%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : COM021+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 : n001.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 12:11:29 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.14s 0.65s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.14s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 14 ( 5 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 96 ( 22 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 25 ( 6 avg)
% Number of connectives : 95 ( 13 ~; 40 |; 42 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 12 ( 6 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 7 ( 5 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 8 ( 8 usr; 8 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 9 ( 1 sgn 2 !; 6 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(m__850,hypothesis,
( sdtmndtasgtdt0(xd,xR,xx)
& ( ( sdtmndtplgtdt0(xd,xR,xx)
& ( ? [X1] :
( sdtmndtplgtdt0(X1,xR,xx)
& aReductOfIn0(X1,xd,xR)
& aElement0(X1) )
| aReductOfIn0(xx,xd,xR) ) )
| xd = xx )
& sdtmndtasgtdt0(xb,xR,xx)
& ( ( sdtmndtplgtdt0(xb,xR,xx)
& ( ? [X1] :
( sdtmndtplgtdt0(X1,xR,xx)
& aReductOfIn0(X1,xb,xR)
& aElement0(X1) )
| aReductOfIn0(xx,xb,xR) ) )
| xb = xx )
& aElement0(xx) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__850) ).
fof(m__818,hypothesis,
( aNormalFormOfIn0(xd,xw,xR)
& ~ ? [X1] : aReductOfIn0(X1,xd,xR)
& sdtmndtasgtdt0(xw,xR,xd)
& ( ( sdtmndtplgtdt0(xw,xR,xd)
& ( ? [X1] :
( sdtmndtplgtdt0(X1,xR,xd)
& aReductOfIn0(X1,xw,xR)
& aElement0(X1) )
| aReductOfIn0(xd,xw,xR) ) )
| xw = xd )
& aElement0(xd) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__818) ).
fof(m__,conjecture,
( sdtmndtasgtdt0(xb,xR,xd)
| sdtmndtplgtdt0(xb,xR,xd)
| ? [X1] :
( sdtmndtplgtdt0(X1,xR,xd)
& aReductOfIn0(X1,xb,xR)
& aElement0(X1) )
| aReductOfIn0(xd,xb,xR)
| xb = xd ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__) ).
fof(c_0_3,hypothesis,
( sdtmndtasgtdt0(xd,xR,xx)
& ( xd = xx
| sdtmndtplgtdt0(xd,xR,xx) )
& ( xd = xx
| aReductOfIn0(xx,xd,xR)
| sdtmndtplgtdt0(esk15_0,xR,xx) )
& ( xd = xx
| aReductOfIn0(xx,xd,xR)
| aReductOfIn0(esk15_0,xd,xR) )
& ( xd = xx
| aReductOfIn0(xx,xd,xR)
| aElement0(esk15_0) )
& sdtmndtasgtdt0(xb,xR,xx)
& ( xb = xx
| sdtmndtplgtdt0(xb,xR,xx) )
& ( xb = xx
| aReductOfIn0(xx,xb,xR)
| sdtmndtplgtdt0(esk14_0,xR,xx) )
& ( xb = xx
| aReductOfIn0(xx,xb,xR)
| aReductOfIn0(esk14_0,xb,xR) )
& ( xb = xx
| aReductOfIn0(xx,xb,xR)
| aElement0(esk14_0) )
& aElement0(xx) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[m__850])])]) ).
