%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : CSR098+7 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v7.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n008.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 12:18:52 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 6.31s 4.93s
% Output : CNFRefutation 6.31s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 7
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 13 ( 10 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 68 ( 15 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 45 ( 5 avg)
% Number of connectives : 86 ( 31 ~; 36 |; 16 &)
% ( 1 <=>; 2 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 24 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 8 ( 8 usr; 4 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 28 ( 7 sgn 16 !; 2 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(prove_from_ALL,conjecture,
? [X2341] : s__instance(X2341,s__Amphibian),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_from_ALL) ).
fof(kb_SUMO_32603,axiom,
! [X137,X12,X136] :
( X12 = s__UnionFn(X136,X137)
<=> ! [X1138,X34,X1139] :
( ( s__instance(X137,s__SetOrClass)
& s__instance(X12,s__SetOrClass)
& s__instance(X136,s__SetOrClass) )
=> ( ( s__instance(X1139,X12)
& s__instance(X34,X137)
& s__instance(X1138,X136) )
=> ( ( s__instance(X1139,X137)
| s__instance(X1139,X136) )
& s__instance(X34,X12)
& s__instance(X1138,X12) ) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/CSR003+2.ax',kb_SUMO_32603) ).
fof(kb_SUMO_51184,axiom,
s__instance(s__secretesToxin__m,s__BinaryPredicate),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/CSR003+2.ax',kb_SUMO_51184) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ? [X2341] : s__instance(X2341,s__Amphibian),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[prove_from_ALL]) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
! [X2342] : ~ s__instance(X2342,s__Amphibian),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])])]) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X2530,X2531,X2532,X2533,X2534,X2535,X2536,X2537,X2538] :
( ( X2537 = s__UnionFn(X2538,X2536)
| ~ s__instance(esk12_3(X2536,X2537,X2538),X2537)
| ~ s__instance(esk11_3(X2536,X2537,X2538),X2537)
| ~ s__instance(esk13_3(X2536,X2537,X2538),X2536) )
& ( X2537 = s__UnionFn(X2538,X2536)
| ~ s__instance(esk12_3(X2536,X2537,X2538),X2537)
| ~ s__instance(esk11_3(X2536,X2537,X2538),X2537)
| ~ s__instance(esk13_3(X2536,X2537,X2538),X2538) )
& ( X2537 = s__UnionFn(X2538,X2536)
| s__instance(esk13_3(X2536,X2537,X2538),X2537) )
& ( X2537 = s__UnionFn(X2538,X2536)
| s__instance(esk12_3(X2536,X2537,X2538),X2536) )
& ( X2537 = s__UnionFn(X2538,X2536)
| s__instance(esk11_3(X2536,X2537,X2538),X2538) )
& ( X2537 = s__UnionFn(X2538,X2536)
| s__instance(X2536,s__SetOrClass) )
& ( X2537 = s__UnionFn(X2538,X2536)
| s__instance(X2537,s__SetOrClass) )
& ( X2537 = s__UnionFn(X2538,X2536)
| s__instance(X2538,s__SetOrClass) )
& ( X2531 != s__UnionFn(X2532,X2530)
| ~ s__instance(X2530,s__SetOrClass)
| ~ s__instance(X2531,s__SetOrClass)
| ~ s__instance(X2532,s__SetOrClass)
| ~ s__instance(X2535,X2531)
| ~ s__instance(X2534,X2530)
| ~ s__instance(X2533,X2532)
| s__instance(X2535,X2530)
| s__instance(X2535,X2532) )
& ( X2531 != s__UnionFn(X2532,X2530)
| ~ s__instance(X2530,s__SetOrClass)
| ~ s__instance(X2531,s__SetOrClass)
| ~ s__instance(X2532,s__SetOrClass)
| ~ s__instance(X2535,X2531)
| ~ s__instance(X2534,X2530)
| ~ s__instance(X2533,X2532)
| s__instance(X2534,X2531) )
& ( X2531 != s__UnionFn(X2532,X2530)
| ~ s__instance(X2530,s__SetOrClass)
| ~ s__instance(X2531,s__SetOrClass)
| ~ s__instance(X2532,s__SetOrClass)
| ~ s__instance(X2535,X2531)
| ~ s__instance(X2534,X2530)
| ~ s__instance(X2533,X2532)
| s__instance(X2533,X2531) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[kb_SUMO_32603])])])])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
~ s__instance(X1,s__Amphibian),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( X2 = s__UnionFn(X3,X1)
| s__instance(esk11_3(X1,X2,X3),X3) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
X1 = s__UnionFn(s__Amphibian,X2),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
X1 = X2,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
s__instance(s__secretesToxin__m,s__BinaryPredicate),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[kb_SUMO_51184]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
~ s__instance(X1,X2),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.04 % Problem : CSR098+7 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v7.3.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.19/0.44 % Computer : n008.cluster.edu
% 0.19/0.44 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.19/0.44 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.19/0.44 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.19/0.44 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.19/0.44 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.19/0.44 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.19/0.44 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 14:58:53 UTC 2026
% 0.19/0.44 % CPUTime :
% 0.19/0.44 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.19/0.51 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.19/0.51 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
% 6.31/4.93 % Version: 3.5.1
% 6.31/4.93 % Preprocessing class: FMLLSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 6.31/4.93 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 297 seconds (2376 total)
% 6.31/4.93 % Starting G-E--_208_B07_F1_AE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with 1485s (5) cores
% 6.31/4.93 % Starting new_bool_3 with 297s (1) cores
% 6.31/4.93 % Starting new_bool_1 with 297s (1) cores
% 6.31/4.93 % Starting sh5l with 297s (1) cores
% 6.31/4.93 % G-E--_208_B07_F1_AE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with pid 1248591 completed with status 0
