%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : COM147+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v6.4.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n013.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 12:11:39 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.15s 15.61s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.15s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 10 ( 3 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 21 ( 7 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 3 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 21 ( 10 ~; 2 |; 5 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 4 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 8 ( 5 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 8 ( 8 usr; 5 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 28 ( 6 sgn 18 !; 3 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof('T-Progress-T-abs',conjecture,
! [X36,X9,X10] :
( ( ~ visValue(vabs(X9,X10,ve1))
& vtcheck(vempty,vabs(X9,X10,ve1),X36) )
=> ? [X35] : vreduce(vabs(X9,X10,ve1)) = vsomeExp(X35) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p','T-Progress-T-abs') ).
fof(isValue0,axiom,
! [X9,X10,X11,X4] :
( X4 = vabs(X9,X10,X11)
=> visValue(X4) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/COM001+0.ax',isValue0) ).
fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X36,X9,X10] :
( ( ~ visValue(vabs(X9,X10,ve1))
& vtcheck(vempty,vabs(X9,X10,ve1),X36) )
=> ? [X35] : vreduce(vabs(X9,X10,ve1)) = vsomeExp(X35) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],['T-Progress-T-abs']) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X36,X9,X10] :
( ( ~ visValue(vabs(X9,X10,ve1))
& vtcheck(vempty,vabs(X9,X10,ve1),X36) )
=> ? [X35] : vreduce(vabs(X9,X10,ve1)) = vsomeExp(X35) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
fof(c_0_4,plain,
! [X93,X94,X95,X96] :
( visValue(X96)
| X96 != vabs(X93,X94,X95) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[isValue0])])]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
! [X40] :
( vreduce(vabs(esk2_0,esk3_0,ve1)) != vsomeExp(X40)
& ~ visValue(vabs(esk2_0,esk3_0,ve1))
& vtcheck(vempty,vabs(esk2_0,esk3_0,ve1),esk1_0) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( X1 != vabs(X2,X3,X4)
| visValue(X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
~ visValue(vabs(esk2_0,esk3_0,ve1)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
visValue(vabs(X1,X2,X3)),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : COM147+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v6.4.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/15.53 % Computer : n013.cluster.edu
% 0.11/15.53 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/15.53 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/15.53 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/15.53 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/15.54 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/15.54 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/15.54 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 14:18:23 UTC 2026
% 0.11/15.54 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/15.54 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/15.58 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.11/15.59 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
% 0.15/15.61 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.15/15.61 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/15.61 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/15.61 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/15.61 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/15.61 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/15.61 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/15.61 % new_bool_1 with pid 978641 completed with status 0
% 0.15/15.61 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.15/15.61 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/15.61 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/15.61 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/15.61 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/15.61 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/15.61 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.15/15.61 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.15/15.61 % Search class: FGHSF-FFLF32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/15.61 % partial match(1): FGHSF-FFMF32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/15.61 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.15/15.61 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.15/15.61 % SubtermCWHack with pid 978647 completed with status 0
% 0.15/15.61 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.15/15.61 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/15.61 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/15.61 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/15.61 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/15.61 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/15.61 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.15/15.61 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.15/15.61 % Search class: FGHSF-FFLF32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/15.61 % partial match(1): FGHSF-FFMF32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/15.61 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.15/15.61 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.15/15.61 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.15/15.61
% 0.15/15.61 % Proof found!
% 0.15/15.61 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.15/15.61 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.15/15.61 % Parsed axioms : 58
% 0.15/15.61 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 14
% 0.15/15.61 % Initial clauses : 112
% 0.15/15.61 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 12
% 0.15/15.61 % Initial clauses in saturation : 100
% 0.15/15.61 % Processed clauses : 20
% 0.15/15.61 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.15/15.61 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.15/15.61 % ...remaining for further processing : 20
% 0.15/15.61 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 5
% 0.15/15.61 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.15/15.61 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.15/15.61 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.15/15.61 % Generated clauses : 8
% 0.15/15.61 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 5
% 0.15/15.61 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.15/15.61 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.15/15.61 % Paramodulations : 0
% 0.15/15.61 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.15/15.61 % NegExts : 0
% 0.15/15.61 % Equation resolutions : 8
% 0.15/15.61 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.15/15.61 % Total rewrite steps : 1
% 0.15/15.61 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.15/15.61 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.15/15.61 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.15/15.61 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.15/15.61 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.15/15.61 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.15/15.61 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.15/15.61 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.15/15.61 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/15.61 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/15.61 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.15/15.61 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/15.61 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/15.61 % Current number of processed clauses : 14
% 0.15/15.61 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 3
% 0.15/15.61 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.15/15.61 % Negative unit clauses : 8
% 0.15/15.61 % Non-unit-clauses : 3
% 0.15/15.61 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 85
% 0.15/15.61 % ...number of literals in the above : 329
% 0.15/15.61 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.15/15.61 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.15/15.61 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.15/15.61 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.15/15.61 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.15/15.61 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% 0.15/15.61 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.15/15.61 % BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.15/15.61 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.15/15.61 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.15/15.61 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.15/15.61 % Termbank termtop insertions : 7215
% 0.15/15.61 % Search garbage collected termcells : 1814
% 0.15/15.61
% 0.15/15.61 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/15.61 % User time : 0.010 s
% 0.15/15.61 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.15/15.61 % Total time : 0.012 s
% 0.15/15.61 % Maximum resident set size: 4008 pages
% 0.15/15.61
% 0.15/15.61 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/15.61 % User time : 0.013 s
% 0.15/15.61 % System time : 0.007 s
% 0.15/15.61 % Total time : 0.020 s
% 0.15/15.61 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.15/15.61 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------