%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : ITP019_1 : 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 : n008.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 12:53:46 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.15s 0.44s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.15s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 10 ( 3 unt; 0 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 19 ( 18 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 22 ( 13 ~; 3 |; 2 &)
% ( 1 <=>; 3 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 5 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of types : 2 ( 2 usr)
% Number of type conns : 0 ( 0 >; 0 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 0 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 2 con; 0-1 aty)
% Number of variables : 6 ( 0 sgn 6 !; 0 ?; 6 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tff(decl_sort1,type,
mono_2Etyop_2Enum_2Enum: $tType ).
tff(decl_sort2,type,
mono_2Etyop_2Epair_2Eprod_28tyop_2Erealax_2Ereal_2Ctyop_2Erealax_2Ereal_29: $tType ).
tff(decl_61,type,
mono_2Ec_2Enum_2E0_2E0: mono_2Etyop_2Enum_2Enum ).
tff(decl_69,type,
mono_2Ec_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__inv_2E1: mono_2Etyop_2Epair_2Eprod_28tyop_2Erealax_2Ereal_2Ctyop_2Erealax_2Ereal_29 > mono_2Etyop_2Epair_2Eprod_28tyop_2Erealax_2Ereal_2Ctyop_2Erealax_2Ereal_29 ).
tff(decl_71,type,
mono_2Ec_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__of__num_2E1: mono_2Etyop_2Enum_2Enum > mono_2Etyop_2Epair_2Eprod_28tyop_2Erealax_2Ereal_2Ctyop_2Erealax_2Ereal_29 ).
tff(decl_88,type,
esk1_0: mono_2Etyop_2Epair_2Eprod_28tyop_2Erealax_2Ereal_2Ctyop_2Erealax_2Ereal_29 ).
tff(thm_2Ecomplex_2ECOMPLEX__INV__NZ,conjecture,
! [X43: mono_2Etyop_2Epair_2Eprod_28tyop_2Erealax_2Ereal_2Ctyop_2Erealax_2Ereal_29] :
( ( X43 != mono_2Ec_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__of__num_2E1(mono_2Ec_2Enum_2E0_2E0) )
=> ( mono_2Ec_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__inv_2E1(X43) != mono_2Ec_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__of__num_2E1(mono_2Ec_2Enum_2E0_2E0) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',thm_2Ecomplex_2ECOMPLEX__INV__NZ) ).
tff(thm_2Ecomplex_2ECOMPLEX__INV__EQ__0,axiom,
! [X43: mono_2Etyop_2Epair_2Eprod_28tyop_2Erealax_2Ereal_2Ctyop_2Erealax_2Ereal_29] :
( ( mono_2Ec_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__inv_2E1(X43) = mono_2Ec_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__of__num_2E1(mono_2Ec_2Enum_2E0_2E0) )
<=> ( X43 = mono_2Ec_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__of__num_2E1(mono_2Ec_2Enum_2E0_2E0) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',thm_2Ecomplex_2ECOMPLEX__INV__EQ__0) ).
tff(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X43: mono_2Etyop_2Epair_2Eprod_28tyop_2Erealax_2Ereal_2Ctyop_2Erealax_2Ereal_29] :
( ( X43 != mono_2Ec_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__of__num_2E1(mono_2Ec_2Enum_2E0_2E0) )
=> ( mono_2Ec_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__inv_2E1(X43) != mono_2Ec_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__of__num_2E1(mono_2Ec_2Enum_2E0_2E0) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[thm_2Ecomplex_2ECOMPLEX__INV__NZ]) ).