% 6.31/4.93 % Result found by G-E--_208_B07_F1_AE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y
% 6.31/4.93 % Preprocessing class: FMLLSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 6.31/4.93 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 297 seconds (2376 total)
% 6.31/4.93 % Starting G-E--_208_B07_F1_AE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with 1485s (5) cores
% 6.31/4.93 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 6.31/4.93 % SinE strategy is gf200_h_gu_R03_F100_L20000
% 6.31/4.93 % Search class: FGHSS-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 6.31/4.93 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1485 seconds (1485 total)
% 6.31/4.93 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 134s (1) cores
% 6.31/4.93 % Starting G-E--_208_B07_F1_AE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with 149s (1) cores
% 6.31/4.93 % Starting G-E--_208_B07_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 134s (1) cores
% 6.31/4.93 % Starting new_bool_3 with 134s (1) cores
% 6.31/4.93 % Starting new_bool_1 with 134s (1) cores
% 6.31/4.93 % G-E--_208_B07_F1_AE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with pid 1248596 completed with status 0
% 6.31/4.93 % Result found by G-E--_208_B07_F1_AE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y
% 6.31/4.93 % Preprocessing class: FMLLSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 6.31/4.93 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 297 seconds (2376 total)
% 6.31/4.93 % Starting G-E--_208_B07_F1_AE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with 1485s (5) cores
% 6.31/4.93 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 6.31/4.93 % SinE strategy is gf200_h_gu_R03_F100_L20000
% 6.31/4.93 % Search class: FGHSS-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 6.31/4.93 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1485 seconds (1485 total)
% 6.31/4.93 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 134s (1) cores
% 6.31/4.93 % Starting G-E--_208_B07_F1_AE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with 149s (1) cores
% 6.31/4.93 % Preprocessing time : 0.023 s
% 6.31/4.93 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 6.31/4.93
% 6.31/4.93 % Proof found!
% 6.31/4.93 % SZS status Theorem
% 6.31/4.93 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 6.31/4.93 % Parsed axioms : 55590
% 6.31/4.93 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 55428
% 6.31/4.93 % Initial clauses : 266
% 6.31/4.93 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 21
% 6.31/4.93 % Initial clauses in saturation : 245
% 6.31/4.93 % Processed clauses : 455
% 6.31/4.93 % ...of these trivial : 15
% 6.31/4.93 % ...subsumed : 8
% 6.31/4.93 % ...remaining for further processing : 432
% 6.31/4.93 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 1
% 6.31/4.93 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 6.31/4.93 % Backward-subsumed : 76
% 6.31/4.93 % Backward-rewritten : 42
% 6.31/4.93 % Generated clauses : 1192
% 6.31/4.93 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 931
% 6.31/4.93 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 6.31/4.93 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 101
% 6.31/4.93 % Paramodulations : 1185
% 6.31/4.93 % Factorizations : 0
% 6.31/4.93 % NegExts : 0
% 6.31/4.93 % Equation resolutions : 1
% 6.31/4.93 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 6.31/4.93 % Total rewrite steps : 323
% 6.31/4.93 % ...of those cached : 189
% 6.31/4.93 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 6.31/4.93 % Propositional check models : 0
% 6.31/4.93 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 6.31/4.93 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 6.31/4.93 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 6.31/4.93 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 6.31/4.93 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 6.31/4.93 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 6.31/4.93 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 6.31/4.93 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 6.31/4.93 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 6.31/4.93 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 6.31/4.93 % Current number of processed clauses : 63
% 6.31/4.93 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 57
% 6.31/4.93 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 6.31/4.93 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 6.31/4.93 % Non-unit-clauses : 4
% 6.31/4.93 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 788
% 6.31/4.93 % ...number of literals in the above : 1977
% 6.31/4.93 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 6.31/4.93 % Current number of archived clauses : 368
% 6.31/4.93 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 20207
% 6.31/4.93 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1747
% 6.31/4.93 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 108
% 6.31/4.93 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 561
% 6.31/4.93 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 362
% 6.31/4.93 % BW rewrite match attempts : 971
% 6.31/4.93 % BW rewrite match successes : 388
% 6.31/4.93 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 6.31/4.93 % Condensation successes : 0
% 6.31/4.93 % Termbank termtop insertions : 684626
% 6.31/4.93 % Search garbage collected termcells : 294489
% 6.31/4.93
% 6.31/4.93 % -------------------------------------------------
% 6.31/4.93 % User time : 0.400 s
% 6.31/4.93 % System time : 0.172 s
% 6.31/4.93 % Total time : 0.572 s
% 6.31/4.93 % Maximum resident set size: 137016 pages
% 6.31/4.93
% 6.31/4.93 % -------------------------------------------------
% 6.31/4.93 % User time : 4.204 s
% 6.31/4.93 % System time : 0.532 s
% 6.31/4.93 % Total time : 4.735 s
% 6.31/4.93 % Maximum resident set size: 63744 pages
% 6.31/4.93 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------