%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : ITP019+5 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v7.5.0.
% 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 12:55:58 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 3.56s 2.47s
% Output : CNFRefutation 3.56s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 13 ( 6 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 24 ( 15 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 23 ( 12 ~; 2 |; 2 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 7 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 6 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 7 ( 7 usr; 5 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 6 ( 0 sgn 5 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(conj_thm_2Ecomplex_2ECOMPLEX__INV__NZ,conjecture,
! [X319] :
( mem(X319,ty_2Epair_2Eprod(ty_2Erealax_2Ereal,ty_2Erealax_2Ereal))
=> ( X319 != ap(c_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__of__num,c_2Enum_2E0)
=> ap(c_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__inv,X319) != ap(c_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__of__num,c_2Enum_2E0) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',conj_thm_2Ecomplex_2ECOMPLEX__INV__NZ) ).
fof(conj_thm_2Ecomplex_2ECOMPLEX__INV__INV,axiom,
! [X319] :
( mem(X319,ty_2Epair_2Eprod(ty_2Erealax_2Ereal,ty_2Erealax_2Ereal))
=> ap(c_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__inv,ap(c_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__inv,X319)) = X319 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',conj_thm_2Ecomplex_2ECOMPLEX__INV__INV) ).
fof(conj_thm_2Ecomplex_2ECOMPLEX__INV__0,axiom,
ap(c_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__inv,ap(c_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__of__num,c_2Enum_2E0)) = ap(c_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__of__num,c_2Enum_2E0),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',conj_thm_2Ecomplex_2ECOMPLEX__INV__0) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X319] :
( mem(X319,ty_2Epair_2Eprod(ty_2Erealax_2Ereal,ty_2Erealax_2Ereal))
=> ( X319 != ap(c_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__of__num,c_2Enum_2E0)
=> ap(c_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__inv,X319) != ap(c_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__of__num,c_2Enum_2E0) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[conj_thm_2Ecomplex_2ECOMPLEX__INV__NZ]) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X319] :
( mem(X319,ty_2Epair_2Eprod(ty_2Erealax_2Ereal,ty_2Erealax_2Ereal))
=> ( X319 != ap(c_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__of__num,c_2Enum_2E0)
=> ap(c_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__inv,X319) != ap(c_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__of__num,c_2Enum_2E0) ) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X14698] :
( ap(c_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__inv,ap(c_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__inv,X14698)) = X14698
| ~ mem(X14698,ty_2Epair_2Eprod(ty_2Erealax_2Ereal,ty_2Erealax_2Ereal)) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[conj_thm_2Ecomplex_2ECOMPLEX__INV__INV])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( ap(c_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__inv,esk1_0) = ap(c_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__of__num,c_2Enum_2E0)
& esk1_0 != ap(c_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__of__num,c_2Enum_2E0)
& mem(esk1_0,ty_2Epair_2Eprod(ty_2Erealax_2Ereal,ty_2Erealax_2Ereal)) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ mem(X1,ty_2Epair_2Eprod(ty_2Erealax_2Ereal,ty_2Erealax_2Ereal))
| ap(c_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__inv,ap(c_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__inv,X1)) = X1 ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
mem(esk1_0,ty_2Epair_2Eprod(ty_2Erealax_2Ereal,ty_2Erealax_2Ereal)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
ap(c_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__inv,esk1_0) = ap(c_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__of__num,c_2Enum_2E0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
ap(c_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__inv,ap(c_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__of__num,c_2Enum_2E0)) = ap(c_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__of__num,c_2Enum_2E0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[conj_thm_2Ecomplex_2ECOMPLEX__INV__0]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
esk1_0 != ap(c_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__of__num,c_2Enum_2E0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]),c_0_9]),c_0_10]),c_0_11]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : ITP019+5 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v7.5.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.37 % Computer : n020.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.37 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 21:52:52 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.38 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/0.38 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.42 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.10/0.42 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
% 3.56/2.47 % Version: 3.5.1
% 3.56/2.47 % Preprocessing class: FMLLSMLLSSSNFFN.
% 3.56/2.47 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 299 seconds (2392 total)
% 3.56/2.47 % Starting new_bool_3 with 897s (3) cores
% 3.56/2.47 % Starting new_bool_1 with 897s (3) cores
% 3.56/2.47 % Starting sh5l with 299s (1) cores
% 3.56/2.47 % Starting G-E--_301_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S0Y with 299s (1) cores
% 3.56/2.47 % new_bool_1 with pid 1279775 completed with status 0
% 3.56/2.47 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 3.56/2.47 % Preprocessing class: FMLLSMLLSSSNFFN.
