%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : GRP679-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n014.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 12:44:43 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.21s 0.56s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.21s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 17 ( 17 unt; 0 nHn; 5 RR)
% Number of literals : 17 ( 16 equ; 4 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; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 20 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(c02,axiom,
ld(X1,mult(X1,X2)) = X2,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',c02) ).
cnf(c08,axiom,
mult(op_c,X1) = mult(X1,op_c),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',c08) ).
cnf(goals,negated_conjecture,
mult(mult(op_c,op_c),a) != mult(a,mult(op_c,op_c)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',goals) ).
cnf(c07,axiom,
mult(X1,mult(X2,mult(X1,X3))) = mult(mult(X1,mult(X2,X1)),X3),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',c07) ).
cnf(c06,axiom,
mult(unit,X1) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',c06) ).
cnf(c_0_5,axiom,
ld(X1,mult(X1,X2)) = X2,
c02 ).
cnf(c_0_6,axiom,
mult(op_c,X1) = mult(X1,op_c),
c08 ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
mult(mult(op_c,op_c),a) != mult(a,mult(op_c,op_c)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[goals]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,axiom,
mult(X1,mult(X2,mult(X1,X3))) = mult(mult(X1,mult(X2,X1)),X3),
c07 ).
cnf(c_0_9,axiom,
mult(unit,X1) = X1,
c06 ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
ld(op_c,mult(X1,op_c)) = X1,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
mult(mult(op_c,op_c),a) != mult(a,mult(op_c,op_c)),
c_0_7 ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
mult(mult(X1,X1),X2) = mult(X1,mult(X1,X2)),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]),c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
ld(op_c,mult(X1,mult(X2,mult(X1,op_c)))) = mult(X1,mult(X2,X1)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
mult(a,mult(op_c,op_c)) != mult(op_c,mult(op_c,a)),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
mult(op_c,mult(X1,op_c)) = mult(X1,mult(op_c,op_c)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]),c_0_6])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : GRP679-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.06 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.46 % Computer : n014.cluster.edu
% 0.16/0.46 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.16/0.46 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.16/0.46 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.16/0.46 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.16/0.46 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.16/0.46 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.16/0.46 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 20:32:34 UTC 2026
% 0.16/0.46 % CPUTime :
% 0.16/0.46 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.51 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.16/0.51 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
% 0.21/0.56 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.21/0.56 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.21/0.56 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.56 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.56 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.56 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.56 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.56 % sh5l with pid 2308440 completed with status 0
% 0.21/0.56 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.21/0.56 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.21/0.56 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.56 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.56 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.56 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.56 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.56 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.21/0.56 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.21/0.56 % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF22-MFFFFFNN
% 0.21/0.56 % Scheduled 10 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.21/0.56 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.56 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2308448 completed with status 0
% 0.21/0.56 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.21/0.56 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.21/0.56 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.56 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.56 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.56 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.56 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.56 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.21/0.56 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.21/0.56 % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF22-MFFFFFNN
% 0.21/0.56 % Scheduled 10 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.21/0.56 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.56 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.21/0.56
% 0.21/0.56 % Proof found!
% 0.21/0.56 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.21/0.56 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.21/0.56 % Parsed axioms : 9
% 0.21/0.56 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.21/0.56 % Initial clauses : 9
% 0.21/0.56 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.21/0.56 % Initial clauses in saturation : 9
% 0.21/0.56 % Processed clauses : 78
% 0.21/0.56 % ...of these trivial : 11
% 0.21/0.56 % ...subsumed : 17
% 0.21/0.56 % ...remaining for further processing : 50
% 0.21/0.56 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.21/0.56 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.21/0.56 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.21/0.56 % Backward-rewritten : 9
% 0.21/0.56 % Generated clauses : 822
% 0.21/0.56 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 464
% 0.21/0.56 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.21/0.56 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.21/0.56 % Paramodulations : 822
% 0.21/0.56 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.21/0.56 % NegExts : 0
% 0.21/0.56 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.21/0.56 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.21/0.56 % Total rewrite steps : 970
% 0.21/0.56 % ...of those cached : 743
% 0.21/0.56 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.21/0.56 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.21/0.56 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.21/0.56 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.21/0.56 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.21/0.56 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.21/0.56 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.56 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.56 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.56 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.56 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.56 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.56 % Current number of processed clauses : 41
% 0.21/0.56 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 36
% 0.21/0.56 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 5
% 0.21/0.56 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.21/0.56 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.21/0.56 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 387
% 0.21/0.56 % ...number of literals in the above : 387
% 0.21/0.56 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.21/0.56 % Current number of archived clauses : 9
% 0.21/0.56 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.21/0.56 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.21/0.56 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.21/0.56 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 4
% 0.21/0.56 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.21/0.56 % BW rewrite match attempts : 45
% 0.21/0.56 % BW rewrite match successes : 11
% 0.21/0.56 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.21/0.56 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.21/0.56 % Termbank termtop insertions : 11834
% 0.21/0.56 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2
% 0.21/0.56
% 0.21/0.56 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.56 % User time : 0.010 s
% 0.21/0.56 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.21/0.56 % Total time : 0.012 s
% 0.21/0.56 % Maximum resident set size: 3632 pages
% 0.21/0.56
% 0.21/0.56 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.56 % User time : 0.013 s
% 0.21/0.56 % System time : 0.008 s
% 0.21/0.56 % Total time : 0.021 s
% 0.21/0.56 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.21/0.56 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------