%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : GRP558-1 : 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 : n008.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 12:44:14 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.15s 15.46s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.15s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 9
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 18 ( 18 unt; 0 nHn; 6 RR)
% Number of literals : 18 ( 17 equ; 5 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 8 ( 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 : 28 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(single_axiom,axiom,
divide(X1,inverse(divide(divide(X2,X3),divide(X1,X3)))) = X2,
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(multiply,axiom,
multiply(X1,X2) = divide(X1,inverse(X2)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',multiply) ).
cnf(c_0_3,axiom,
divide(X1,inverse(divide(divide(X2,X3),divide(X1,X3)))) = X2,
single_axiom ).
cnf(c_0_4,plain,
divide(X1,inverse(divide(X2,divide(X1,inverse(divide(divide(X2,X3),divide(X4,X3))))))) = X4,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_3,c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,plain,
divide(X1,inverse(divide(X2,X2))) = X1,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
divide(X1,inverse(divide(X2,X1))) = X2,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_3,c_0_5]),c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
multiply(multiply(inverse(b2),b2),a2) != a2,
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_these_axioms_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
divide(inverse(divide(X1,X2)),inverse(X1)) = X2,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
multiply(multiply(inverse(b2),b2),a2) != a2,
c_0_7 ).
cnf(c_0_10,axiom,
multiply(X1,X2) = divide(X1,inverse(X2)),
multiply ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
divide(inverse(X1),inverse(X2)) = inverse(divide(X1,X2)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
divide(divide(inverse(b2),inverse(b2)),inverse(a2)) != a2,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
inverse(divide(divide(X1,X2),X1)) = X2,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
inverse(divide(X1,divide(X2,X2))) = inverse(X1),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
inverse(divide(divide(b2,b2),a2)) != a2,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_11]),c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
inverse(divide(divide(X1,X1),X2)) = X2,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : GRP558-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.6.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/15.39 % Computer : n008.cluster.edu
% 0.11/15.39 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/15.39 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/15.39 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/15.39 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/15.39 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/15.39 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/15.39 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 20:17:39 UTC 2026
% 0.11/15.39 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/15.39 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/15.44 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/15.44 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
% 0.15/15.46 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.15/15.46 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/15.46 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/15.46 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/15.46 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/15.46 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/15.46 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/15.46 % G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with pid 3522269 completed with status 0
% 0.15/15.46 % Result found by G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN
% 0.15/15.46 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/15.46 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/15.46 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/15.46 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.15/15.46 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.15/15.46 % Search class: FUUPF-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.15/15.46 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.15/15.46 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/15.46 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.15/15.46 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/15.46 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/15.46 % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/15.46 % G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with pid 3522276 completed with status 0
% 0.15/15.46 % Result found by G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y
% 0.15/15.46 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/15.46 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/15.46 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/15.46 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.15/15.46 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.15/15.46 % Search class: FUUPF-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.15/15.46 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.15/15.46 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/15.46 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.15/15.46 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/15.46 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.15/15.46 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.15/15.46
% 0.15/15.46 % Proof found!
% 0.15/15.46 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.15/15.46 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.15/15.46 % Parsed axioms : 3
% 0.15/15.46 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.15/15.46 % Initial clauses : 3
% 0.15/15.46 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 1
% 0.15/15.46 % Initial clauses in saturation : 2
% 0.15/15.46 % Processed clauses : 19
% 0.15/15.46 % ...of these trivial : 4
% 0.15/15.46 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.15/15.46 % ...remaining for further processing : 15
% 0.15/15.46 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.15/15.46 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.15/15.46 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.15/15.46 % Backward-rewritten : 3
% 0.15/15.46 % Generated clauses : 137
% 0.15/15.46 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 103
% 0.15/15.46 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.15/15.46 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.15/15.46 % Paramodulations : 137
% 0.15/15.46 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.15/15.46 % NegExts : 0
% 0.15/15.46 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.15/15.46 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.15/15.46 % Total rewrite steps : 45
% 0.15/15.46 % ...of those cached : 17
% 0.15/15.46 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.15/15.46 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.15/15.46 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.15/15.46 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.15/15.46 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.15/15.46 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.15/15.46 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.15/15.46 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/15.46 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/15.46 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.15/15.46 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/15.46 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/15.46 % Current number of processed clauses : 10
% 0.15/15.46 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 10
% 0.15/15.46 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.15/15.46 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.15/15.46 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.15/15.46 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 86
% 0.15/15.46 % ...number of literals in the above : 86
% 0.15/15.46 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.15/15.46 % Current number of archived clauses : 6
% 0.15/15.46 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.15/15.46 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.15/15.46 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.15/15.46 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.15/15.46 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.15/15.46 % BW rewrite match attempts : 21
% 0.15/15.46 % BW rewrite match successes : 3
% 0.15/15.46 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.15/15.46 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.15/15.46 % Termbank termtop insertions : 1234
% 0.15/15.46 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2
% 0.15/15.46
% 0.15/15.46 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/15.46 % User time : 0.003 s
% 0.15/15.46 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.15/15.46 % Total time : 0.005 s
% 0.15/15.46 % Maximum resident set size: 3580 pages
% 0.15/15.46
% 0.15/15.46 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/15.46 % User time : 0.014 s
% 0.15/15.46 % System time : 0.011 s
% 0.15/15.46 % Total time : 0.025 s
% 0.15/15.46 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.15/15.46 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------