%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : COL109-2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.2.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n002.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 12:09:39 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.23s 0.77s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.23s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 6
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 18 ( 11 unt; 0 nHn; 16 RR)
% Number of literals : 28 ( 0 equ; 16 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 5 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 12 ( 12 usr; 9 con; 0-4 aty)
% Number of variables : 21 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_conjecture_3,negated_conjecture,
( ~ c_in(c_Pair(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(c_Comb_Ocomb_OS,v_x_H),v_y_Ha),v_w),X1,tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb))
| ~ c_in(c_Pair(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(v_xb,v_z),c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(v_yb,v_z)),X1,tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_3) ).
cnf(cls_Comb_Oparcontract_Ointros__3_0,axiom,
c_in(c_Pair(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(c_Comb_Ocomb_OS,X1),X2),X3),c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(X1,X3),c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(X2,X3)),tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_Comb_Oparcontract_Ointros__3_0) ).
cnf(cls_Comb_Oparcontract_Ointros__4_0,axiom,
( ~ c_in(c_Pair(X3,X4,tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb))
| ~ c_in(c_Pair(X1,X2,tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb))
| c_in(c_Pair(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(X3,X1),c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(X4,X2),tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_Comb_Oparcontract_Ointros__4_0) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_2,negated_conjecture,
c_in(c_Pair(v_yb,v_y_Ha,tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_2) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
c_in(c_Pair(v_z,v_w,tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_0) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_1,negated_conjecture,
c_in(c_Pair(v_xb,v_x_H,tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_1) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( ~ c_in(c_Pair(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(c_Comb_Ocomb_OS,v_x_H),v_y_Ha),v_w),X1,tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb))
| ~ c_in(c_Pair(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(v_xb,v_z),c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(v_yb,v_z)),X1,tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb)) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
( ~ c_in(c_Pair(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(c_Comb_Ocomb_OS,v_x_H),v_y_Ha),v_w),X1,tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb))
| ~ c_in(c_Pair(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(v_xb,v_z),c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(v_yb,v_z)),X1,tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb)) ),
c_0_6 ).
cnf(c_0_8,axiom,
c_in(c_Pair(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(c_Comb_Ocomb_OS,X1),X2),X3),c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(X1,X3),c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(X2,X3)),tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb)),
cls_Comb_Oparcontract_Ointros__3_0 ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ c_in(c_Pair(X3,X4,tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb))
| ~ c_in(c_Pair(X1,X2,tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb))
| c_in(c_Pair(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(X3,X1),c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(X4,X2),tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb)) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_Comb_Oparcontract_Ointros__4_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
~ c_in(c_Pair(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(v_xb,v_z),c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(v_yb,v_z)),c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(v_x_H,v_w),c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(v_y_Ha,v_w)),tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( ~ c_in(c_Pair(X3,X4,tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb))
| ~ c_in(c_Pair(X1,X2,tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb))
| c_in(c_Pair(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(X3,X1),c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(X4,X2),tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb)) ),
c_0_9 ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
( ~ c_in(c_Pair(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(v_yb,v_z),c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(v_y_Ha,v_w),tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb))
| ~ c_in(c_Pair(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(v_xb,v_z),c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(v_x_H,v_w),tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
c_in(c_Pair(v_yb,v_y_Ha,tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb)),
cls_conjecture_2 ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
c_in(c_Pair(v_z,v_w,tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb)),
cls_conjecture_0 ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
~ c_in(c_Pair(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(v_xb,v_z),c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(v_x_H,v_w),tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb)),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_11]),c_0_13]),c_0_14])]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
c_in(c_Pair(v_xb,v_x_H,tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb)),
cls_conjecture_1 ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_11]),c_0_16]),c_0_14])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.04 % Problem : COL109-2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.19/0.65 % Computer : n002.cluster.edu
% 0.19/0.65 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.19/0.65 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.19/0.65 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.19/0.65 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.19/0.65 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.19/0.65 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.19/0.65 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 14:14:33 UTC 2026
% 0.23/0.65 % CPUTime :
% 0.23/0.65 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.23/0.73 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.23/0.73 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
% 0.23/0.77 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.23/0.77 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.23/0.77 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/0.77 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.23/0.77 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.77 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.77 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.77 % sh5l with pid 3484929 completed with status 0
% 0.23/0.77 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.23/0.77 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.23/0.77 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/0.77 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.23/0.77 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.77 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.77 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.77 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.23/0.77 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.23/0.77 % Search class: FHHNF-FFSS32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.23/0.77 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.23/0.77 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.77 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3484932 completed with status 0
% 0.23/0.77 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.23/0.77 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.23/0.77 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/0.77 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.23/0.77 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.77 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.77 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.77 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.23/0.77 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.23/0.77 % Search class: FHHNF-FFSS32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.23/0.77 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.23/0.77 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.77 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.23/0.77
% 0.23/0.77 % Proof found!
% 0.23/0.77 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.23/0.77 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.23/0.77 % Parsed axioms : 6
% 0.23/0.77 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.23/0.77 % Initial clauses : 6
% 0.23/0.77 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.23/0.77 % Initial clauses in saturation : 6
% 0.23/0.77 % Processed clauses : 9
% 0.23/0.77 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.23/0.77 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.23/0.77 % ...remaining for further processing : 9
% 0.23/0.77 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.23/0.77 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.23/0.77 % Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.23/0.77 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.23/0.77 % Generated clauses : 5
% 0.23/0.77 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 4
% 0.23/0.77 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.23/0.77 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.23/0.77 % Paramodulations : 5
% 0.23/0.77 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.23/0.77 % NegExts : 0
% 0.23/0.77 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.23/0.77 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.23/0.77 % Total rewrite steps : 4
% 0.23/0.77 % ...of those cached : 1
% 0.23/0.77 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.23/0.77 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.23/0.77 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.23/0.77 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.23/0.77 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.23/0.77 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.23/0.77 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.77 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.77 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.77 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.77 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.77 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.77 % Current number of processed clauses : 8
% 0.23/0.77 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 4
% 0.23/0.77 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.23/0.77 % Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.23/0.77 % Non-unit-clauses : 2
% 0.23/0.77 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 1
% 0.23/0.77 % ...number of literals in the above : 3
% 0.23/0.77 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.23/0.77 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.23/0.77 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1
% 0.23/0.77 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.23/0.77 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.23/0.77 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 4
% 0.23/0.77 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.23/0.77 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.23/0.77 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.23/0.77 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.23/0.77 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.23/0.77 % Termbank termtop insertions : 436
% 0.23/0.77 % Search garbage collected termcells : 11
% 0.23/0.77
% 0.23/0.77 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.23/0.77 % User time : 0.007 s
% 0.23/0.77 % System time : 0.001 s
% 0.23/0.77 % Total time : 0.008 s
% 0.23/0.77 % Maximum resident set size: 3640 pages
% 0.23/0.77
% 0.23/0.77 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.23/0.77 % User time : 0.010 s
% 0.23/0.77 % System time : 0.007 s
% 0.23/0.77 % Total time : 0.017 s
% 0.23/0.77 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.23/0.77 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------