%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : COL118-1 : 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 : n012.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 12:10:11 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.06s 0.34s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.06s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 14 ( 8 unt; 0 nHn; 12 RR)
% Number of literals : 23 ( 0 equ; 13 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 9 ( 9 usr; 6 con; 0-4 aty)
% Number of variables : 17 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_conjecture_2,negated_conjecture,
( ~ c_in(c_Pair(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(v_ya,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(v_x,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_2) ).
cnf(cls_Comb_Oparcontract_Ointros__1_0,axiom,
c_in(c_Pair(X1,X1,tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/COL002-1.ax',cls_Comb_Oparcontract_Ointros__1_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/Axioms/COL002-1.ax',cls_Comb_Oparcontract_Ointros__4_0) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
c_in(c_Pair(v_x,v_ya,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_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_1) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
( ~ c_in(c_Pair(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(v_ya,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(v_x,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_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( ~ c_in(c_Pair(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(v_ya,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(v_x,v_z),X1,tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb)) ),
c_0_5 ).
cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
c_in(c_Pair(X1,X1,tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb)),
cls_Comb_Oparcontract_Ointros__1_0 ).
cnf(c_0_8,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_9,negated_conjecture,
~ c_in(c_Pair(c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(v_x,v_z),c_Comb_Ocomb_Oop_A_D_D(v_ya,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_6,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,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_8 ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
c_in(c_Pair(v_x,v_ya,tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb),c_Comb_Oparcontract,tc_prod(tc_Comb_Ocomb,tc_Comb_Ocomb)),
cls_conjecture_0 ).
cnf(c_0_12,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_1 ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_11]),c_0_12])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.01 % Problem : COL118-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.00/0.02 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.04/0.29 % Computer : n012.cluster.edu
% 0.04/0.29 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.04/0.29 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.04/0.29 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.04/0.29 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.04/0.30 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.04/0.30 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.04/0.30 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 14:11:51 UTC 2026
% 0.04/0.30 % CPUTime :
% 0.04/0.30 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.04/0.32 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.04/0.32 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
% 0.06/0.34 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.06/0.34 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.06/0.34 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.06/0.34 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.06/0.34 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.06/0.34 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.06/0.34 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.06/0.34 % new_bool_3 with pid 2543173 completed with status 0
% 0.06/0.34 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.06/0.34 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.06/0.34 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.06/0.34 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.06/0.34 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.06/0.34 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.06/0.34 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.06/0.34 % Search class: FHHSM-FFMF32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.06/0.34 % partial match(1): FGHSM-FFMF32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.06/0.34 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.06/0.34 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.06/0.34 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2543176 completed with status 0
% 0.06/0.34 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.06/0.34 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.06/0.34 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.06/0.34 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.06/0.34 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.06/0.34 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.06/0.34 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.06/0.34 % Search class: FHHSM-FFMF32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.06/0.34 % partial match(1): FGHSM-FFMF32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.06/0.34 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.06/0.34 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.06/0.34 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.06/0.34
% 0.06/0.34 % Proof found!
% 0.06/0.34 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.06/0.34 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.06/0.34 % Parsed axioms : 1410
% 0.06/0.34 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 1381
% 0.06/0.34 % Initial clauses : 29
% 0.06/0.34 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.06/0.34 % Initial clauses in saturation : 29
% 0.06/0.34 % Processed clauses : 34
% 0.06/0.34 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.06/0.34 % ...subsumed : 3
% 0.06/0.34 % ...remaining for further processing : 31
% 0.06/0.34 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.06/0.34 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.06/0.34 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.06/0.34 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.06/0.34 % Generated clauses : 13
% 0.06/0.34 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 8
% 0.06/0.34 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.06/0.34 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.06/0.34 % Paramodulations : 9
% 0.06/0.34 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.06/0.34 % NegExts : 0
% 0.06/0.34 % Equation resolutions : 4
% 0.06/0.34 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.06/0.34 % Total rewrite steps : 2
% 0.06/0.34 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.06/0.34 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.06/0.34 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.06/0.34 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.06/0.34 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.06/0.34 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.06/0.34 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.06/0.34 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.06/0.34 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.06/0.34 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.06/0.34 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.06/0.34 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.06/0.34 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.06/0.34 % Current number of processed clauses : 31
% 0.06/0.34 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 7
% 0.06/0.34 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.06/0.34 % Negative unit clauses : 6
% 0.06/0.34 % Non-unit-clauses : 18
% 0.06/0.34 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 3
% 0.06/0.34 % ...number of literals in the above : 7
% 0.06/0.34 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.06/0.34 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.06/0.34 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 48
% 0.06/0.34 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 48
% 0.06/0.34 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.06/0.34 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3
% 0.06/0.34 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.06/0.34 % BW rewrite match attempts : 2
% 0.06/0.34 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.06/0.34 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.06/0.34 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.06/0.34 % Termbank termtop insertions : 9733
% 0.06/0.34 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2890
% 0.06/0.34
% 0.06/0.34 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.06/0.34 % User time : 0.005 s
% 0.06/0.34 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.06/0.34 % Total time : 0.007 s
% 0.06/0.34 % Maximum resident set size: 4908 pages
% 0.06/0.34
% 0.06/0.34 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.06/0.34 % User time : 0.014 s
% 0.06/0.34 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.06/0.34 % Total time : 0.021 s
% 0.06/0.34 % Maximum resident set size: 5376 pages
% 0.06/0.34 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------