%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : HWV027-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.5.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n017.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 12:47:25 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.14s 0.42s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.14s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 6
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 18 ( 16 unt; 2 nHn; 14 RR)
% Number of literals : 24 ( 8 equ; 13 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 4 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(quest_4,negated_conjecture,
level(t_139) != level(plus(t_139,n1)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',quest_4) ).
cnf(quest_2,negated_conjecture,
~ p_Rd(t_139),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',quest_2) ).
cnf(axiom_21,axiom,
level(X1) = int_level(X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/HWV003-0.ax',axiom_21) ).
cnf(quest_1,negated_conjecture,
~ p_Wr(t_139),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',quest_1) ).
cnf(quest_3,negated_conjecture,
~ p_Reset(t_139),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',quest_3) ).
cnf(axiom_82,axiom,
( int_level(plus(X1,n1)) = int_level(X1)
| p_Rd(X1)
| p_Wr(X1)
| p_Reset(X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/HWV003-0.ax',axiom_82) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
level(t_139) != level(plus(t_139,n1)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[quest_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
~ p_Rd(t_139),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[quest_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
level(t_139) != level(plus(t_139,n1)),
c_0_6 ).
cnf(c_0_9,axiom,
level(X1) = int_level(X1),
axiom_21 ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
~ p_Wr(t_139),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[quest_1]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
~ p_Reset(t_139),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[quest_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
~ p_Rd(t_139),
c_0_7 ).
cnf(c_0_13,axiom,
( int_level(plus(X1,n1)) = int_level(X1)
| p_Rd(X1)
| p_Wr(X1)
| p_Reset(X1) ),
axiom_82 ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
int_level(plus(t_139,n1)) != int_level(t_139),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]),c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
~ p_Wr(t_139),
c_0_10 ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
~ p_Reset(t_139),
c_0_11 ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]),c_0_14]),c_0_15]),c_0_16]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : HWV027-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.5.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.35 % Computer : n017.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.35 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/0.35 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.09/0.36 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 20:44:11 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.09/0.36 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.14/0.40 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.14/0.40 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
% 0.14/0.42 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.14/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % new_bool_3 with pid 612248 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.14/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.14/0.42 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.14/0.42 % Search class: FGUSS-FFMF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.42 % partial match(1): FGUSS-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.42 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % SubtermCWHack with pid 612251 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.14/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.14/0.42 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.14/0.42 % Search class: FGUSS-FFMF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.42 % partial match(1): FGUSS-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.42 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.14/0.42
% 0.14/0.42 % Proof found!
% 0.14/0.42 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.14/0.42 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.14/0.42 % Parsed axioms : 94
% 0.14/0.42 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 70
% 0.14/0.42 % Initial clauses : 24
% 0.14/0.42 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Initial clauses in saturation : 24
% 0.14/0.42 % Processed clauses : 33
% 0.14/0.42 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % ...subsumed : 5
% 0.14/0.42 % ...remaining for further processing : 28
% 0.14/0.42 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.14/0.42 % Generated clauses : 43
% 0.14/0.42 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 31
% 0.14/0.42 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Paramodulations : 40
% 0.14/0.42 % Factorizations : 2
% 0.14/0.42 % NegExts : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Equation resolutions : 1
% 0.14/0.42 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Total rewrite steps : 10
% 0.14/0.42 % ...of those cached : 4
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.42 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.42 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.42 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.42 % Current number of processed clauses : 27
% 0.14/0.42 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 4
% 0.14/0.42 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Negative unit clauses : 8
% 0.14/0.42 % Non-unit-clauses : 15
% 0.14/0.42 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 22
% 0.14/0.42 % ...number of literals in the above : 76
% 0.14/0.42 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.14/0.42 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 13
% 0.14/0.42 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 12
% 0.14/0.42 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 2
% 0.14/0.42 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% 0.14/0.42 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.14/0.42 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.14/0.42 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Termbank termtop insertions : 2198
% 0.14/0.42 % Search garbage collected termcells : 318
% 0.14/0.42
% 0.14/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.42 % User time : 0.004 s
% 0.14/0.42 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.14/0.42 % Total time : 0.006 s
% 0.14/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 3704 pages
% 0.14/0.42
% 0.14/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.42 % User time : 0.010 s
% 0.14/0.42 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.14/0.42 % Total time : 0.013 s
% 0.14/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.14/0.42 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------