%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : COL089-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.7.0.
% 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 12:10:04 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 17.91s 2.78s
% Output : CNFRefutation 17.91s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 7
% Number of leaves : 11
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 35 ( 14 unt; 0 nHn; 33 RR)
% Number of literals : 75 ( 0 equ; 44 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 9 ( 9 usr; 6 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 55 ( 8 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(reduction_rls_4,axiom,
( ~ member(pair(comb_app(X3,X2),X4),rtrancl(contract))
| ~ member(X3,comb)
| ~ member(pair(X1,X2),contract)
| member(pair(comb_app(X3,X1),X4),rtrancl(contract)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',reduction_rls_4) ).
cnf(reduction_refl,axiom,
( ~ member(X1,comb)
| member(pair(X1,X1),rtrancl(contract)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',reduction_refl) ).
cnf(ap_E1,axiom,
( ~ member(comb_app(X1,X2),comb)
| member(X1,comb) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',ap_E1) ).
cnf(transD,axiom,
( ~ member(pair(X3,X4),X1)
| ~ member(pair(X2,X3),X1)
| ~ trans(X1)
| member(pair(X2,X4),X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',transD) ).
cnf(trans_rtrancl,axiom,
trans(rtrancl(X1)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',trans_rtrancl) ).
cnf(ap_reduce2_2c1,negated_conjecture,
~ member(pair(comb_app(r,p),comb_app(r,z)),rtrancl(contract)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',ap_reduce2_2c1) ).
cnf(ap_reduce2_2h5,hypothesis,
member(pair(comb_app(r,p),comb_app(r,y)),rtrancl(contract)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',ap_reduce2_2h5) ).
cnf(contract_combD2,axiom,
( ~ member(pair(X1,X2),contract)
| member(X2,comb) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',contract_combD2) ).
cnf(ap_reduce2_2h4,hypothesis,
member(pair(y,z),contract),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',ap_reduce2_2h4) ).
cnf(comb_intros3,axiom,
( ~ member(X2,comb)
| ~ member(X1,comb)
| member(comb_app(X1,X2),comb) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',comb_intros3) ).
cnf(ap_reduce2_2h1,hypothesis,
member(r,comb),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',ap_reduce2_2h1) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( ~ member(pair(comb_app(X3,X2),X4),rtrancl(contract))
| ~ member(X3,comb)
| ~ member(pair(X1,X2),contract)
| member(pair(comb_app(X3,X1),X4),rtrancl(contract)) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[reduction_rls_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( ~ member(X1,comb)
| member(pair(X1,X1),rtrancl(contract)) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[reduction_refl]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
( ~ member(comb_app(X1,X2),comb)
| member(X1,comb) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[ap_E1]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
( ~ member(pair(X3,X4),X1)
| ~ member(pair(X2,X3),X1)
| ~ trans(X1)
| member(pair(X2,X4),X1) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[transD]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
( ~ member(pair(comb_app(X3,X2),X4),rtrancl(contract))
| ~ member(X3,comb)
| ~ member(pair(X1,X2),contract)
| member(pair(comb_app(X3,X1),X4),rtrancl(contract)) ),
c_0_11 ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
( ~ member(X1,comb)
| member(pair(X1,X1),rtrancl(contract)) ),
c_0_12 ).
cnf(c_0_17,plain,
( ~ member(comb_app(X1,X2),comb)
| member(X1,comb) ),
c_0_13 ).
cnf(c_0_18,plain,
( ~ member(pair(X3,X4),X1)
| ~ member(pair(X2,X3),X1)
| ~ trans(X1)
| member(pair(X2,X4),X1) ),
c_0_14 ).
cnf(c_0_19,plain,
( ~ member(comb_app(X1,X3),comb)
| ~ member(pair(X2,X3),contract)
| member(pair(comb_app(X1,X2),comb_app(X1,X3)),rtrancl(contract)) ),
inference(csr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16]),c_0_17]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,axiom,
trans(rtrancl(X1)),
trans_rtrancl ).
cnf(c_0_21,negated_conjecture,
~ member(pair(comb_app(r,p),comb_app(r,z)),rtrancl(contract)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[ap_reduce2_2c1]) ).
cnf(c_0_22,plain,
( ~ member(comb_app(X2,X3),comb)
| ~ member(pair(X4,X3),contract)
| ~ member(pair(X1,comb_app(X2,X4)),rtrancl(contract))
| member(pair(X1,comb_app(X2,X3)),rtrancl(contract)) ),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_18,c_0_19]),c_0_20])]) ).
cnf(c_0_23,hypothesis,
member(pair(comb_app(r,p),comb_app(r,y)),rtrancl(contract)),
ap_reduce2_2h5 ).
cnf(c_0_24,plain,
( ~ member(pair(X1,X2),contract)
| member(X2,comb) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[contract_combD2]) ).
cnf(c_0_25,negated_conjecture,
~ member(pair(comb_app(r,p),comb_app(r,z)),rtrancl(contract)),
c_0_21 ).
cnf(c_0_26,hypothesis,
( ~ member(comb_app(r,X1),comb)
| ~ member(pair(y,X1),contract)
| member(pair(comb_app(r,p),comb_app(r,X1)),rtrancl(contract)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_22,c_0_23]) ).
cnf(c_0_27,hypothesis,
member(pair(y,z),contract),
ap_reduce2_2h4 ).
