%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : FLD067-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v2.1.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n014.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 12:22:56 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.24s 0.91s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.24s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 7
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 22 ( 8 unt; 0 nHn; 22 RR)
% Number of literals : 44 ( 0 equ; 25 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 2 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 28 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(compatibility_of_equality_and_order_relation,axiom,
( ~ equalish(X3,X1)
| ~ less_or_equal(X3,X2)
| less_or_equal(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/FLD001-0.ax',compatibility_of_equality_and_order_relation) ).
cnf(existence_of_inverse_addition,axiom,
( ~ defined(X1)
| equalish(add(X1,additive_inverse(X1)),additive_identity) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/FLD001-0.ax',existence_of_inverse_addition) ).
cnf(compatibility_of_order_relation_and_addition,axiom,
( ~ less_or_equal(X1,X3)
| ~ defined(X2)
| less_or_equal(add(X1,X2),add(X3,X2)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/FLD001-0.ax',compatibility_of_order_relation_and_addition) ).
cnf(well_definedness_of_additive_inverse,axiom,
( ~ defined(X1)
| defined(additive_inverse(X1)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/FLD001-0.ax',well_definedness_of_additive_inverse) ).
cnf(not_less_or_equal_4,negated_conjecture,
~ less_or_equal(additive_identity,add(b,additive_inverse(a))),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',not_less_or_equal_4) ).
cnf(less_or_equal_3,negated_conjecture,
less_or_equal(a,b),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',less_or_equal_3) ).
cnf(a_is_defined,hypothesis,
defined(a),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',a_is_defined) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ equalish(X3,X1)
| ~ less_or_equal(X3,X2)
| less_or_equal(X1,X2) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[compatibility_of_equality_and_order_relation]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ defined(X1)
| equalish(add(X1,additive_inverse(X1)),additive_identity) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[existence_of_inverse_addition]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ equalish(X3,X1)
| ~ less_or_equal(X3,X2)
| less_or_equal(X1,X2) ),
c_0_7 ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( ~ defined(X1)
| equalish(add(X1,additive_inverse(X1)),additive_identity) ),
c_0_8 ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( ~ less_or_equal(X1,X3)
| ~ defined(X2)
| less_or_equal(add(X1,X2),add(X3,X2)) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[compatibility_of_order_relation_and_addition]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( ~ defined(X1)
| defined(additive_inverse(X1)) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[well_definedness_of_additive_inverse]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
~ less_or_equal(additive_identity,add(b,additive_inverse(a))),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[not_less_or_equal_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
( ~ defined(X2)
| ~ less_or_equal(add(X2,additive_inverse(X2)),X1)
| less_or_equal(additive_identity,X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
( ~ less_or_equal(X1,X3)
| ~ defined(X2)
| less_or_equal(add(X1,X2),add(X3,X2)) ),
c_0_11 ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
( ~ defined(X1)
| defined(additive_inverse(X1)) ),
c_0_12 ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
~ less_or_equal(additive_identity,add(b,additive_inverse(a))),
c_0_13 ).
cnf(c_0_18,plain,
( ~ defined(X2)
| ~ less_or_equal(X2,X1)
| less_or_equal(additive_identity,add(X1,additive_inverse(X2))) ),
inference(csr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]),c_0_16]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
less_or_equal(a,b),
less_or_equal_3 ).
cnf(c_0_20,hypothesis,
defined(a),
a_is_defined ).
cnf(c_0_21,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_18]),c_0_19]),c_0_20])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : FLD067-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v2.1.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.22/0.66 % Computer : n014.cluster.edu
% 0.22/0.66 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.22/0.66 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.22/0.66 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.22/0.66 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.22/0.66 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.22/0.66 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.22/0.66 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 15:44:06 UTC 2026
% 0.22/0.67 % CPUTime :
% 0.22/0.67 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.24/0.74 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.24/0.74 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
% 0.24/0.91 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.24/0.91 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.91 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.91 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.91 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.91 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.91 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.91 % new_bool_3 with pid 232736 completed with status 0
% 0.24/0.91 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.24/0.91 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.91 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.91 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.91 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.91 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.24/0.91 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.24/0.91 % Search class: FGUNF-FFMS21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.24/0.91 % Scheduled 8 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.24/0.91 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.91 % SubtermCWHack with pid 232739 completed with status 0
% 0.24/0.91 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.24/0.91 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.91 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.91 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.91 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.91 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.24/0.91 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.24/0.91 % Search class: FGUNF-FFMS21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.24/0.91 % Scheduled 8 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.24/0.91 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.91 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.24/0.91
% 0.24/0.91 % Proof found!
% 0.24/0.91 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.24/0.91 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.24/0.91 % Parsed axioms : 31
% 0.24/0.91 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 5
% 0.24/0.91 % Initial clauses : 26
% 0.24/0.91 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.24/0.91 % Initial clauses in saturation : 26
% 0.24/0.91 % Processed clauses : 1496
% 0.24/0.91 % ...of these trivial : 6
% 0.24/0.91 % ...subsumed : 925
% 0.24/0.91 % ...remaining for further processing : 565
% 0.24/0.91 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.24/0.91 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.24/0.91 % Backward-subsumed : 38
% 0.24/0.91 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.24/0.91 % Generated clauses : 10145
% 0.24/0.91 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 8519
% 0.24/0.91 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.24/0.91 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 7
% 0.24/0.91 % Paramodulations : 10145
% 0.24/0.91 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.24/0.91 % NegExts : 0
% 0.24/0.91 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.24/0.91 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.24/0.91 % Total rewrite steps : 4387
% 0.24/0.91 % ...of those cached : 4362
% 0.24/0.91 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.24/0.91 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.24/0.91 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.24/0.91 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.24/0.91 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.24/0.91 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.24/0.91 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.91 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.91 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.91 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.91 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.91 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.91 % Current number of processed clauses : 527
% 0.24/0.91 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 30
% 0.24/0.91 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.24/0.91 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.24/0.91 % Non-unit-clauses : 496
% 0.24/0.91 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 7023
% 0.24/0.91 % ...number of literals in the above : 28624
% 0.24/0.91 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.24/0.91 % Current number of archived clauses : 38
% 0.24/0.91 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 15826
% 0.24/0.91 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 13845
% 0.24/0.92 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 964
% 0.24/0.92 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 42
% 0.24/0.92 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.24/0.92 % BW rewrite match attempts : 6
% 0.24/0.92 % BW rewrite match successes : 6
% 0.24/0.92 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.24/0.92 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.24/0.92 % Termbank termtop insertions : 139758
% 0.24/0.92 % Search garbage collected termcells : 87
% 0.24/0.92
% 0.24/0.92 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/0.92 % User time : 0.140 s
% 0.24/0.92 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.24/0.92 % Total time : 0.146 s
% 0.24/0.92 % Maximum resident set size: 3660 pages
% 0.24/0.92
% 0.24/0.92 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/0.92 % User time : 0.140 s
% 0.24/0.92 % System time : 0.012 s
% 0.24/0.92 % Total time : 0.152 s
% 0.24/0.92 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.24/0.92 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------