%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : GRP524-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v2.7.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n007.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 0.16s 10.46s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.16s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 11
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 20 ( 20 unt; 0 nHn; 4 RR)
% Number of literals : 20 ( 19 equ; 3 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 5 ( 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 : 41 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(multiply,axiom,
multiply(X1,X2) = divide(X1,divide(divide(X3,X3),X2)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',multiply) ).
cnf(single_axiom,axiom,
divide(X1,divide(X2,divide(X3,divide(X1,X2)))) = X3,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',single_axiom) ).
cnf(prove_these_axioms_4,negated_conjecture,
multiply(a,b) != multiply(b,a),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_these_axioms_4) ).
cnf(c_0_3,axiom,
multiply(X1,X2) = divide(X1,divide(divide(X3,X3),X2)),
multiply ).
cnf(c_0_4,axiom,
divide(X1,divide(X2,divide(X3,divide(X1,X2)))) = X3,
single_axiom ).
cnf(c_0_5,plain,
multiply(X1,divide(X2,divide(X1,divide(X3,X3)))) = X2,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_3,c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
multiply(X1,divide(X2,multiply(X3,X2))) = divide(X1,X3),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_3,c_0_4]),c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
multiply(X1,divide(X2,X1)) = X2,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
divide(X1,divide(divide(X2,divide(X3,X1)),X2)) = X3,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
divide(multiply(X1,X2),X1) = X2,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
divide(X1,X1) = divide(X2,X2),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_3]),c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
divide(X1,multiply(divide(X2,X2),X3)) = multiply(X1,divide(divide(X4,X4),X3)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_3,c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
multiply(X1,divide(X2,X2)) = X1,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
divide(X1,divide(X2,X2)) = X1,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]),c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
divide(X1,divide(X1,X2)) = X2,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
multiply(a,b) != multiply(b,a),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_these_axioms_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
multiply(divide(X1,X2),X2) = X1,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
multiply(a,b) != multiply(b,a),
c_0_15 ).
cnf(c_0_18,plain,
multiply(X1,X2) = multiply(X2,X1),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_18])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : GRP524-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v2.7.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/10.39 % Computer : n007.cluster.edu
% 0.10/10.39 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/10.39 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/10.39 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/10.39 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/10.39 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/10.39 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/10.39 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 20:13:46 UTC 2026
% 0.16/10.40 % CPUTime :
% 0.16/10.40 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/10.44 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.16/10.44 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
% 0.16/10.46 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.16/10.46 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.16/10.46 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.16/10.46 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.16/10.46 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/10.46 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/10.46 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/10.46 % new_bool_3 with pid 3494481 completed with status 0
% 0.16/10.46 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.16/10.46 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.16/10.46 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.16/10.46 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.16/10.46 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/10.46 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.16/10.46 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.16/10.46 % Search class: FUUPS-FFSF22-MFFFFFNN
% 0.16/10.46 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.16/10.46 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.16/10.46 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3494489 completed with status 0
% 0.16/10.46 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.16/10.46 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.16/10.46 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.16/10.46 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.16/10.46 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/10.46 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.16/10.46 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.16/10.46 % Search class: FUUPS-FFSF22-MFFFFFNN
% 0.16/10.46 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.16/10.46 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.16/10.46 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.16/10.46
% 0.16/10.46 % Proof found!
% 0.16/10.46 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.16/10.46 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.16/10.46 % Parsed axioms : 4
% 0.16/10.46 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 1
% 0.16/10.46 % Initial clauses : 3
% 0.16/10.46 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.16/10.46 % Initial clauses in saturation : 3
% 0.16/10.46 % Processed clauses : 31
% 0.16/10.46 % ...of these trivial : 4
% 0.16/10.46 % ...subsumed : 9
% 0.16/10.46 % ...remaining for further processing : 18
% 0.16/10.46 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.16/10.46 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.16/10.46 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.16/10.46 % Backward-rewritten : 3
% 0.16/10.46 % Generated clauses : 256
% 0.16/10.46 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 177
% 0.16/10.46 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.16/10.46 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.16/10.46 % Paramodulations : 256
% 0.16/10.46 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.16/10.46 % NegExts : 0
% 0.16/10.46 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.16/10.46 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.16/10.46 % Total rewrite steps : 119
% 0.16/10.46 % ...of those cached : 64
% 0.16/10.46 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.16/10.46 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.16/10.46 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.16/10.46 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.16/10.46 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.16/10.46 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.16/10.46 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.16/10.46 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.16/10.46 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.16/10.46 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.16/10.46 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.16/10.46 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.16/10.46 % Current number of processed clauses : 15
% 0.16/10.46 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 13
% 0.16/10.46 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 2
% 0.16/10.46 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.16/10.46 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.16/10.46 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 149
% 0.16/10.46 % ...number of literals in the above : 149
% 0.16/10.46 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.16/10.46 % Current number of archived clauses : 3
% 0.16/10.46 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.16/10.46 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.16/10.46 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.16/10.46 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 7
% 0.16/10.46 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 16
% 0.16/10.46 % BW rewrite match attempts : 67
% 0.16/10.46 % BW rewrite match successes : 23
% 0.16/10.46 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.16/10.46 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.16/10.46 % Termbank termtop insertions : 1438
% 0.16/10.46 % Search garbage collected termcells : 6
% 0.16/10.46
% 0.16/10.46 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.16/10.46 % User time : 0.006 s
% 0.16/10.46 % System time : 0.001 s
% 0.16/10.46 % Total time : 0.006 s
% 0.16/10.46 % Maximum resident set size: 3888 pages
% 0.16/10.46
% 0.16/10.46 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.16/10.46 % User time : 0.006 s
% 0.16/10.46 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.16/10.46 % Total time : 0.012 s
% 0.16/10.46 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.16/10.46 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------