%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : GRP042-2 : 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 : n006.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 12:41:28 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.28s 0.53s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.28s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 17 ( 9 unt; 0 nHn; 15 RR)
% Number of literals : 31 ( 0 equ; 17 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 3 ( 3 usr; 3 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 30 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(product_substitution3,axiom,
( ~ product(X3,X4,X1)
| ~ equalish(X1,X2)
| product(X3,X4,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GRP005-0.ax',product_substitution3) ).
cnf(total_function2,axiom,
( ~ product(X1,X2,X4)
| ~ product(X1,X2,X3)
| equalish(X3,X4) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GRP005-0.ax',total_function2) ).
cnf(left_identity,axiom,
product(identity,X1,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/GRP005-0.ax',left_identity) ).
cnf(prove_symmetry,negated_conjecture,
~ equalish(b,a),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_symmetry) ).
cnf(a_equals_b,hypothesis,
equalish(a,b),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',a_equals_b) ).
cnf(c_0_5,plain,
( ~ product(X3,X4,X1)
| ~ equalish(X1,X2)
| product(X3,X4,X2) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[product_substitution3]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ product(X1,X2,X4)
| ~ product(X1,X2,X3)
| equalish(X3,X4) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[total_function2]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ product(X3,X4,X1)
| ~ equalish(X1,X2)
| product(X3,X4,X2) ),
c_0_5 ).
cnf(c_0_8,axiom,
product(identity,X1,X1),
left_identity ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
~ equalish(b,a),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_symmetry]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( ~ product(X1,X2,X4)
| ~ product(X1,X2,X3)
| equalish(X3,X4) ),
c_0_6 ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( ~ equalish(X1,X2)
| product(identity,X1,X2) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,hypothesis,
equalish(a,b),
a_equals_b ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
~ equalish(b,a),
c_0_9 ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
( ~ product(identity,X2,X1)
| equalish(X1,X2) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,hypothesis,
product(identity,a,b),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]),c_0_15])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.04 % Problem : GRP042-2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.43 % Computer : n006.cluster.edu
% 0.16/0.43 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.16/0.43 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.16/0.43 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.16/0.43 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.16/0.43 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.16/0.43 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.16/0.43 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 19:55:27 UTC 2026
% 0.16/0.43 % CPUTime :
% 0.16/0.43 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.50 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.16/0.50 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
% 0.28/0.53 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.28/0.53 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.28/0.53 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.28/0.53 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.28/0.53 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.53 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.53 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.53 % G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with pid 1127000 completed with status 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Result found by G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN
% 0.28/0.53 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.28/0.53 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.28/0.53 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.28/0.53 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.28/0.53 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.28/0.53 % Search class: FHUNS-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.28/0.53 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.28/0.53 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.53 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.53 % Starting G-E--_107_C18_F1_AE_Q4_CS_SP_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.53 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.53 % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.53 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1127004 completed with status 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.28/0.53 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.28/0.53 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.28/0.53 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.28/0.53 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.28/0.53 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.28/0.53 % Search class: FHUNS-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.28/0.53 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.28/0.53 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.53 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.28/0.53
% 0.28/0.53 % Proof found!
% 0.28/0.53 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.28/0.53 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.28/0.53 % Parsed axioms : 9
% 0.28/0.53 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Initial clauses : 9
% 0.28/0.53 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Initial clauses in saturation : 9
% 0.28/0.53 % Processed clauses : 13
% 0.28/0.53 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % ...remaining for further processing : 13
% 0.28/0.53 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Generated clauses : 16
% 0.28/0.53 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 12
% 0.28/0.53 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Paramodulations : 16
% 0.28/0.53 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % NegExts : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Total rewrite steps : 3
% 0.28/0.53 % ...of those cached : 2
% 0.28/0.53 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.28/0.53 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.28/0.53 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.28/0.53 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.28/0.53 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.28/0.53 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.28/0.53 % Current number of processed clauses : 13
% 0.28/0.53 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 5
% 0.28/0.53 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.28/0.53 % Non-unit-clauses : 7
% 0.28/0.53 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 8
% 0.28/0.53 % ...number of literals in the above : 22
% 0.28/0.53 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 3
% 0.28/0.53 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3
% 0.28/0.53 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % BW rewrite match attempts : 2
% 0.28/0.53 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.28/0.53 % Termbank termtop insertions : 386
% 0.28/0.53 % Search garbage collected termcells : 24
% 0.28/0.53
% 0.28/0.53 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.28/0.53 % User time : 0.003 s
% 0.28/0.53 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.28/0.53 % Total time : 0.006 s
% 0.28/0.53 % Maximum resident set size: 3384 pages
% 0.28/0.53
% 0.28/0.53 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.28/0.53 % User time : 0.011 s
% 0.28/0.53 % System time : 0.013 s
% 0.28/0.53 % Total time : 0.024 s
% 0.28/0.53 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.28/0.53 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------