%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : COL091-2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.7.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n014.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 12:09:35 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.28s 0.71s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.28s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 10
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 36 ( 13 unt; 4 nHn; 36 RR)
% Number of literals : 68 ( 16 equ; 35 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 5 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 7 ( 5 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 11 ( 11 usr; 5 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 72 ( 16 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(k_contractE,axiom,
~ member(pair(combK,X1),contract),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',k_contractE) ).
cnf(ap_contractE10,axiom,
( ~ ap_contractE_c3(X1,X2,X3)
| member(pair(X1,ap_contractE_sk2q(X1,X2,X3)),contract) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',ap_contractE10) ).
cnf(k_app,axiom,
combK != comb_app(X1,X2),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',k_app) ).
cnf(ap_contractE9,axiom,
( ~ ap_contractE_c2(X1,X2,X3)
| X1 = comb_app(comb_app(combS,ap_contractE_sk1p(X1,X2,X3)),ap_contractE_sk1q(X1,X2,X3)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',ap_contractE9) ).
cnf(k1_contractD_c1,negated_conjecture,
( ~ member(pair(p,X1),contract)
| r != comb_app(combK,X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',k1_contractD_c1) ).
cnf(ap_contractE13,axiom,
( ~ ap_contractE_c4(X1,X2,X3)
| member(pair(X2,ap_contractE_sk3q(X1,X2,X3)),contract) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',ap_contractE13) ).
cnf(ap_contractE1,axiom,
( ~ member(pair(comb_app(X1,X2),X3),contract)
| ap_contractE_c4(X1,X2,X3)
| ap_contractE_c3(X1,X2,X3)
| ap_contractE_c2(X1,X2,X3)
| ap_contractE_c1(X1,X2,X3) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',ap_contractE1) ).
cnf(ap_contractE15,axiom,
( ~ ap_contractE_c4(X1,X2,X3)
| X3 = comb_app(X1,ap_contractE_sk3q(X1,X2,X3)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',ap_contractE15) ).
cnf(k1_contractD_h1,hypothesis,
member(pair(comb_app(combK,p),r),contract),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',k1_contractD_h1) ).
cnf(ap_contractE4,axiom,
( ~ ap_contractE_c1(X1,X2,X3)
| X1 = comb_app(combK,X3) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',ap_contractE4) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
~ member(pair(combK,X1),contract),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[k_contractE]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( ~ ap_contractE_c3(X1,X2,X3)
| member(pair(X1,ap_contractE_sk2q(X1,X2,X3)),contract) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[ap_contractE10]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
combK != comb_app(X1,X2),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[k_app]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
( ~ ap_contractE_c2(X1,X2,X3)
| X1 = comb_app(comb_app(combS,ap_contractE_sk1p(X1,X2,X3)),ap_contractE_sk1q(X1,X2,X3)) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[ap_contractE9]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
( ~ member(pair(p,X1),contract)
| r != comb_app(combK,X1) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[k1_contractD_c1]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
( ~ ap_contractE_c4(X1,X2,X3)
| member(pair(X2,ap_contractE_sk3q(X1,X2,X3)),contract) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[ap_contractE13]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
( ~ member(pair(comb_app(X1,X2),X3),contract)
| ap_contractE_c4(X1,X2,X3)
| ap_contractE_c3(X1,X2,X3)
| ap_contractE_c2(X1,X2,X3)
| ap_contractE_c1(X1,X2,X3) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[ap_contractE1]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,plain,
~ member(pair(combK,X1),contract),
c_0_10 ).
cnf(c_0_18,plain,
( ~ ap_contractE_c3(X1,X2,X3)
| member(pair(X1,ap_contractE_sk2q(X1,X2,X3)),contract) ),
c_0_11 ).
cnf(c_0_19,plain,
combK != comb_app(X1,X2),
c_0_12 ).
cnf(c_0_20,plain,
( ~ ap_contractE_c2(X1,X2,X3)
| X1 = comb_app(comb_app(combS,ap_contractE_sk1p(X1,X2,X3)),ap_contractE_sk1q(X1,X2,X3)) ),
c_0_13 ).
cnf(c_0_21,negated_conjecture,
( ~ member(pair(p,X1),contract)
| r != comb_app(combK,X1) ),
c_0_14 ).
cnf(c_0_22,plain,
( ~ ap_contractE_c4(X1,X2,X3)
| member(pair(X2,ap_contractE_sk3q(X1,X2,X3)),contract) ),
c_0_15 ).
cnf(c_0_23,plain,
( ~ ap_contractE_c4(X1,X2,X3)
| X3 = comb_app(X1,ap_contractE_sk3q(X1,X2,X3)) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[ap_contractE15]) ).
cnf(c_0_24,plain,
( ~ member(pair(comb_app(X1,X2),X3),contract)
| ap_contractE_c4(X1,X2,X3)
| ap_contractE_c3(X1,X2,X3)
| ap_contractE_c2(X1,X2,X3)
| ap_contractE_c1(X1,X2,X3) ),
c_0_16 ).
cnf(c_0_25,hypothesis,
member(pair(comb_app(combK,p),r),contract),
k1_contractD_h1 ).
cnf(c_0_26,plain,
~ ap_contractE_c3(combK,X1,X2),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_18]) ).
cnf(c_0_27,plain,
~ ap_contractE_c2(combK,X1,X2),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_19,c_0_20])]) ).
