%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : COM016+4 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n016.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 12:11:28 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.18s 5.53s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.18s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 17 ( 6 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 80 ( 4 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 17 ( 4 avg)
% Number of connectives : 88 ( 25 ~; 35 |; 28 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 11 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 6 ( 4 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 6 ( 6 usr; 6 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 10 ( 0 sgn 2 !; 6 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(m__,conjecture,
? [X1] :
( ( sdtmndtasgtdt0(X1,xR,xb)
| sdtmndtplgtdt0(X1,xR,xb)
| ? [X2] :
( sdtmndtplgtdt0(X2,xR,xb)
& aReductOfIn0(X2,X1,xR)
& aElement0(X2) )
| aReductOfIn0(xb,X1,xR)
| X1 = xb )
& aReductOfIn0(X1,xa,xR)
& aElement0(X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__) ).
fof(m__731_02,hypothesis,
( sdtmndtplgtdt0(xa,xR,xc)
& ( ? [X1] :
( sdtmndtplgtdt0(X1,xR,xc)
& aReductOfIn0(X1,xa,xR)
& aElement0(X1) )
| aReductOfIn0(xc,xa,xR) )
& sdtmndtplgtdt0(xa,xR,xb)
& ( ? [X1] :
( sdtmndtplgtdt0(X1,xR,xb)
& aReductOfIn0(X1,xa,xR)
& aElement0(X1) )
| aReductOfIn0(xb,xa,xR) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__731_02) ).
fof(m__731,hypothesis,
( aElement0(xc)
& aElement0(xb)
& aElement0(xa) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__731) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ? [X1] :
( ( sdtmndtasgtdt0(X1,xR,xb)
| sdtmndtplgtdt0(X1,xR,xb)
| ? [X2] :
( sdtmndtplgtdt0(X2,xR,xb)
& aReductOfIn0(X2,X1,xR)
& aElement0(X2) )
| aReductOfIn0(xb,X1,xR)
| X1 = xb )
& aReductOfIn0(X1,xa,xR)
& aElement0(X1) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[m__]) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
! [X6,X7] :
( ( ~ aReductOfIn0(X6,xa,xR)
| ~ aElement0(X6)
| ~ sdtmndtasgtdt0(X6,xR,xb) )
& ( ~ aReductOfIn0(X6,xa,xR)
| ~ aElement0(X6)
| ~ sdtmndtplgtdt0(X6,xR,xb) )
& ( ~ aReductOfIn0(X6,xa,xR)
| ~ aElement0(X6)
| ~ sdtmndtplgtdt0(X7,xR,xb)
| ~ aReductOfIn0(X7,X6,xR)
| ~ aElement0(X7) )
& ( ~ aReductOfIn0(X6,xa,xR)
| ~ aElement0(X6)
| ~ aReductOfIn0(xb,X6,xR) )
& ( ~ aReductOfIn0(X6,xa,xR)
| ~ aElement0(X6)
| X6 != xb ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_5,hypothesis,
( sdtmndtplgtdt0(xa,xR,xc)
& ( aReductOfIn0(xc,xa,xR)
| sdtmndtplgtdt0(esk13_0,xR,xc) )
& ( aReductOfIn0(xc,xa,xR)
| aReductOfIn0(esk13_0,xa,xR) )
& ( aReductOfIn0(xc,xa,xR)
| aElement0(esk13_0) )
& sdtmndtplgtdt0(xa,xR,xb)
& ( aReductOfIn0(xb,xa,xR)
| sdtmndtplgtdt0(esk12_0,xR,xb) )
& ( aReductOfIn0(xb,xa,xR)
| aReductOfIn0(esk12_0,xa,xR) )
& ( aReductOfIn0(xb,xa,xR)
| aElement0(esk12_0) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[m__731_02])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( ~ aReductOfIn0(X1,xa,xR)
| ~ aElement0(X1)
| X1 != xb ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,hypothesis,
aElement0(xb),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[m__731]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,hypothesis,
( aReductOfIn0(xb,xa,xR)
| sdtmndtplgtdt0(esk12_0,xR,xb) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
~ aReductOfIn0(xb,xa,xR),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]),c_0_7])]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,hypothesis,
( aReductOfIn0(xb,xa,xR)
| aReductOfIn0(esk12_0,xa,xR) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,hypothesis,
( aReductOfIn0(xb,xa,xR)
| aElement0(esk12_0) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
( ~ aReductOfIn0(X1,xa,xR)
| ~ aElement0(X1)
| ~ sdtmndtplgtdt0(X1,xR,xb) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,hypothesis,
sdtmndtplgtdt0(esk12_0,xR,xb),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,hypothesis,
aReductOfIn0(esk12_0,xa,xR),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,hypothesis,
aElement0(esk12_0),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,hypothesis,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]),c_0_14]),c_0_15])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : COM016+4 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/5.39 % Computer : n016.cluster.edu
% 0.11/5.39 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/5.39 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/5.39 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/5.39 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/5.39 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/5.39 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/5.39 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 14:19:13 UTC 2026
% 0.11/5.39 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/5.40 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.18/5.46 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.18/5.46 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
% 0.18/5.53 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.18/5.53 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.18/5.53 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.18/5.53 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.18/5.53 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.18/5.53 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.18/5.53 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.18/5.53 % sh5l with pid 2639186 completed with status 0
