%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : GRP393-2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.5.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/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 12:39:32 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Satisfiable 0.24s 0.58s
% Output : Saturation 0.24s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : ERROR: Analysing output (Could not find formula named associativity_of_multiplyERROR: Could not build tree for root c_0_1ERROR: MakeTreeStats fails)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(c_0_1,axiom,
multiply(multiply(X1,X2),X3) = multiply(X1,multiply(X2,X3)),
associativity_of_multiply,
[final] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : GRP393-2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.5.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.20/0.48 % Computer : n006.cluster.edu
% 0.20/0.48 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.20/0.48 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.20/0.48 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.20/0.48 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.20/0.48 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.20/0.48 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.20/0.48 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 20:11:42 UTC 2026
% 0.20/0.48 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.49 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.24/0.55 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.24/0.55 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
% 0.24/0.58 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.24/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with pid 1161260 completed with status 1
% 0.24/0.58 % Result found by G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN
% 0.24/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.24/0.58 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.24/0.58 % Search class: FUUPF-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.24/0.58 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1161261 completed with status 1
% 0.24/0.58 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.24/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.24/0.58 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.24/0.58 % Search class: FUUPF-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.24/0.58 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.24/0.58
% 0.24/0.58 % No proof found!
% 0.24/0.58 % SZS status Satisfiable
% 0.24/0.58 % SZS output start Saturation
% See solution above
% 0.24/0.58 % Parsed axioms : 1
% 0.24/0.58 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Initial clauses : 1
% 0.24/0.58 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Initial clauses in saturation : 1
% 0.24/0.58 % Processed clauses : 1
% 0.24/0.58 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % ...remaining for further processing : 1
% 0.24/0.58 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Generated clauses : 1
% 0.24/0.58 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Paramodulations : 1
% 0.24/0.58 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % NegExts : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Total rewrite steps : 3
% 0.24/0.58 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.58 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.58 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.58 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.58 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.58 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.58 % Current number of processed clauses : 1
% 0.24/0.58 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 1
% 0.24/0.58 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.24/0.58 % ...number of literals in the above : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Termbank termtop insertions : 37
% 0.24/0.58 % Search garbage collected termcells : 0
% 0.24/0.58
% 0.24/0.58 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/0.58 % User time : 0.003 s
% 0.24/0.58 % System time : 0.001 s
% 0.24/0.58 % Total time : 0.004 s
% 0.24/0.58 % Maximum resident set size: 3580 pages
% 0.24/0.58
% 0.24/0.58 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/0.58 % User time : 0.009 s
% 0.24/0.58 % System time : 0.010 s
% 0.24/0.58 % Total time : 0.019 s
% 0.24/0.58 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.24/0.58 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------