%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : GRP520-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v2.7.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n003.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 12:40:10 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.13s 0.41s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.13s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 12
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 17 ( 17 unt; 0 nHn; 4 RR)
% Number of literals : 17 ( 16 equ; 3 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 7 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 0 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 32 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(single_axiom,axiom,
multiply(X1,multiply(multiply(inverse(multiply(X1,X2)),X3),X2)) = X3,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',single_axiom) ).
cnf(prove_these_axioms_4,negated_conjecture,
multiply(a,b) != multiply(b,a),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_these_axioms_4) ).
cnf(c_0_2,axiom,
multiply(X1,multiply(multiply(inverse(multiply(X1,X2)),X3),X2)) = X3,
single_axiom ).
cnf(c_0_3,plain,
multiply(multiply(inverse(multiply(inverse(multiply(X1,X2)),X3)),X4),X3) = multiply(X1,multiply(X4,X2)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_2,c_0_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_4,plain,
multiply(inverse(multiply(X1,X2)),multiply(X1,multiply(X3,X2))) = X3,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_2,c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,plain,
multiply(inverse(multiply(inverse(multiply(X1,X2)),multiply(X3,X2))),X3) = X1,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
multiply(inverse(X1),multiply(inverse(multiply(inverse(multiply(X2,X3)),X3)),X1)) = X2,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
inverse(multiply(inverse(multiply(X1,X2)),X2)) = X1,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
multiply(inverse(X1),multiply(X2,X1)) = X2,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
multiply(inverse(multiply(X1,X2)),X1) = inverse(X2),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
multiply(X1,multiply(inverse(X2),X2)) = X1,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_2,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
inverse(inverse(X1)) = X1,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
multiply(a,b) != multiply(b,a),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_these_axioms_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
multiply(multiply(X1,X2),inverse(X2)) = X1,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_10]),c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
multiply(a,b) != multiply(b,a),
c_0_12 ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
multiply(X1,X2) = multiply(X2,X1),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_13]),c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : GRP520-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v2.7.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.35 % Computer : n003.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.35 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/0.35 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.09/0.35 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 20:17:17 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.09/0.35 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.13/0.39 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.13/0.39 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
% 0.13/0.41 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.13/0.41 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.41 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.41 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.41 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41 % sh5l with pid 2490418 completed with status 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.13/0.41 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.41 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.41 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.41 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.13/0.41 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.13/0.41 % Search class: FUUPF-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.13/0.41 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.13/0.41 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2490420 completed with status 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.13/0.41 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.41 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.41 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.41 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.13/0.41 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.13/0.41 % Search class: FUUPF-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.13/0.41 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.13/0.41 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.13/0.41
% 0.13/0.41 % Proof found!
% 0.13/0.41 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.13/0.41 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.13/0.41 % Parsed axioms : 2
% 0.13/0.41 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Initial clauses : 2
% 0.13/0.41 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Initial clauses in saturation : 2
% 0.13/0.41 % Processed clauses : 17
% 0.13/0.41 % ...of these trivial : 1
% 0.13/0.41 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % ...remaining for further processing : 16
% 0.13/0.41 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Backward-rewritten : 9
% 0.13/0.41 % Generated clauses : 276
% 0.13/0.41 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 233
% 0.13/0.41 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Paramodulations : 276
% 0.13/0.41 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % NegExts : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Total rewrite steps : 70
% 0.13/0.41 % ...of those cached : 14
% 0.13/0.41 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.41 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.41 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.41 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.41 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.41 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.41 % Current number of processed clauses : 7
% 0.13/0.41 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 6
% 0.13/0.41 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.13/0.41 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 211
% 0.13/0.41 % ...number of literals in the above : 211
% 0.13/0.41 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Current number of archived clauses : 9
% 0.13/0.41 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 5
% 0.13/0.41 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % BW rewrite match attempts : 63
% 0.13/0.41 % BW rewrite match successes : 51
% 0.13/0.41 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Termbank termtop insertions : 2311
% 0.13/0.41 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2
% 0.13/0.41
% 0.13/0.41 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.13/0.41 % User time : 0.003 s
% 0.13/0.41 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.13/0.41 % Total time : 0.006 s
% 0.13/0.41 % Maximum resident set size: 3632 pages
% 0.13/0.41
% 0.13/0.41 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.13/0.41 % User time : 0.007 s
% 0.13/0.41 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.13/0.41 % Total time : 0.012 s
% 0.13/0.41 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.13/0.41 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------