%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : GRP570-1 : 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 : n026.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 12:44:15 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.13s 0.42s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.13s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 15 ( 15 unt; 0 nHn; 6 RR)
% Number of literals : 15 ( 14 equ; 4 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 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 : 11 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(identity,axiom,
identity = double_divide(X1,inverse(X1)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',identity) ).
cnf(inverse,axiom,
inverse(X1) = double_divide(X1,identity),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',inverse) ).
cnf(prove_these_axioms_2,negated_conjecture,
multiply(identity,a2) != a2,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_these_axioms_2) ).
cnf(multiply,axiom,
multiply(X1,X2) = double_divide(double_divide(X2,X1),identity),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',multiply) ).
cnf(c_0_4,axiom,
identity = double_divide(X1,inverse(X1)),
identity ).
cnf(c_0_5,axiom,
inverse(X1) = double_divide(X1,identity),
inverse ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
identity = double_divide(X1,double_divide(X1,identity)),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
multiply(identity,a2) != a2,
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_these_axioms_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
double_divide(double_divide(X1,identity),double_divide(identity,identity)) = X1,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
multiply(identity,a2) != a2,
c_0_7 ).
cnf(c_0_10,axiom,
multiply(X1,X2) = double_divide(double_divide(X2,X1),identity),
multiply ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
double_divide(identity,identity) = identity,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
double_divide(double_divide(a2,identity),identity) != a2,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
double_divide(double_divide(X1,identity),identity) = X1,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : GRP570-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.6.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.35 % Computer : n026.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.35 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.35 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.35 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 20:19:36 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/0.35 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.13/0.40 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.13/0.40 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
% 0.13/0.42 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.13/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with pid 514734 completed with status 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Result found by G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN
% 0.13/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.13/0.42 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.13/0.42 % Search class: FUUPS-FFSF22-MFFFFFNN
% 0.13/0.42 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y_ni with 136s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y_ni with pid 514743 completed with status 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Result found by G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y_ni
% 0.13/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.13/0.42 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.13/0.42 % Search class: FUUPS-FFSF22-MFFFFFNN
% 0.13/0.42 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y_ni with 136s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.13/0.42 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.13/0.42
% 0.13/0.42 % Proof found!
% 0.13/0.42 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.13/0.42 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.13/0.42 % Parsed axioms : 5
% 0.13/0.42 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Initial clauses : 5
% 0.13/0.42 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 2
% 0.13/0.42 % Initial clauses in saturation : 3
% 0.13/0.42 % Processed clauses : 10
% 0.13/0.42 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % ...remaining for further processing : 10
% 0.13/0.42 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Backward-rewritten : 4
% 0.13/0.42 % Generated clauses : 16
% 0.13/0.42 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 16
% 0.13/0.42 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Paramodulations : 16
% 0.13/0.42 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % NegExts : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Total rewrite steps : 9
% 0.13/0.42 % ...of those cached : 4
% 0.13/0.42 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.42 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.42 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.42 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.42 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.42 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.42 % Current number of processed clauses : 3
% 0.13/0.42 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 3
% 0.13/0.42 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 12
% 0.13/0.42 % ...number of literals in the above : 12
% 0.13/0.42 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Current number of archived clauses : 9
% 0.13/0.42 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % BW rewrite match attempts : 66
% 0.13/0.42 % BW rewrite match successes : 2
% 0.13/0.42 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Termbank termtop insertions : 346
% 0.13/0.42 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2
% 0.13/0.42
% 0.13/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.13/0.42 % User time : 0.002 s
% 0.13/0.42 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.13/0.42 % Total time : 0.006 s
% 0.13/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 3632 pages
% 0.13/0.42
% 0.13/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.13/0.42 % User time : 0.013 s
% 0.13/0.42 % System time : 0.016 s
% 0.13/0.42 % Total time : 0.029 s
% 0.13/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.13/0.42 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------