cnf(c_0_28,negated_conjecture,
( ~ ap_contractE_c4(X1,p,X2)
| comb_app(combK,ap_contractE_sk3q(X1,p,X2)) != r ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_21,c_0_22]) ).
cnf(c_0_29,plain,
( ~ ap_contractE_c4(X1,X2,X3)
| X3 = comb_app(X1,ap_contractE_sk3q(X1,X2,X3)) ),
c_0_23 ).
cnf(c_0_30,plain,
( ~ ap_contractE_c1(X1,X2,X3)
| X1 = comb_app(combK,X3) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[ap_contractE4]) ).
cnf(c_0_31,hypothesis,
( ap_contractE_c1(combK,p,r)
| ap_contractE_c4(combK,p,r) ),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_24,c_0_25]),c_0_26]),c_0_27]) ).
cnf(c_0_32,negated_conjecture,
~ ap_contractE_c4(combK,p,r),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_28,c_0_29])]) ).
cnf(c_0_33,plain,
( ~ ap_contractE_c1(X1,X2,X3)
| X1 = comb_app(combK,X3) ),
c_0_30 ).
cnf(c_0_34,hypothesis,
ap_contractE_c1(combK,p,r),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_31,c_0_32]) ).
cnf(c_0_35,hypothesis,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_33,c_0_34]),c_0_19]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : COL091-2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.7.0.
% 0.00/0.09 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.19/0.45 % Computer : n014.cluster.edu
% 0.19/0.45 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.19/0.45 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.19/0.45 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.19/0.45 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.19/0.45 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.19/0.45 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.19/0.45 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 14:09:50 UTC 2026
% 0.19/0.46 % CPUTime :
% 0.19/0.46 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.23/0.52 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.23/0.52 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
% 0.28/0.71 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.28/0.71 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.28/0.71 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.28/0.71 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.28/0.71 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.71 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.71 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.71 % C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with pid 74200 completed with status 0
% 0.28/0.71 % Result found by C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr
% 0.28/0.71 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.28/0.71 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.28/0.71 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.28/0.71 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.28/0.71 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.28/0.71 % Search class: FGHSM-FFLS32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.28/0.71 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.28/0.71 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.71 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.71 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.71 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.71 % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.71 % C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with pid 74205 completed with status 0
% 0.28/0.71 % Result found by C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr
% 0.28/0.71 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.28/0.71 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.28/0.71 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.28/0.71 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.28/0.71 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.28/0.71 % Search class: FGHSM-FFLS32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.28/0.71 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.28/0.71 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.71 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.71 % Preprocessing time : 0.003 s
% 0.28/0.71 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.28/0.71
% 0.28/0.71 % Proof found!
% 0.28/0.71 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.28/0.71 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.28/0.71 % Parsed axioms : 175
% 0.28/0.71 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.28/0.71 % Initial clauses : 175
% 0.28/0.71 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 4
% 0.28/0.71 % Initial clauses in saturation : 171
% 0.28/0.71 % Processed clauses : 672
% 0.28/0.71 % ...of these trivial : 12
% 0.28/0.71 % ...subsumed : 168
% 0.28/0.71 % ...remaining for further processing : 492
% 0.28/0.71 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 55
% 0.28/0.71 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.28/0.71 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.28/0.71 % Backward-rewritten : 28
% 0.28/0.71 % Generated clauses : 3043
% 0.28/0.71 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 2942
% 0.28/0.71 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.28/0.71 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.28/0.71 % Paramodulations : 2975
% 0.28/0.71 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.28/0.71 % NegExts : 0
% 0.28/0.71 % Equation resolutions : 67
% 0.28/0.71 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.28/0.71 % Total rewrite steps : 809
% 0.28/0.71 % ...of those cached : 755
% 0.28/0.71 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.28/0.71 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.28/0.71 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.28/0.71 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.28/0.71 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.28/0.71 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.28/0.71 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.28/0.71 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.28/0.71 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.28/0.71 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.28/0.71 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.28/0.71 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.28/0.71 % Current number of processed clauses : 295
% 0.28/0.71 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 38
% 0.28/0.71 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.28/0.71 % Negative unit clauses : 77
% 0.28/0.71 % Non-unit-clauses : 180
% 0.28/0.71 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 2458
% 0.28/0.71 % ...number of literals in the above : 4652
% 0.28/0.71 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.28/0.71 % Current number of archived clauses : 192
% 0.28/0.71 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 9891
% 0.28/0.71 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 8412
% 0.28/0.71 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 4
% 0.28/0.71 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 4953
% 0.28/0.71 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.28/0.71 % BW rewrite match attempts : 33
% 0.28/0.71 % BW rewrite match successes : 20
% 0.28/0.71 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.28/0.71 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.28/0.71 % Termbank termtop insertions : 35545
% 0.28/0.71 % Search garbage collected termcells : 341
% 0.28/0.71
% 0.28/0.71 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.28/0.71 % User time : 0.114 s
% 0.28/0.71 % System time : 0.016 s
% 0.28/0.71 % Total time : 0.129 s
% 0.28/0.71 % Maximum resident set size: 3724 pages
% 0.28/0.71
% 0.28/0.71 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.28/0.71 % User time : 0.501 s
% 0.28/0.71 % System time : 0.049 s
% 0.28/0.71 % Total time : 0.550 s
% 0.28/0.71 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.28/0.71 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------