cnf(c_0_28,plain,
( ~ member(X2,comb)
| ~ member(X1,comb)
| member(comb_app(X1,X2),comb) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[comb_intros3]) ).
cnf(c_0_29,plain,
( ~ member(pair(X1,X2),contract)
| member(X2,comb) ),
c_0_24 ).
cnf(c_0_30,negated_conjecture,
~ member(comb_app(r,z),comb),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_25,c_0_26]),c_0_27])]) ).
cnf(c_0_31,plain,
( ~ member(X2,comb)
| ~ member(X1,comb)
| member(comb_app(X1,X2),comb) ),
c_0_28 ).
cnf(c_0_32,hypothesis,
member(z,comb),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_29,c_0_27]) ).
cnf(c_0_33,hypothesis,
member(r,comb),
ap_reduce2_2h1 ).
cnf(c_0_34,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_30,c_0_31]),c_0_32]),c_0_33])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : COL089-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.7.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.35 % Computer : n020.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.35 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.35 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.36 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 14:11:18 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/0.36 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.14/0.43 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.14/0.43 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
% 17.91/2.78 % Version: 3.5.1
% 17.91/2.78 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 17.91/2.78 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 17.91/2.78 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with 1500s (5) cores
% 17.91/2.78 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 17.91/2.78 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 17.91/2.78 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 17.91/2.78 % G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with pid 3137108 completed with status 0
% 17.91/2.78 % Result found by G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI
% 17.91/2.78 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 17.91/2.78 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 17.91/2.78 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with 1500s (5) cores
% 17.91/2.78 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 17.91/2.78 % No SInE strategy applied
% 17.91/2.78 % Search class: FGUSF-FFMM32-MFFFFFNN
% 17.91/2.78 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 17.91/2.78 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 17.91/2.78 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with 151s (1) cores
% 17.91/2.78 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 17.91/2.78 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 17.91/2.78 % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 17.91/2.78 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3137112 completed with status 0
% 17.91/2.78 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 17.91/2.78 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 17.91/2.78 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 17.91/2.78 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with 1500s (5) cores
% 17.91/2.78 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 17.91/2.78 % No SInE strategy applied
% 17.91/2.78 % Search class: FGUSF-FFMM32-MFFFFFNN
% 17.91/2.78 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 17.91/2.78 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 17.91/2.78 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 17.91/2.78
% 17.91/2.78 % Proof found!
% 17.91/2.78 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 17.91/2.78 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 17.91/2.78 % Parsed axioms : 44
% 17.91/2.78 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 17.91/2.78 % Initial clauses : 44
% 17.91/2.78 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 1
% 17.91/2.78 % Initial clauses in saturation : 43
% 17.91/2.78 % Processed clauses : 6448
% 17.91/2.78 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 17.91/2.78 % ...subsumed : 3259
% 17.91/2.78 % ...remaining for further processing : 3189
% 17.91/2.78 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 136
% 17.91/2.78 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 17.91/2.78 % Backward-subsumed : 36
% 17.91/2.78 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 17.91/2.78 % Generated clauses : 93997
% 17.91/2.78 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 93553
% 17.91/2.78 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 17.91/2.78 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 225
% 17.91/2.78 % Paramodulations : 93859
% 17.91/2.78 % Factorizations : 0
% 17.91/2.78 % NegExts : 0
% 17.91/2.78 % Equation resolutions : 138
% 17.91/2.78 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 17.91/2.78 % Total rewrite steps : 1098
% 17.91/2.78 % ...of those cached : 1089
% 17.91/2.78 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 17.91/2.78 % Propositional check models : 0
% 17.91/2.78 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 17.91/2.78 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 17.91/2.78 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 17.91/2.78 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 17.91/2.78 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 17.91/2.78 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 17.91/2.78 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 17.91/2.78 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 17.91/2.78 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 17.91/2.78 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 17.91/2.78 % Current number of processed clauses : 3153
% 17.91/2.78 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 9
% 17.91/2.78 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 17.91/2.78 % Negative unit clauses : 45
% 17.91/2.78 % Non-unit-clauses : 3099
% 17.91/2.78 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 87095
% 17.91/2.78 % ...number of literals in the above : 445079
% 17.91/2.78 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 17.91/2.78 % Current number of archived clauses : 36
% 17.91/2.78 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 2567041
% 17.91/2.78 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 599642
% 17.91/2.78 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 2801
% 17.91/2.78 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1040
% 17.91/2.78 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 17.91/2.78 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 17.91/2.78 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 17.91/2.78 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 17.91/2.78 % Condensation successes : 0
% 17.91/2.78 % Termbank termtop insertions : 1596718
% 17.91/2.78 % Search garbage collected termcells : 90
% 17.91/2.78
% 17.91/2.78 % -------------------------------------------------
% 17.91/2.78 % User time : 2.226 s
% 17.91/2.78 % System time : 0.062 s
% 17.91/2.78 % Total time : 2.288 s
% 17.91/2.78 % Maximum resident set size: 3672 pages
% 17.91/2.78
% 17.91/2.78 % -------------------------------------------------
% 17.91/2.78 % User time : 10.691 s
% 17.91/2.78 % System time : 0.552 s
% 17.91/2.78 % Total time : 11.243 s
% 17.91/2.78 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 17.91/2.78 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------