%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : GRP698-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n009.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 12:40:58 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.87s 0.72s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.87s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 7
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 17 ( 17 unt; 0 nHn; 4 RR)
% Number of literals : 17 ( 16 equ; 3 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 : 6 ( 6 usr; 4 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 27 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(c07,axiom,
mult(mult(mult(X1,X2),X1),mult(X1,X3)) = mult(X1,mult(mult(mult(X2,X1),X1),X3)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',c07) ).
cnf(c05,axiom,
mult(X1,unit) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',c05) ).
cnf(c04,axiom,
rd(mult(X1,X2),X2) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',c04) ).
cnf(c03,axiom,
mult(rd(X1,X2),X2) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',c03) ).
cnf(goals,negated_conjecture,
mult(a,mult(b,c)) != mult(rd(mult(a,b),a),mult(a,c)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',goals) ).
cnf(c_0_5,axiom,
mult(mult(mult(X1,X2),X1),mult(X1,X3)) = mult(X1,mult(mult(mult(X2,X1),X1),X3)),
c07 ).
cnf(c_0_6,axiom,
mult(X1,unit) = X1,
c05 ).
cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
rd(mult(X1,X2),X2) = X1,
c04 ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
mult(mult(mult(X1,X2),X1),X1) = mult(X1,mult(mult(X2,X1),X1)),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]),c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
rd(mult(X1,mult(mult(X2,X1),X1)),X1) = mult(mult(X1,X2),X1),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,axiom,
mult(rd(X1,X2),X2) = X1,
c03 ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
rd(mult(X1,mult(X2,X1)),X1) = mult(mult(X1,rd(X2,X1)),X1),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
mult(a,mult(b,c)) != mult(rd(mult(a,b),a),mult(a,c)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[goals]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
mult(mult(X1,rd(rd(X2,X1),X1)),X1) = rd(mult(X1,X2),X1),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
mult(a,mult(b,c)) != mult(rd(mult(a,b),a),mult(a,c)),
c_0_12 ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
mult(rd(mult(X1,X2),X1),mult(X1,X3)) = mult(X1,mult(X2,X3)),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_13]),c_0_10]),c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : GRP698-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.21/0.47 % Computer : n009.cluster.edu
% 0.21/0.47 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.21/0.47 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.21/0.47 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.21/0.47 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.21/0.47 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.21/0.47 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.21/0.47 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 20:33:42 UTC 2026
% 0.21/0.47 % CPUTime :
% 0.21/0.48 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.25/0.55 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.25/0.55 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
% 0.87/0.72 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.87/0.72 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.87/0.72 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.87/0.72 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.87/0.72 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.87/0.72 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.87/0.72 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.87/0.72 % G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with pid 12799 completed with status 0
% 0.87/0.72 % Result found by G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN
% 0.87/0.72 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.87/0.72 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.87/0.72 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.87/0.72 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.87/0.72 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.87/0.72 % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF22-MFFFFFNN
% 0.87/0.72 % Scheduled 10 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.87/0.72 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.87/0.72 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.87/0.72 % Starting E---G----_X1276__C12_02_nc_F1_AE_CS_SP_S5PRR_S2S with 136s (1) cores
% 0.87/0.72 % Starting U----_206d_05_C11_08_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 136s (1) cores
% 0.87/0.72 % Starting U----_102_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 136s (1) cores
% 0.87/0.72 % U----_102_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with pid 12810 completed with status 0
% 0.87/0.72 % Result found by U----_102_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
% 0.87/0.72 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.87/0.72 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.87/0.72 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.87/0.72 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.87/0.72 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.87/0.72 % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF22-MFFFFFNN
% 0.87/0.72 % Scheduled 10 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.87/0.72 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.87/0.72 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.87/0.72 % Starting E---G----_X1276__C12_02_nc_F1_AE_CS_SP_S5PRR_S2S with 136s (1) cores
% 0.87/0.72 % Starting U----_206d_05_C11_08_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 136s (1) cores
% 0.87/0.72 % Starting U----_102_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 136s (1) cores
% 0.87/0.72 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.87/0.72 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.87/0.72
% 0.87/0.72 % Proof found!
% 0.87/0.72 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.87/0.72 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.87/0.72 % Parsed axioms : 9
% 0.87/0.72 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.87/0.72 % Initial clauses : 9
% 0.87/0.72 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.87/0.72 % Initial clauses in saturation : 9
% 0.87/0.72 % Processed clauses : 227
% 0.87/0.72 % ...of these trivial : 67
% 0.87/0.72 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.87/0.72 % ...remaining for further processing : 160
% 0.87/0.72 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.87/0.72 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.87/0.72 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.87/0.72 % Backward-rewritten : 56
% 0.87/0.72 % Generated clauses : 4879
% 0.87/0.72 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 3166
% 0.87/0.72 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.87/0.72 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.87/0.72 % Paramodulations : 4879
% 0.87/0.72 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.87/0.72 % NegExts : 0
% 0.87/0.72 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.87/0.72 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.87/0.72 % Total rewrite steps : 12266
% 0.87/0.72 % ...of those cached : 11593
% 0.87/0.72 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.87/0.72 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.87/0.72 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.87/0.72 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.87/0.72 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.87/0.72 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.87/0.72 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.87/0.72 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.87/0.72 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.87/0.72 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.87/0.72 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.87/0.72 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.87/0.72 % Current number of processed clauses : 95
% 0.87/0.72 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 95
% 0.87/0.72 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.87/0.72 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.87/0.72 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.87/0.72 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 2915
% 0.87/0.72 % ...number of literals in the above : 2915
% 0.87/0.72 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.87/0.72 % Current number of archived clauses : 65
% 0.87/0.72 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.87/0.72 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.87/0.72 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.87/0.72 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.87/0.72 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.87/0.72 % BW rewrite match attempts : 146
% 0.87/0.72 % BW rewrite match successes : 49
% 0.87/0.72 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.87/0.72 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.87/0.72 % Termbank termtop insertions : 73751
% 0.87/0.72 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2
% 0.87/0.72
% 0.87/0.72 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.87/0.72 % User time : 0.109 s
% 0.87/0.72 % System time : 0.009 s
% 0.87/0.72 % Total time : 0.118 s
% 0.87/0.72 % Maximum resident set size: 3584 pages
% 0.87/0.72
% 0.87/0.72 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.87/0.72 % User time : 0.413 s
% 0.87/0.72 % System time : 0.037 s
% 0.87/0.72 % Total time : 0.449 s
% 0.87/0.72 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.87/0.72 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------