fof(c_0_4,hypothesis,
! [X30] :
( aNormalFormOfIn0(xd,xw,xR)
& ~ aReductOfIn0(X30,xd,xR)
& sdtmndtasgtdt0(xw,xR,xd)
& ( xw = xd
| sdtmndtplgtdt0(xw,xR,xd) )
& ( xw = xd
| aReductOfIn0(xd,xw,xR)
| sdtmndtplgtdt0(esk13_0,xR,xd) )
& ( xw = xd
| aReductOfIn0(xd,xw,xR)
| aReductOfIn0(esk13_0,xw,xR) )
& ( xw = xd
| aReductOfIn0(xd,xw,xR)
| aElement0(esk13_0) )
& aElement0(xd) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[m__818])])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ ( sdtmndtasgtdt0(xb,xR,xd)
| sdtmndtplgtdt0(xb,xR,xd)
| ? [X1] :
( sdtmndtplgtdt0(X1,xR,xd)
& aReductOfIn0(X1,xb,xR)
& aElement0(X1) )
| aReductOfIn0(xd,xb,xR)
| xb = xd ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[m__]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,hypothesis,
( xd = xx
| aReductOfIn0(xx,xd,xR)
| aReductOfIn0(esk15_0,xd,xR) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,hypothesis,
~ aReductOfIn0(X1,xd,xR),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
fof(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
! [X33] :
( ~ sdtmndtasgtdt0(xb,xR,xd)
& ~ sdtmndtplgtdt0(xb,xR,xd)
& ( ~ sdtmndtplgtdt0(X33,xR,xd)
| ~ aReductOfIn0(X33,xb,xR)
| ~ aElement0(X33) )
& ~ aReductOfIn0(xd,xb,xR)
& xb != xd ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_5])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,hypothesis,
( xb = xx
| sdtmndtplgtdt0(xb,xR,xx) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,hypothesis,
xx = xd,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]),c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
xb != xd,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
~ sdtmndtplgtdt0(xb,xR,xd),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,hypothesis,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_10]),c_0_11]),c_0_12]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : COM021+4 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.57 % Computer : n001.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.57 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.57 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.57 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.57 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.57 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.57 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.57 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 14:20:14 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.57 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/0.57 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.62 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.10/0.62 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
% 0.14/0.65 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.14/0.65 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.65 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.65 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.65 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.65 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.65 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.65 % new_bool_3 with pid 3344262 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.65 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.14/0.65 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.65 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.65 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.65 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.65 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.14/0.65 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.14/0.65 % Search class: FGHSF-FSLM32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.65 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.14/0.65 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.65 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3344270 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.65 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.14/0.65 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.65 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.65 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.65 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.65 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.14/0.65 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.14/0.65 % Search class: FGHSF-FSLM32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.65 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.14/0.65 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.65 % Preprocessing time : 0.006 s
% 0.14/0.65
% 0.14/0.65 % Proof found!
% 0.14/0.65 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.14/0.65 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.14/0.65 % Parsed axioms : 25
% 0.14/0.65 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 1
% 0.14/0.65 % Initial clauses : 386
% 0.14/0.65 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 4
% 0.14/0.65 % Initial clauses in saturation : 382
% 0.14/0.65 % Processed clauses : 87
% 0.14/0.65 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.14/0.65 % ...subsumed : 10
% 0.14/0.65 % ...remaining for further processing : 77
% 0.14/0.65 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 1
% 0.14/0.65 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.14/0.65 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.65 % Backward-rewritten : 9
% 0.14/0.65 % Generated clauses : 25
% 0.14/0.65 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 17
% 0.14/0.65 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.65 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.14/0.65 % Paramodulations : 24
% 0.14/0.65 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.14/0.65 % NegExts : 0
% 0.14/0.65 % Equation resolutions : 1
% 0.14/0.65 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.14/0.65 % Total rewrite steps : 62
% 0.14/0.65 % ...of those cached : 52
% 0.14/0.65 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.14/0.65 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.14/0.65 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.14/0.65 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.14/0.65 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.14/0.65 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.14/0.65 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.65 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.65 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.65 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.65 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.65 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.65 % Current number of processed clauses : 67
% 0.14/0.65 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 21
% 0.14/0.65 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.14/0.65 % Negative unit clauses : 5
% 0.14/0.65 % Non-unit-clauses : 41
% 0.14/0.65 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 309
% 0.14/0.65 % ...number of literals in the above : 2704
% 0.14/0.65 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.14/0.65 % Current number of archived clauses : 9
% 0.14/0.65 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 159
% 0.14/0.65 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 99
% 0.14/0.65 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 10
% 0.14/0.65 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 4
% 0.14/0.65 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.14/0.65 % BW rewrite match attempts : 4
% 0.14/0.65 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.14/0.65 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.14/0.65 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.14/0.65 % Termbank termtop insertions : 21768
% 0.14/0.65 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2259
% 0.14/0.65
% 0.14/0.65 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.65 % User time : 0.021 s
% 0.14/0.65 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.14/0.65 % Total time : 0.027 s
% 0.14/0.65 % Maximum resident set size: 4460 pages
% 0.14/0.65
% 0.14/0.65 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.65 % User time : 0.022 s
% 0.14/0.65 % System time : 0.011 s
% 0.14/0.65 % Total time : 0.032 s
% 0.14/0.65 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.14/0.65 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------