% 0.18/5.53 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.18/5.53 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.18/5.53 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.18/5.53 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.18/5.53 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.18/5.53 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.18/5.53 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.18/5.53 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.18/5.53 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.18/5.53 % Search class: FGHSF-FSLM32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.18/5.53 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.18/5.53 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.18/5.53 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2639189 completed with status 0
% 0.18/5.53 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.18/5.53 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.18/5.53 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.18/5.53 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.18/5.53 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.18/5.53 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.18/5.53 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.18/5.53 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.18/5.53 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.18/5.53 % Search class: FGHSF-FSLM32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.18/5.53 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.18/5.53 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.18/5.53 % Preprocessing time : 0.009 s
% 0.18/5.53
% 0.18/5.53 % Proof found!
% 0.18/5.53 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.18/5.53 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.18/5.53 % Parsed axioms : 20
% 0.18/5.53 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 1
% 0.18/5.53 % Initial clauses : 342
% 0.18/5.53 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 4
% 0.18/5.53 % Initial clauses in saturation : 338
% 0.18/5.53 % Processed clauses : 32
% 0.18/5.53 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.18/5.53 % ...subsumed : 1
% 0.18/5.53 % ...remaining for further processing : 31
% 0.18/5.53 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 1
% 0.18/5.53 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.18/5.53 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.18/5.53 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.18/5.53 % Generated clauses : 11
% 0.18/5.53 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 7
% 0.18/5.53 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.18/5.53 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.18/5.53 % Paramodulations : 7
% 0.18/5.53 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.18/5.53 % NegExts : 0
% 0.18/5.53 % Equation resolutions : 1
% 0.18/5.53 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.18/5.53 % Total rewrite steps : 11
% 0.18/5.53 % ...of those cached : 5
% 0.18/5.53 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.18/5.53 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.18/5.53 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.18/5.53 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.18/5.53 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.18/5.53 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.18/5.53 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.18/5.53 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.18/5.53 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.18/5.53 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.18/5.53 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.18/5.53 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.18/5.53 % Current number of processed clauses : 27
% 0.18/5.53 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 11
% 0.18/5.53 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.18/5.53 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.18/5.53 % Non-unit-clauses : 15
% 0.18/5.53 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 313
% 0.18/5.53 % ...number of literals in the above : 2721
% 0.18/5.53 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.18/5.53 % Current number of archived clauses : 3
% 0.18/5.53 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 31
% 0.18/5.53 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 30
% 0.18/5.53 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 1
% 0.18/5.53 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 10
% 0.18/5.53 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.18/5.53 % BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.18/5.53 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.18/5.53 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.18/5.53 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.18/5.53 % Termbank termtop insertions : 19812
% 0.18/5.53 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2105
% 0.18/5.53
% 0.18/5.53 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.18/5.53 % User time : 0.030 s
% 0.18/5.53 % System time : 0.010 s
% 0.18/5.53 % Total time : 0.040 s
% 0.18/5.53 % Maximum resident set size: 4440 pages
% 0.18/5.53
% 0.18/5.53 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.18/5.53 % User time : 0.031 s
% 0.18/5.53 % System time : 0.015 s
% 0.18/5.53 % Total time : 0.046 s
% 0.18/5.53 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.18/5.53 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------