%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : GRP702+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 : 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 12:40:59 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.28s 0.57s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.28s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 6
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 25 ( 21 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 33 ( 32 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 15 ( 7 ~; 4 |; 4 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 6 ( 2 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 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 : 38 ( 0 sgn 22 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(f11,axiom,
! [X2] : op_d = ld(X2,mult(op_c,X2)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',f11) ).
fof(f02,axiom,
! [X1,X2] : ld(X2,mult(X2,X1)) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',f02) ).
fof(f10,axiom,
! [X1,X2] : mult(X2,mult(op_c,X1)) = mult(mult(X2,op_c),X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',f10) ).
fof(f01,axiom,
! [X1,X2] : mult(X2,ld(X2,X1)) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',f01) ).
fof(f08,axiom,
! [X1,X2] : mult(op_c,mult(X2,X1)) = mult(mult(op_c,X2),X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',f08) ).
fof(goals,conjecture,
! [X4,X5] :
( mult(X4,mult(op_d,X5)) = mult(mult(X4,op_d),X5)
& mult(X4,mult(X5,op_d)) = mult(mult(X4,X5),op_d)
& mult(op_d,mult(X4,X5)) = mult(mult(op_d,X4),X5) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',goals) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X11] : op_d = ld(X11,mult(op_c,X11)),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[f11]) ).
fof(c_0_7,plain,
! [X14,X15] : ld(X15,mult(X15,X14)) = X14,
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[f02]) ).
fof(c_0_8,plain,
! [X20,X21] : mult(X21,mult(op_c,X20)) = mult(mult(X21,op_c),X20),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[f10]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
op_d = ld(X1,mult(op_c,X1)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
ld(X1,mult(X1,X2)) = X2,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
fof(c_0_11,plain,
! [X12,X13] : mult(X13,ld(X13,X12)) = X12,
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[f01]) ).
fof(c_0_12,plain,
! [X16,X17] : mult(op_c,mult(X17,X16)) = mult(mult(op_c,X17),X16),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[f08]) ).
fof(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X4,X5] :
( mult(X4,mult(op_d,X5)) = mult(mult(X4,op_d),X5)
& mult(X4,mult(X5,op_d)) = mult(mult(X4,X5),op_d)
& mult(op_d,mult(X4,X5)) = mult(mult(op_d,X4),X5) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[goals]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
mult(X1,mult(op_c,X2)) = mult(mult(X1,op_c),X2),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
op_c = op_d,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
mult(X1,ld(X1,X2)) = X2,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,plain,
mult(op_c,mult(X1,X2)) = mult(mult(op_c,X1),X2),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_12]) ).
fof(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
( mult(esk1_0,mult(op_d,esk2_0)) != mult(mult(esk1_0,op_d),esk2_0)
| mult(esk1_0,mult(esk2_0,op_d)) != mult(mult(esk1_0,esk2_0),op_d)
| mult(op_d,mult(esk1_0,esk2_0)) != mult(mult(op_d,esk1_0),esk2_0) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_13])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,plain,
mult(mult(X1,op_d),X2) = mult(X1,mult(op_d,X2)),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]),c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,plain,
mult(X1,op_d) = mult(op_d,X1),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_9]),c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,plain,
mult(mult(op_d,X1),X2) = mult(op_d,mult(X1,X2)),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_15]),c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_22,negated_conjecture,
( mult(esk1_0,mult(op_d,esk2_0)) != mult(mult(esk1_0,op_d),esk2_0)
| mult(esk1_0,mult(esk2_0,op_d)) != mult(mult(esk1_0,esk2_0),op_d)
| mult(op_d,mult(esk1_0,esk2_0)) != mult(mult(op_d,esk1_0),esk2_0) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_18]) ).
cnf(c_0_23,plain,
mult(op_d,mult(X1,X2)) = mult(X1,mult(op_d,X2)),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_19,c_0_20]),c_0_21]) ).
cnf(c_0_24,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_22,c_0_21]),c_0_23]),c_0_20]),c_0_21]),c_0_20]),c_0_23]),c_0_20])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.04 % Problem : GRP702+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.20/0.45 % Computer : n020.cluster.edu
% 0.20/0.45 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.20/0.45 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.20/0.45 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.20/0.45 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.20/0.45 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.20/0.45 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.20/0.45 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 20:35:17 UTC 2026
% 0.20/0.46 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.46 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.28/0.53 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.28/0.54 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
% 0.28/0.57 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.28/0.57 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.28/0.57 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.28/0.57 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.28/0.57 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.57 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.57 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.57 % new_bool_1 with pid 1184901 completed with status 0
% 0.28/0.57 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.28/0.57 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.28/0.57 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.28/0.57 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.28/0.57 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.57 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.57 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.28/0.57 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.28/0.57 % Search class: FUHPM-FFSF22-MFFFFFNN
% 0.28/0.57 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.28/0.57 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.57 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1184903 completed with status 0
% 0.28/0.57 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.28/0.57 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.28/0.57 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.28/0.57 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.28/0.57 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.57 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.57 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.28/0.57 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.28/0.57 % Search class: FUHPM-FFSF22-MFFFFFNN
% 0.28/0.57 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.28/0.57 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.57 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.28/0.57
% 0.28/0.57 % Proof found!
% 0.28/0.57 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.28/0.57 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.28/0.57 % Parsed axioms : 14
% 0.28/0.57 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 6
% 0.28/0.57 % Initial clauses : 8
% 0.28/0.57 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.28/0.57 % Initial clauses in saturation : 8
% 0.28/0.57 % Processed clauses : 33
% 0.28/0.57 % ...of these trivial : 2
% 0.28/0.57 % ...subsumed : 10
% 0.28/0.57 % ...remaining for further processing : 20
% 0.28/0.57 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.28/0.57 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.28/0.57 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.28/0.57 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.28/0.57 % Generated clauses : 257
% 0.28/0.57 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 197
% 0.28/0.57 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.28/0.57 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.28/0.57 % Paramodulations : 257
% 0.28/0.57 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.28/0.57 % NegExts : 0
% 0.28/0.57 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.28/0.57 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.28/0.57 % Total rewrite steps : 202
% 0.28/0.57 % ...of those cached : 118
% 0.28/0.57 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.28/0.57 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.28/0.57 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.28/0.57 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.28/0.57 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.28/0.57 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.28/0.57 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.28/0.57 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.28/0.57 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.28/0.57 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.28/0.57 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.28/0.57 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.28/0.57 % Current number of processed clauses : 19
% 0.28/0.57 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 15
% 0.28/0.57 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 4
% 0.28/0.57 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.28/0.57 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.28/0.57 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 172
% 0.28/0.57 % ...number of literals in the above : 172
% 0.28/0.57 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.28/0.57 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.28/0.57 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.28/0.57 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.28/0.57 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.28/0.57 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 4
% 0.28/0.57 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.28/0.57 % BW rewrite match attempts : 7
% 0.28/0.57 % BW rewrite match successes : 5
% 0.28/0.57 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.28/0.57 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.28/0.57 % Termbank termtop insertions : 3385
% 0.28/0.57 % Search garbage collected termcells : 73
% 0.28/0.57
% 0.28/0.57 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.28/0.57 % User time : 0.008 s
% 0.28/0.57 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.28/0.57 % Total time : 0.012 s
% 0.28/0.57 % Maximum resident set size: 3644 pages
% 0.28/0.57
% 0.28/0.57 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.28/0.57 % User time : 0.012 s
% 0.28/0.57 % System time : 0.010 s
% 0.28/0.57 % Total time : 0.021 s
% 0.28/0.57 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.28/0.57 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------