%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : GRP608-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v2.7.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n020.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 12:44:21 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.16s 0.45s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.16s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 12
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 26 ( 26 unt; 0 nHn; 5 RR)
% Number of literals : 26 ( 25 equ; 4 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 9 ( 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 : 52 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(single_axiom,axiom,
double_divide(inverse(double_divide(X1,inverse(double_divide(inverse(X2),double_divide(X1,X3))))),X3) = X2,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',single_axiom) ).
cnf(prove_these_axioms_4,negated_conjecture,
multiply(a,b) != multiply(b,a),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_these_axioms_4) ).
cnf(multiply,axiom,
multiply(X1,X2) = inverse(double_divide(X2,X1)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',multiply) ).
cnf(c_0_3,axiom,
double_divide(inverse(double_divide(X1,inverse(double_divide(inverse(X2),double_divide(X1,X3))))),X3) = X2,
single_axiom ).
cnf(c_0_4,plain,
double_divide(inverse(double_divide(inverse(double_divide(X1,inverse(double_divide(inverse(X2),double_divide(X1,X3))))),inverse(double_divide(inverse(X4),X2)))),X3) = X4,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_3,c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,plain,
double_divide(X1,inverse(double_divide(inverse(X2),double_divide(X1,double_divide(X3,X4))))) = double_divide(inverse(double_divide(X3,inverse(X2))),X4),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_3,c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
double_divide(inverse(X1),inverse(double_divide(inverse(X2),X1))) = X2,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
double_divide(inverse(double_divide(inverse(double_divide(X1,inverse(X2))),X3)),double_divide(X1,X3)) = X2,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_3,c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
double_divide(inverse(inverse(double_divide(inverse(X1),X2))),inverse(X1)) = X2,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
double_divide(inverse(X1),double_divide(inverse(double_divide(X2,inverse(X1))),double_divide(X2,inverse(X3)))) = X3,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
double_divide(inverse(inverse(X1)),inverse(X2)) = inverse(double_divide(inverse(X1),X2)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
double_divide(inverse(double_divide(inverse(X1),double_divide(X2,double_divide(X2,inverse(X3))))),X1) = X3,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
inverse(double_divide(inverse(double_divide(inverse(X1),X2)),X1)) = X2,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
double_divide(inverse(double_divide(X1,X2)),double_divide(X3,double_divide(X3,inverse(X4)))) = double_divide(inverse(double_divide(X1,inverse(X4))),X2),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_3,c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
inverse(double_divide(X1,double_divide(inverse(X2),X1))) = X2,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
double_divide(X1,double_divide(X1,inverse(X2))) = inverse(X2),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]),c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
inverse(inverse(X1)) = X1,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
multiply(a,b) != multiply(b,a),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_these_axioms_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,plain,
inverse(double_divide(X1,double_divide(X2,X1))) = inverse(X2),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_16]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
multiply(a,b) != multiply(b,a),
c_0_17 ).
cnf(c_0_20,axiom,
multiply(X1,X2) = inverse(double_divide(X2,X1)),
multiply ).
cnf(c_0_21,plain,
double_divide(X1,double_divide(X1,X2)) = X2,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_22,plain,
double_divide(X1,double_divide(X2,X1)) = X2,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_3,c_0_18]),c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_23,negated_conjecture,
inverse(double_divide(a,b)) != inverse(double_divide(b,a)),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_19,c_0_20]),c_0_20]) ).
cnf(c_0_24,plain,
double_divide(X1,X2) = double_divide(X2,X1),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_21,c_0_22]) ).
cnf(c_0_25,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_23,c_0_24])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : GRP608-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v2.7.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.37 % Computer : n020.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/0.37 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 20:18:47 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.42 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.16/0.42 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
% 0.16/0.45 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.16/0.45 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.16/0.45 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.16/0.45 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.16/0.45 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.45 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.45 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.45 % new_bool_1 with pid 1142301 completed with status 0
% 0.16/0.45 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.16/0.45 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.16/0.45 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.16/0.45 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.16/0.45 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.45 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.45 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.16/0.45 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.16/0.45 % Search class: FUUPS-FFSF21-DFFFFFNN
% 0.16/0.45 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.16/0.45 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.45 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1142307 completed with status 0
% 0.16/0.45 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.16/0.45 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.16/0.45 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.16/0.45 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.16/0.45 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.45 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.45 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.16/0.45 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.16/0.45 % Search class: FUUPS-FFSF21-DFFFFFNN
% 0.16/0.45 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.16/0.45 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.45 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.16/0.45
% 0.16/0.45 % Proof found!
% 0.16/0.45 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.16/0.45 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.16/0.45 % Parsed axioms : 3
% 0.16/0.45 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.16/0.45 % Initial clauses : 3
% 0.16/0.45 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.16/0.45 % Initial clauses in saturation : 3
% 0.16/0.45 % Processed clauses : 28
% 0.16/0.45 % ...of these trivial : 1
% 0.16/0.45 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.16/0.45 % ...remaining for further processing : 27
% 0.16/0.45 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.16/0.45 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.16/0.45 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.16/0.45 % Backward-rewritten : 17
% 0.16/0.45 % Generated clauses : 607
% 0.16/0.45 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 550
% 0.16/0.45 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.16/0.45 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.16/0.45 % Paramodulations : 607
% 0.16/0.45 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.16/0.45 % NegExts : 0
% 0.16/0.45 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.16/0.45 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.16/0.45 % Total rewrite steps : 193
% 0.16/0.45 % ...of those cached : 58
% 0.16/0.45 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.16/0.45 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.16/0.45 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.16/0.45 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.16/0.45 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.16/0.45 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.16/0.45 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.16/0.45 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.16/0.45 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.16/0.45 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.16/0.45 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.16/0.45 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.16/0.45 % Current number of processed clauses : 10
% 0.16/0.45 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 9
% 0.16/0.45 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.16/0.45 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.16/0.45 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.16/0.45 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 509
% 0.16/0.45 % ...number of literals in the above : 509
% 0.16/0.45 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.16/0.45 % Current number of archived clauses : 17
% 0.16/0.45 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.16/0.45 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.16/0.45 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.16/0.45 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 7
% 0.16/0.45 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.16/0.45 % BW rewrite match attempts : 95
% 0.16/0.45 % BW rewrite match successes : 57
% 0.16/0.45 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.16/0.45 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.16/0.45 % Termbank termtop insertions : 7380
% 0.16/0.45 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2
% 0.16/0.45
% 0.16/0.45 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.16/0.45 % User time : 0.012 s
% 0.16/0.45 % System time : 0.001 s
% 0.16/0.45 % Total time : 0.013 s
% 0.16/0.45 % Maximum resident set size: 3632 pages
% 0.16/0.45
% 0.16/0.45 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.16/0.45 % User time : 0.012 s
% 0.16/0.45 % System time : 0.007 s
% 0.16/0.45 % Total time : 0.019 s
% 0.16/0.45 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.16/0.45 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------