%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : GRP010-4 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n009.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 12:37:26 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.23s 0.54s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.23s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 18 ( 18 unt; 0 nHn; 8 RR)
% Number of literals : 18 ( 17 equ; 3 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 0 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 16 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(associativity,axiom,
multiply(multiply(X1,X2),X3) = multiply(X1,multiply(X2,X3)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',associativity) ).
cnf(left_inverse,axiom,
multiply(inverse(X1),X1) = identity,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',left_inverse) ).
cnf(left_identity,axiom,
multiply(identity,X1) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',left_identity) ).
cnf(c_times_b_is_e,hypothesis,
multiply(c,b) = identity,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',c_times_b_is_e) ).
cnf(prove_b_times_c_is_e,negated_conjecture,
multiply(b,c) != identity,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_b_times_c_is_e) ).
cnf(c_0_5,axiom,
multiply(multiply(X1,X2),X3) = multiply(X1,multiply(X2,X3)),
associativity ).
cnf(c_0_6,axiom,
multiply(inverse(X1),X1) = identity,
left_inverse ).
cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
multiply(identity,X1) = X1,
left_identity ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
multiply(inverse(X1),multiply(X1,X2)) = X2,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]),c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,hypothesis,
multiply(c,b) = identity,
c_times_b_is_e ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
multiply(inverse(inverse(X1)),identity) = X1,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
multiply(inverse(inverse(X1)),X2) = multiply(X1,X2),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,hypothesis,
multiply(inverse(c),identity) = b,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
multiply(X1,identity) = X1,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
multiply(b,c) != identity,
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_b_times_c_is_e]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,hypothesis,
inverse(c) = b,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
multiply(b,c) != identity,
c_0_14 ).
cnf(c_0_17,hypothesis,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_15]),c_0_16]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : GRP010-4 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.21/0.45 % Computer : n009.cluster.edu
% 0.21/0.45 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.21/0.45 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.21/0.45 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.21/0.45 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.21/0.45 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.21/0.46 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.21/0.46 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 19:53:27 UTC 2026
% 0.21/0.46 % CPUTime :
% 0.21/0.46 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.23/0.51 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.23/0.51 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
% 0.23/0.54 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.23/0.54 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.23/0.54 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/0.54 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.23/0.54 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.54 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.54 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.54 % G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with pid 4095558 completed with status 0
% 0.23/0.54 % Result found by G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN
% 0.23/0.54 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.23/0.54 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/0.54 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.23/0.54 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.23/0.54 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.23/0.54 % Search class: FUUPS-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.23/0.54 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.23/0.54 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.54 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.54 % Starting C12_02_nc_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 136s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.54 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.54 % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.54 % SubtermCWHack with pid 4095562 completed with status 0
% 0.23/0.54 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.23/0.54 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.23/0.54 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/0.54 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.23/0.54 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.23/0.54 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.23/0.54 % Search class: FUUPS-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.23/0.54 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.23/0.54 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.54 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.23/0.54
% 0.23/0.54 % Proof found!
% 0.23/0.54 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.23/0.54 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.23/0.54 % Parsed axioms : 5
% 0.23/0.54 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.23/0.54 % Initial clauses : 5
% 0.23/0.54 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.23/0.54 % Initial clauses in saturation : 5
% 0.23/0.54 % Processed clauses : 13
% 0.23/0.54 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.23/0.54 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.23/0.54 % ...remaining for further processing : 13
% 0.23/0.54 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.23/0.54 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.23/0.54 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.23/0.54 % Backward-rewritten : 2
% 0.23/0.54 % Generated clauses : 33
% 0.23/0.54 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 20
% 0.23/0.54 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.23/0.54 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.23/0.54 % Paramodulations : 33
% 0.23/0.54 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.23/0.54 % NegExts : 0
% 0.23/0.54 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.23/0.54 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.23/0.54 % Total rewrite steps : 25
% 0.23/0.54 % ...of those cached : 5
% 0.23/0.54 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.23/0.54 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.23/0.54 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.23/0.54 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.23/0.54 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.23/0.54 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.23/0.54 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.54 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.54 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.54 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.54 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.54 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.54 % Current number of processed clauses : 11
% 0.23/0.54 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 10
% 0.23/0.54 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.23/0.54 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.23/0.54 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.23/0.54 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 12
% 0.23/0.54 % ...number of literals in the above : 12
% 0.23/0.54 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.23/0.54 % Current number of archived clauses : 2
% 0.23/0.54 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.23/0.54 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.23/0.54 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.23/0.54 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.23/0.54 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.23/0.54 % BW rewrite match attempts : 2
% 0.23/0.54 % BW rewrite match successes : 2
% 0.23/0.54 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.23/0.54 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.23/0.54 % Termbank termtop insertions : 285
% 0.23/0.54 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2
% 0.23/0.54
% 0.23/0.54 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.23/0.54 % User time : 0.004 s
% 0.23/0.54 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.23/0.54 % Total time : 0.008 s
% 0.23/0.54 % Maximum resident set size: 3572 pages
% 0.23/0.54
% 0.23/0.54 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.23/0.54 % User time : 0.017 s
% 0.23/0.54 % System time : 0.014 s
% 0.23/0.54 % Total time : 0.031 s
% 0.23/0.54 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.23/0.54 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------