%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : HEN003-5 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% 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 12:45:34 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.25s 0.52s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.25s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 15 ( 11 unt; 0 nHn; 8 RR)
% Number of literals : 22 ( 21 equ; 10 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 0 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 3 ( 3 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 23 ( 4 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(divide_and_equal,axiom,
( divide(X2,X1) != zero
| divide(X1,X2) != zero
| X1 = X2 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/HEN003-0.ax',divide_and_equal) ).
cnf(quotient_smaller_than_numerator,axiom,
divide(divide(X1,X2),X1) = zero,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/HEN003-0.ax',quotient_smaller_than_numerator) ).
cnf(quotient_property,axiom,
divide(divide(divide(X1,X2),divide(X3,X2)),divide(divide(X1,X3),X2)) = zero,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/HEN003-0.ax',quotient_property) ).
cnf(prove_x_divide_x_is_zero,negated_conjecture,
divide(a,a) != zero,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_x_divide_x_is_zero) ).
cnf(c_0_4,plain,
( divide(X2,X1) != zero
| divide(X1,X2) != zero
| X1 = X2 ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[divide_and_equal]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,plain,
( divide(X2,X1) != zero
| divide(X1,X2) != zero
| X1 = X2 ),
c_0_4 ).
cnf(c_0_6,axiom,
divide(divide(X1,X2),X1) = zero,
quotient_smaller_than_numerator ).
cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
divide(divide(divide(X1,X2),divide(X3,X2)),divide(divide(X1,X3),X2)) = zero,
quotient_property ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( divide(X1,divide(X1,X2)) != zero
| divide(X1,X2) = X1 ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
divide(divide(divide(X1,X1),divide(X2,X1)),zero) = zero,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
divide(a,a) != zero,
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_x_divide_x_is_zero]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
divide(divide(X1,X1),divide(X2,X1)) = zero,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]),c_0_9])]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
divide(a,a) != zero,
c_0_10 ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
divide(X1,X1) = zero,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_11]),c_0_6]) ).
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
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : HEN003-5 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.06 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.42 % Computer : n020.cluster.edu
% 0.16/0.42 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.16/0.42 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.16/0.42 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.16/0.42 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.16/0.42 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.16/0.42 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.16/0.42 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 20:46:17 UTC 2026
% 0.16/0.42 % CPUTime :
% 0.16/0.42 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.49 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.16/0.49 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
% 0.25/0.52 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.25/0.52 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.52 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.52 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.52 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.52 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.52 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.52 % new_bool_3 with pid 1196879 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.25/0.52 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.52 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.52 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.52 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.52 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.25/0.52 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.25/0.52 % Search class: FHUPS-FFSF22-MFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.52 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.52 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.52 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1196885 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.25/0.52 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.52 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.52 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.52 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.52 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.25/0.52 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.25/0.52 % Search class: FHUPS-FFSF22-MFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.52 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.52 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.52 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.25/0.52
% 0.25/0.52 % Proof found!
% 0.25/0.52 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.25/0.52 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.25/0.52 % Parsed axioms : 6
% 0.25/0.52 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 1
% 0.25/0.52 % Initial clauses : 5
% 0.25/0.52 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Initial clauses in saturation : 5
% 0.25/0.52 % Processed clauses : 12
% 0.25/0.52 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % ...subsumed : 2
% 0.25/0.52 % ...remaining for further processing : 10
% 0.25/0.52 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Backward-rewritten : 3
% 0.25/0.52 % Generated clauses : 57
% 0.25/0.52 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 31
% 0.25/0.52 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Paramodulations : 57
% 0.25/0.52 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % NegExts : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Total rewrite steps : 48
% 0.25/0.52 % ...of those cached : 22
% 0.25/0.52 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.52 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.52 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.52 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.52 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.52 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.52 % Current number of processed clauses : 7
% 0.25/0.52 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 4
% 0.25/0.52 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Non-unit-clauses : 3
% 0.25/0.52 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 24
% 0.25/0.52 % ...number of literals in the above : 27
% 0.25/0.52 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Current number of archived clauses : 3
% 0.25/0.52 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 4
% 0.25/0.52 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 4
% 0.25/0.52 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 2
% 0.25/0.52 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % BW rewrite match attempts : 15
% 0.25/0.52 % BW rewrite match successes : 3
% 0.25/0.52 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Termbank termtop insertions : 620
% 0.25/0.52 % Search garbage collected termcells : 11
% 0.25/0.52
% 0.25/0.52 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.52 % User time : 0.004 s
% 0.25/0.52 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.25/0.52 % Total time : 0.007 s
% 0.25/0.52 % Maximum resident set size: 3636 pages
% 0.25/0.52
% 0.25/0.52 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.52 % User time : 0.005 s
% 0.25/0.52 % System time : 0.010 s
% 0.25/0.52 % Total time : 0.015 s
% 0.25/0.52 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.25/0.52 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------