%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : GRP526-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.6.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n001.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 0.29s 0.65s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.29s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 10
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 21 ( 21 unt; 0 nHn; 4 RR)
% Number of literals : 21 ( 20 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 : 5 ( 5 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 37 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(multiply,axiom,
multiply(X1,X2) = divide(X1,divide(divide(X3,X3),X2)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',multiply) ).
cnf(inverse,axiom,
inverse(X1) = divide(divide(X2,X2),X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',inverse) ).
cnf(single_axiom,axiom,
divide(X1,divide(divide(X1,X2),divide(X3,X2))) = X3,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',single_axiom) ).
cnf(prove_these_axioms_2,negated_conjecture,
multiply(multiply(inverse(b2),b2),a2) != a2,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_these_axioms_2) ).
cnf(c_0_4,axiom,
multiply(X1,X2) = divide(X1,divide(divide(X3,X3),X2)),
multiply ).
cnf(c_0_5,axiom,
inverse(X1) = divide(divide(X2,X2),X1),
inverse ).
cnf(c_0_6,axiom,
divide(X1,divide(divide(X1,X2),divide(X3,X2))) = X3,
single_axiom ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
divide(X1,inverse(X2)) = multiply(X1,X2),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
multiply(X1,divide(X2,X1)) = X2,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_5]),c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
multiply(X1,inverse(X1)) = divide(X2,X2),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
divide(X1,X1) = divide(X2,X2),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
divide(inverse(divide(X1,X1)),X2) = inverse(X2),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
divide(X1,divide(X2,X2)) = X1,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
divide(inverse(inverse(divide(X1,X1))),X2) = inverse(X2),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
divide(X1,divide(X1,X2)) = X2,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
multiply(multiply(inverse(b2),b2),a2) != a2,
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_these_axioms_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
divide(multiply(inverse(X1),X1),X2) = inverse(X2),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,plain,
inverse(inverse(X1)) = X1,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]),c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
multiply(multiply(inverse(b2),b2),a2) != a2,
c_0_15 ).
cnf(c_0_19,plain,
multiply(multiply(inverse(X1),X1),X2) = X2,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_16]),c_0_17]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_18,c_0_19])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : GRP526-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.6.0.
% 0.00/0.09 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.24/0.50 % Computer : n001.cluster.edu
% 0.24/0.50 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.24/0.50 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.24/0.50 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.24/0.50 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.24/0.50 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.24/0.50 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.24/0.50 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 20:21:28 UTC 2026
% 0.24/0.51 % CPUTime :
% 0.24/0.51 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.29/0.60 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.29/0.60 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
% 0.29/0.65 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.29/0.65 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.29/0.65 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.29/0.65 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.29/0.65 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.29/0.65 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.29/0.65 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.29/0.65 % new_bool_3 with pid 1317697 completed with status 0
% 0.29/0.65 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.29/0.65 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.29/0.65 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.29/0.65 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.29/0.65 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.29/0.65 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.29/0.65 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.29/0.65 % Search class: FUUPS-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.29/0.65 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.29/0.65 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.29/0.65 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1317700 completed with status 0
% 0.29/0.65 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.29/0.65 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.29/0.65 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.29/0.65 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.29/0.65 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.29/0.65 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.29/0.65 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.29/0.65 % Search class: FUUPS-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.29/0.65 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.29/0.65 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.29/0.65 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.29/0.65
% 0.29/0.65 % Proof found!
% 0.29/0.65 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.29/0.65 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.29/0.65 % Parsed axioms : 4
% 0.29/0.65 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.29/0.65 % Initial clauses : 4
% 0.29/0.65 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.29/0.65 % Initial clauses in saturation : 4
% 0.29/0.65 % Processed clauses : 33
% 0.29/0.65 % ...of these trivial : 10
% 0.29/0.65 % ...subsumed : 4
% 0.29/0.65 % ...remaining for further processing : 19
% 0.29/0.65 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.29/0.65 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.29/0.65 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.29/0.65 % Backward-rewritten : 5
% 0.29/0.65 % Generated clauses : 229
% 0.29/0.65 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 197
% 0.29/0.65 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.29/0.65 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.29/0.65 % Paramodulations : 229
% 0.29/0.65 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.29/0.65 % NegExts : 0
% 0.29/0.65 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.29/0.65 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.29/0.65 % Total rewrite steps : 96
% 0.29/0.65 % ...of those cached : 48
% 0.29/0.65 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.29/0.65 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.29/0.65 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.29/0.65 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.29/0.65 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.29/0.65 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.29/0.65 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.29/0.65 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.29/0.65 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.29/0.65 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.29/0.65 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.29/0.65 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.29/0.65 % Current number of processed clauses : 14
% 0.29/0.65 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 12
% 0.29/0.65 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 2
% 0.29/0.65 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.29/0.65 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.29/0.65 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 152
% 0.29/0.65 % ...number of literals in the above : 152
% 0.29/0.65 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.29/0.65 % Current number of archived clauses : 5
% 0.29/0.65 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.29/0.65 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.29/0.65 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.29/0.65 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 9
% 0.29/0.65 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 30
% 0.29/0.65 % BW rewrite match attempts : 44
% 0.29/0.65 % BW rewrite match successes : 10
% 0.29/0.65 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.29/0.65 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.29/0.65 % Termbank termtop insertions : 1381
% 0.29/0.65 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2
% 0.29/0.65
% 0.29/0.65 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.29/0.65 % User time : 0.007 s
% 0.29/0.65 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.29/0.65 % Total time : 0.010 s
% 0.29/0.65 % Maximum resident set size: 3628 pages
% 0.29/0.65
% 0.29/0.65 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.29/0.65 % User time : 0.010 s
% 0.29/0.65 % System time : 0.010 s
% 0.29/0.65 % Total time : 0.020 s
% 0.29/0.65 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.29/0.65 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------