tff(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X43: mono_2Etyop_2Epair_2Eprod_28tyop_2Erealax_2Ereal_2Ctyop_2Erealax_2Ereal_29] :
( ( X43 != mono_2Ec_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__of__num_2E1(mono_2Ec_2Enum_2E0_2E0) )
=> ( mono_2Ec_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__inv_2E1(X43) != mono_2Ec_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__of__num_2E1(mono_2Ec_2Enum_2E0_2E0) ) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
tff(c_0_4,plain,
! [X45: mono_2Etyop_2Epair_2Eprod_28tyop_2Erealax_2Ereal_2Ctyop_2Erealax_2Ereal_29] :
( ( ( mono_2Ec_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__inv_2E1(X45) = mono_2Ec_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__of__num_2E1(mono_2Ec_2Enum_2E0_2E0) )
| ( X45 != mono_2Ec_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__of__num_2E1(mono_2Ec_2Enum_2E0_2E0) ) )
& ( ( X45 = mono_2Ec_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__of__num_2E1(mono_2Ec_2Enum_2E0_2E0) )
| ( mono_2Ec_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__inv_2E1(X45) != mono_2Ec_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__of__num_2E1(mono_2Ec_2Enum_2E0_2E0) ) ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[thm_2Ecomplex_2ECOMPLEX__INV__EQ__0])])]) ).
tff(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
( ( mono_2Ec_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__inv_2E1(esk1_0) = mono_2Ec_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__of__num_2E1(mono_2Ec_2Enum_2E0_2E0) )
& ( esk1_0 != mono_2Ec_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__of__num_2E1(mono_2Ec_2Enum_2E0_2E0) ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])])])]) ).
tcf(c_0_6,plain,
! [X27: mono_2Etyop_2Epair_2Eprod_28tyop_2Erealax_2Ereal_2Ctyop_2Erealax_2Ereal_29] :
( ( mono_2Ec_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__inv_2E1(X27) != mono_2Ec_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__of__num_2E1(mono_2Ec_2Enum_2E0_2E0) )
| ( X27 = mono_2Ec_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__of__num_2E1(mono_2Ec_2Enum_2E0_2E0) ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
tcf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
mono_2Ec_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__inv_2E1(esk1_0) = mono_2Ec_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__of__num_2E1(mono_2Ec_2Enum_2E0_2E0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
tcf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
esk1_0 != mono_2Ec_2Ecomplex_2Ecomplex__of__num_2E1(mono_2Ec_2Enum_2E0_2E0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]),c_0_8]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : ITP019_1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v7.5.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.37 % Computer : n008.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/0.37 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 21:52:39 UTC 2026
% 0.15/0.38 % CPUTime :
% 0.15/0.38 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.42 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/0.42 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
% 0.15/0.44 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.15/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % new_bool_3 with pid 3655205 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.15/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.15/0.44 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.15/0.44 % Search class: FHUPF-FFSF11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.44 % partial match(1): FHUNF-FFSF11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.44 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3655208 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.15/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.15/0.44 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.15/0.44 % Search class: FHUPF-FFSF11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.44 % partial match(1): FHUNF-FFSF11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.44 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.15/0.44
% 0.15/0.44 % Proof found!
% 0.15/0.44 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.15/0.44 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.15/0.44 % Parsed axioms : 122
% 0.15/0.44 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 120
% 0.15/0.44 % Initial clauses : 4
% 0.15/0.44 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Initial clauses in saturation : 4
% 0.15/0.44 % Processed clauses : 5
% 0.15/0.44 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % ...remaining for further processing : 5
% 0.15/0.44 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 1
% 0.15/0.44 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Generated clauses : 2
% 0.15/0.44 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1
% 0.15/0.44 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Paramodulations : 1
% 0.15/0.44 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % NegExts : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Equation resolutions : 1
% 0.15/0.44 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Total rewrite steps : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.44 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.44 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.44 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.44 % Current number of processed clauses : 4
% 0.15/0.44 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 2
% 0.15/0.44 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.15/0.44 % Non-unit-clauses : 1
% 0.15/0.44 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.15/0.44 % ...number of literals in the above : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Termbank termtop insertions : 980
% 0.15/0.44 % Search garbage collected termcells : 436
% 0.15/0.44
% 0.15/0.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.44 % User time : 0.002 s
% 0.15/0.44 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.15/0.44 % Total time : 0.005 s
% 0.15/0.44 % Maximum resident set size: 3768 pages
% 0.15/0.44
% 0.15/0.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.44 % User time : 0.004 s
% 0.15/0.44 % System time : 0.010 s
% 0.15/0.44 % Total time : 0.014 s
% 0.15/0.44 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.15/0.44 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------