%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : GRP033-3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v4.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n010.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 12:41:26 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.26s 0.58s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.26s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 6
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 17 ( 10 unt; 0 nHn; 11 RR)
% Number of literals : 33 ( 0 equ; 19 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 2 con; 0-1 aty)
% Number of variables : 19 ( 1 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(closure_of_product_and_inverse,axiom,
( ~ product(X1,inverse(X2),X3)
| ~ subgroup_member(X2)
| ~ subgroup_member(X1)
| subgroup_member(X3) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',closure_of_product_and_inverse) ).
cnf(right_inverse,axiom,
product(X1,inverse(X1),identity),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',right_inverse) ).
cnf(prove_subgr2,negated_conjecture,
( ~ subgroup_member(X1)
| ~ product(X1,j(X1),j(X1))
| ~ product(j(X1),X1,j(X1)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_subgr2) ).
cnf(a_is_in_subgroup,hypothesis,
subgroup_member(a),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',a_is_in_subgroup) ).
cnf(right_identity,axiom,
product(X1,identity,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',right_identity) ).
cnf(left_identity,axiom,
product(identity,X1,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',left_identity) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ product(X1,inverse(X2),X3)
| ~ subgroup_member(X2)
| ~ subgroup_member(X1)
| subgroup_member(X3) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[closure_of_product_and_inverse]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ product(X1,inverse(X2),X3)
| ~ subgroup_member(X2)
| ~ subgroup_member(X1)
| subgroup_member(X3) ),
c_0_6 ).
cnf(c_0_8,axiom,
product(X1,inverse(X1),identity),
right_inverse ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
( ~ subgroup_member(X1)
| ~ product(X1,j(X1),j(X1))
| ~ product(j(X1),X1,j(X1)) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_subgr2]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( ~ subgroup_member(X1)
| subgroup_member(identity) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,hypothesis,
subgroup_member(a),
a_is_in_subgroup ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
( ~ subgroup_member(X1)
| ~ product(X1,j(X1),j(X1))
| ~ product(j(X1),X1,j(X1)) ),
c_0_9 ).
cnf(c_0_13,axiom,
product(X1,identity,X1),
right_identity ).
cnf(c_0_14,hypothesis,
subgroup_member(identity),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,axiom,
product(identity,X1,X1),
left_identity ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]),c_0_14]),c_0_15])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.04 % Problem : GRP033-3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.17/0.44 % Computer : n010.cluster.edu
% 0.17/0.44 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.17/0.44 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.17/0.44 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.17/0.44 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.17/0.44 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.17/0.44 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.17/0.44 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 19:54:54 UTC 2026
% 0.17/0.44 % CPUTime :
% 0.17/0.44 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.26/0.51 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.26/0.51 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
% 0.26/0.58 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.26/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.58 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.58 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.58 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.58 % new_bool_3 with pid 3375405 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.58 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.26/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.58 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.58 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.26/0.58 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.26/0.58 % Search class: FHHNM-FFSF11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.58 % partial match(1): FHHNF-FFSF11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.58 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.26/0.58 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.58 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3375413 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.58 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.26/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.58 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.58 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.26/0.58 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.26/0.58 % Search class: FHHNM-FFSF11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.58 % partial match(1): FHHNF-FFSF11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.58 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.26/0.58 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.58 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.26/0.58
% 0.26/0.58 % Proof found!
% 0.26/0.58 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.26/0.58 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.26/0.58 % Parsed axioms : 22
% 0.26/0.58 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 3
% 0.26/0.58 % Initial clauses : 19
% 0.26/0.58 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.26/0.58 % Initial clauses in saturation : 19
% 0.26/0.58 % Processed clauses : 66
% 0.26/0.58 % ...of these trivial : 1
% 0.26/0.58 % ...subsumed : 12
% 0.26/0.58 % ...remaining for further processing : 53
% 0.26/0.58 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.26/0.58 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.26/0.58 % Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.26/0.58 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.26/0.58 % Generated clauses : 198
% 0.26/0.58 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 162
% 0.26/0.58 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.26/0.58 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.26/0.58 % Paramodulations : 198
% 0.26/0.58 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.26/0.58 % NegExts : 0
% 0.26/0.58 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.26/0.58 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.26/0.58 % Total rewrite steps : 39
% 0.26/0.58 % ...of those cached : 26
% 0.26/0.58 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.26/0.58 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.26/0.58 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.26/0.58 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.26/0.58 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.26/0.58 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.26/0.58 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.58 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.58 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.58 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.58 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.58 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.58 % Current number of processed clauses : 51
% 0.26/0.58 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 10
% 0.26/0.58 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.26/0.58 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.26/0.58 % Non-unit-clauses : 41
% 0.26/0.58 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 111
% 0.26/0.58 % ...number of literals in the above : 285
% 0.26/0.58 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.26/0.58 % Current number of archived clauses : 2
% 0.26/0.58 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 302
% 0.26/0.58 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 301
% 0.26/0.58 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 13
% 0.26/0.58 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.26/0.58 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.26/0.58 % BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.26/0.58 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.26/0.58 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.26/0.58 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.26/0.58 % Termbank termtop insertions : 2441
% 0.26/0.58 % Search garbage collected termcells : 66
% 0.26/0.58
% 0.26/0.58 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.58 % User time : 0.006 s
% 0.26/0.58 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.26/0.58 % Total time : 0.008 s
% 0.26/0.58 % Maximum resident set size: 3644 pages
% 0.26/0.58
% 0.26/0.58 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.58 % User time : 0.008 s
% 0.26/0.58 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.26/0.58 % Total time : 0.014 s
% 0.26/0.58 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.26/0.58 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------