apply(eq,pair(X1,X2)) = projection2
| X1 = X2 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',extensionality1) ).
cnf(k_definition,negated_conjecture,
apply(apply(k,X1),X2) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',k_definition) ).
cnf(different_projections,axiom,
projection1 != projection2,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',different_projections) ).
cnf(equality,axiom,
apply(eq,pair(X1,X1)) = projection1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',equality) ).
cnf(c_0_6,axiom,
s = apply(eq,pair(apply(k,s),apply(k,projection2))),
self_referential ).
cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
apply(k,projection2) = k_projection2,
k_projection2 ).
cnf(c_0_8,axiom,
( apply(eq,pair(X1,X2)) = projection2
| X1 = X2 ),
extensionality1 ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
apply(eq,pair(apply(k,s),k_projection2)) = s,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
apply(apply(k,X1),X2) = X1,
k_definition ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( s = projection2
| apply(k,s) = k_projection2 ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
apply(k_projection2,X1) = projection2,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
projection1 != projection2,
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[different_projections]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
s = projection2,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]),c_0_12])]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,axiom,
apply(eq,pair(X1,X1)) = projection1,
equality ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
projection1 != projection2,
c_0_13 ).
cnf(c_0_17,plain,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_14]),c_0_7]),c_0_15]),c_0_14]),c_0_16]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : COL074-3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.2.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.37 % Computer : n026.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/0.37 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 14:11:08 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.42 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.11/0.42 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
% 0.11/0.44 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.11/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.11/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.11/0.44 % Starting G----_0031_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_S0Y with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.11/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.44 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.44 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.44 % G----_0031_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_S0Y with pid 2475959 completed with status 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Result found by G----_0031_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_S0Y
% 0.11/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.11/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.11/0.44 % Starting G----_0031_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_S0Y with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.11/0.44 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.11/0.44 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.11/0.44 % Search class: FGUPM-FFSS22-MFFFFFNN
% 0.11/0.44 % partial match(1): FGUPM-FFSF22-MFFFFFNN
% 0.11/0.44 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.11/0.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.44 % Starting G----_0031_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_S0Y with 151s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.44 % Starting U----_206d_02_B11_00_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 226s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.44 % Starting G-E--_208_C18CMA_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 150s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 150s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.44 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2475965 completed with status 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.11/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.11/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.11/0.44 % Starting G----_0031_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_S0Y with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.11/0.44 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.11/0.44 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.11/0.44 % Search class: FGUPM-FFSS22-MFFFFFNN
% 0.11/0.44 % partial match(1): FGUPM-FFSF22-MFFFFFNN
% 0.11/0.44 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.11/0.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.44 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.11/0.44
% 0.11/0.44 % Proof found!
% 0.11/0.44 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.11/0.44 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.11/0.44 % Parsed axioms : 13
% 0.11/0.44 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Initial clauses : 13
% 0.11/0.44 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Initial clauses in saturation : 13
% 0.11/0.44 % Processed clauses : 14
% 0.11/0.44 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % ...remaining for further processing : 14
% 0.11/0.44 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Backward-rewritten : 2
% 0.11/0.44 % Generated clauses : 8
% 0.11/0.44 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 6
% 0.11/0.44 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Paramodulations : 8
% 0.11/0.44 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % NegExts : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Total rewrite steps : 12
% 0.11/0.44 % ...of those cached : 6
% 0.11/0.44 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.11/0.44 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.11/0.44 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.11/0.44 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.11/0.44 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.11/0.44 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.11/0.44 % Current number of processed clauses : 12
% 0.11/0.44 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 10
% 0.11/0.44 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.11/0.44 % Non-unit-clauses : 1
% 0.11/0.44 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 5
% 0.11/0.44 % ...number of literals in the above : 8
% 0.11/0.44 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Current number of archived clauses : 2
% 0.11/0.44 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.11/0.44 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.11/0.44 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Termbank termtop insertions : 285
% 0.11/0.44 % Search garbage collected termcells : 5
% 0.11/0.44
% 0.11/0.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.11/0.44 % User time : 0.003 s
% 0.11/0.44 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.11/0.44 % Total time : 0.006 s
% 0.11/0.44 % Maximum resident set size: 3636 pages
% 0.11/0.44
% 0.11/0.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.11/0.44 % User time : 0.012 s
% 0.11/0.44 % System time : 0.010 s
% 0.11/0.44 % Total time : 0.022 s
% 0.11/0.44 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.11/0.44 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------