%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : GRP561-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.6.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n018.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 12:40:15 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.13s 0.41s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.13s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 8
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 16 ( 16 unt; 0 nHn; 5 RR)
% Number of literals : 16 ( 15 equ; 4 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 : 5 ( 5 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 27 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(single_axiom,axiom,
divide(divide(divide(X1,inverse(X2)),X3),divide(X1,X3)) = X2,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',single_axiom) ).
cnf(prove_these_axioms_1,negated_conjecture,
multiply(inverse(a1),a1) != multiply(inverse(b1),b1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_these_axioms_1) ).
cnf(multiply,axiom,
multiply(X1,X2) = divide(X1,inverse(X2)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',multiply) ).
cnf(c_0_3,axiom,
divide(divide(divide(X1,inverse(X2)),X3),divide(X1,X3)) = X2,
single_axiom ).
cnf(c_0_4,plain,
divide(divide(divide(divide(divide(X1,inverse(X2)),X3),inverse(X4)),divide(X1,X3)),X2) = X4,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_3,c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,plain,
divide(divide(X1,inverse(X2)),X1) = X2,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_4]),c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
divide(X1,divide(X2,X2)) = X1,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_3,c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
multiply(inverse(a1),a1) != multiply(inverse(b1),b1),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_these_axioms_1]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
divide(X1,divide(divide(X2,inverse(X1)),divide(X2,inverse(X3)))) = X3,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_3,c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
divide(divide(X1,X1),inverse(X2)) = X2,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
multiply(inverse(a1),a1) != multiply(inverse(b1),b1),
c_0_7 ).
cnf(c_0_11,axiom,
multiply(X1,X2) = divide(X1,inverse(X2)),
multiply ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
divide(X1,divide(X1,X2)) = X2,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]),c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
divide(inverse(a1),inverse(a1)) != divide(inverse(b1),inverse(b1)),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]),c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
divide(X1,X1) = divide(X2,X2),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : GRP561-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.6.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/0.34 % Computer : n018.cluster.edu
% 0.08/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.08/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.08/0.34 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.08/0.34 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.08/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.08/0.34 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.08/0.34 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 20:18:43 UTC 2026
% 0.08/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.08/0.35 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.13/0.39 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.13/0.39 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
% 0.13/0.41 % 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 % new_bool_1 with pid 103572 completed with status 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Result found by new_bool_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 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.13/0.41 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.13/0.41 % Search class: FUUPS-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.13/0.41 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.13/0.41 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41 % SubtermCWHack with pid 103578 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 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.13/0.41 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.13/0.41 % Search class: FUUPS-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.13/0.41 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.13/0.41 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (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 : 3
% 0.13/0.41 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Initial clauses : 3
% 0.13/0.41 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Initial clauses in saturation : 3
% 0.13/0.41 % Processed clauses : 12
% 0.13/0.41 % ...of these trivial : 1
% 0.13/0.41 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % ...remaining for further processing : 11
% 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 : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Generated clauses : 114
% 0.13/0.41 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 65
% 0.13/0.41 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Paramodulations : 113
% 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 : 23
% 0.13/0.41 % ...of those cached : 8
% 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 : 10
% 0.13/0.41 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 9
% 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: 56
% 0.13/0.41 % ...number of literals in the above : 56
% 0.13/0.41 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 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 : 8
% 0.13/0.41 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 16
% 0.13/0.41 % BW rewrite match attempts : 51
% 0.13/0.41 % BW rewrite match successes : 8
% 0.13/0.41 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Termbank termtop insertions : 931
% 0.13/0.41 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2
% 0.13/0.41
% 0.13/0.41 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.13/0.41 % User time : 0.001 s
% 0.13/0.41 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.13/0.41 % Total time : 0.004 s
% 0.13/0.41 % Maximum resident set size: 3628 pages
% 0.13/0.41
% 0.13/0.41 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.13/0.41 % User time : 0.001 s
% 0.13/0.41 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.13/0.41 % Total time : 0.007 s
% 0.13/0.41 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.13/0.41 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------