% 3.56/2.47 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 299 seconds (2392 total)
% 3.56/2.47 % Starting new_bool_3 with 897s (3) cores
% 3.56/2.47 % Starting new_bool_1 with 897s (3) cores
% 3.56/2.47 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 3.56/2.47 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 3.56/2.47 % Search class: FGHSF-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 3.56/2.47 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 3 cores with 897 seconds (897 total)
% 3.56/2.47 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 81s (1) cores
% 3.56/2.47 % Starting new_bool_1 with 90s (1) cores
% 3.56/2.47 % Starting G-E--_300_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_S0Y with 81s (1) cores
% 3.56/2.47 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1279778 completed with status 0
% 3.56/2.47 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 3.56/2.47 % Preprocessing class: FMLLSMLLSSSNFFN.
% 3.56/2.47 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 299 seconds (2392 total)
% 3.56/2.47 % Starting new_bool_3 with 897s (3) cores
% 3.56/2.47 % Starting new_bool_1 with 897s (3) cores
% 3.56/2.47 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 3.56/2.47 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 3.56/2.47 % Search class: FGHSF-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 3.56/2.47 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 3 cores with 897 seconds (897 total)
% 3.56/2.47 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 81s (1) cores
% 3.56/2.47 % Preprocessing time : 0.045 s
% 3.56/2.47
% 3.56/2.47 % Proof found!
% 3.56/2.47 % SZS status Theorem
% 3.56/2.47 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 3.56/2.47 % Parsed axioms : 16826
% 3.56/2.47 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 16477
% 3.56/2.47 % Initial clauses : 1894
% 3.56/2.47 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 1286
% 3.56/2.47 % Initial clauses in saturation : 608
% 3.56/2.47 % Processed clauses : 48
% 3.56/2.47 % ...of these trivial : 1
% 3.56/2.47 % ...subsumed : 8
% 3.56/2.47 % ...remaining for further processing : 39
% 3.56/2.47 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 3.56/2.47 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 3.56/2.47 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 3.56/2.47 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 3.56/2.47 % Generated clauses : 23
% 3.56/2.47 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 9
% 3.56/2.47 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 3.56/2.47 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 3.56/2.47 % Paramodulations : 23
% 3.56/2.47 % Factorizations : 0
% 3.56/2.47 % NegExts : 0
% 3.56/2.47 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 3.56/2.47 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 3.56/2.47 % Total rewrite steps : 9
% 3.56/2.47 % ...of those cached : 4
% 3.56/2.47 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 3.56/2.47 % Propositional check models : 0
% 3.56/2.47 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 3.56/2.47 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 3.56/2.47 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 3.56/2.47 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 3.56/2.47 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 3.56/2.47 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 3.56/2.47 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 3.56/2.47 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 3.56/2.47 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 3.56/2.47 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 3.56/2.47 % Current number of processed clauses : 39
% 3.56/2.47 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 16
% 3.56/2.47 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 3.56/2.47 % Negative unit clauses : 3
% 3.56/2.47 % Non-unit-clauses : 20
% 3.56/2.47 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 566
% 3.56/2.47 % ...number of literals in the above : 3323
% 3.56/2.47 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 3.56/2.47 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 3.56/2.47 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 70
% 3.56/2.47 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 55
% 3.56/2.47 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 8
% 3.56/2.47 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 3.56/2.47 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 3.56/2.47 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 3.56/2.47 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 3.56/2.47 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 3.56/2.47 % Condensation successes : 0
% 3.56/2.47 % Termbank termtop insertions : 890986
% 3.56/2.47 % Search garbage collected termcells : 380912
% 3.56/2.47
% 3.56/2.47 % -------------------------------------------------
% 3.56/2.47 % User time : 0.423 s
% 3.56/2.47 % System time : 0.125 s
% 3.56/2.47 % Total time : 0.548 s
% 3.56/2.47 % Maximum resident set size: 69876 pages
% 3.56/2.47
% 3.56/2.47 % -------------------------------------------------
% 3.56/2.47 % User time : 1.894 s
% 3.56/2.47 % System time : 0.267 s
% 3.56/2.47 % Total time : 2.161 s
% 3.56/2.47 % Maximum resident set size: 59136 pages
% 3.56/2.47 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------