%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : ITP090^1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v7.5.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n018.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 : Wed Sep 30 08:04:20 AM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.26s 0.39s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.26s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 16 ( 12 unt; 0 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 26 ( 2 equ; 0 cnn)
% Maximal formula atoms : 7 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 96 ( 12 ~; 7 |; 2 &; 74 @)
% ( 1 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 10 ( 5 avg)
% Number of types : 6 ( 5 usr)
% Number of type conns : 0 ( 0 >; 0 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of symbols : 11 ( 9 usr; 4 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 7 ( 0 ^; 7 !; 0 ?; 7 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thf(decl_sort1,type,
secrecy_specID: $tType ).
thf(decl_sort2,type,
set_Secrecy_KS: $tType ).
thf(decl_sort3,type,
secrecy_KS: $tType ).
thf(decl_sort4,type,
secrecy_Expression: $tType ).
thf(decl_sort5,type,
secrecy_Keys: $tType ).
thf(decl_23,type,
localSecrets: secrecy_specID > set_Secrecy_KS ).
thf(decl_25,type,
knowle945212990e_know: secrecy_specID > secrecy_KS > $o ).
thf(decl_53,type,
ine: secrecy_specID > secrecy_Expression > $o ).
thf(decl_63,type,
secrecy_kE: secrecy_Keys > secrecy_Expression ).
thf(decl_66,type,
secrecy_kKS: secrecy_Keys > secrecy_KS ).
thf(decl_97,type,
member_Secrecy_KS: secrecy_KS > set_Secrecy_KS > $o ).
thf(decl_104,type,
q: secrecy_specID ).
thf(decl_105,type,
key: secrecy_Keys ).
thf(decl_106,type,
m: secrecy_KS ).
thf(conj_0,conjecture,
~ ( member_Secrecy_KS @ ( secrecy_kKS @ key ) @ ( localSecrets @ q ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.wjMKT3scQE/E---3.1_560832.p',conj_0) ).
thf(fact_0_not__knowQm,axiom,
~ ( knowle945212990e_know @ q @ m ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.wjMKT3scQE/E---3.1_560832.p',fact_0_not__knowQm) ).
thf(fact_8_know_Osimps_I1_J,axiom,
! [X3: secrecy_specID,X4: secrecy_Keys] :
( ( knowle945212990e_know @ X3 @ ( secrecy_kKS @ X4 ) )
<=> ( ( ine @ X3 @ ( secrecy_kE @ X4 ) )
| ( member_Secrecy_KS @ ( secrecy_kKS @ X4 ) @ ( localSecrets @ X3 ) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.wjMKT3scQE/E---3.1_560832.p',fact_8_know_Osimps_I1_J) ).
thf(fact_1_a1,axiom,
( m
= ( secrecy_kKS @ key ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.wjMKT3scQE/E---3.1_560832.p',fact_1_a1) ).
thf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ~ ( member_Secrecy_KS @ ( secrecy_kKS @ key ) @ ( localSecrets @ q ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[conj_0]) ).
thf(c_0_5,plain,
~ ( knowle945212990e_know @ q @ m ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[fact_0_not__knowQm]) ).
thf(c_0_6,plain,
! [X1166: secrecy_specID,X1167: secrecy_Keys] :
( ( ~ ( knowle945212990e_know @ X1166 @ ( secrecy_kKS @ X1167 ) )
| ( ine @ X1166 @ ( secrecy_kE @ X1167 ) )
| ( member_Secrecy_KS @ ( secrecy_kKS @ X1167 ) @ ( localSecrets @ X1166 ) ) )
& ( ~ ( ine @ X1166 @ ( secrecy_kE @ X1167 ) )
| ( knowle945212990e_know @ X1166 @ ( secrecy_kKS @ X1167 ) ) )
& ( ~ ( member_Secrecy_KS @ ( secrecy_kKS @ X1167 ) @ ( localSecrets @ X1166 ) )
| ( knowle945212990e_know @ X1166 @ ( secrecy_kKS @ X1167 ) ) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[fact_8_know_Osimps_I1_J])])])]) ).
thf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
member_Secrecy_KS @ ( secrecy_kKS @ key ) @ ( localSecrets @ q ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
thf(c_0_8,plain,
~ ( knowle945212990e_know @ q @ m ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
thf(c_0_9,plain,
! [X1: secrecy_Keys,X3: secrecy_specID] :
( ( knowle945212990e_know @ X3 @ ( secrecy_kKS @ X1 ) )
| ~ ( member_Secrecy_KS @ ( secrecy_kKS @ X1 ) @ ( localSecrets @ X3 ) ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
thf(c_0_10,plain,
( m
= ( secrecy_kKS @ key ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[fact_1_a1]) ).
thf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
member_Secrecy_KS @ ( secrecy_kKS @ key ) @ ( localSecrets @ q ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
thf(c_0_12,plain,
~ ( knowle945212990e_know @ q @ m ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
thf(c_0_13,plain,
! [X3: secrecy_specID] :
( ( knowle945212990e_know @ X3 @ m )
| ~ ( member_Secrecy_KS @ m @ ( localSecrets @ X3 ) ) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
thf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
member_Secrecy_KS @ m @ ( localSecrets @ q ),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_10]) ).
thf(c_0_15,plain,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]),c_0_14])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : ITP090^1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v7.5.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.07/0.21 % Computer : n018.cluster.edu
% 0.07/0.21 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.07/0.21 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.07/0.21 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.07/0.21 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.07/0.21 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.07/0.21 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.07/0.21 % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 19:54:17 UTC 2026
% 0.07/0.22 % CPUTime :
% 0.07/0.22 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.07/0.26 Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.19/0.32 Running: /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/eprover-ho --delete-bad-limit=2000000000 --definitional-cnf=24 -s --print-statistics -R --print-version --proof-object --auto-schedule=8 --cpu-limit=300 /export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.wjMKT3scQE/E---3.1_560832.p
% 0.26/0.39 % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 0.26/0.39 % Preprocessing class: HSLSSMSMSSMNSFA.
% 0.26/0.39 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.39 % Starting new_ho_3 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.39 % Starting pre_casc_2 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.39 % Starting additional_ho_7 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.39 % Starting lpo8_s with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.39 % additional_ho_7 with pid 560848 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.39 % Result found by additional_ho_7
% 0.26/0.39 % Preprocessing class: HSLSSMSMSSMNSFA.
% 0.26/0.39 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.39 % Starting new_ho_3 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.39 % Starting pre_casc_2 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.39 % Starting additional_ho_7 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.39 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,4.0,,2,20000,1.0))
% 0.26/0.39 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,4.0,,2,20000,1.0)
% 0.26/0.39 % Search class: HGHSM-FSLM32-SSFFFFBN
% 0.26/0.39 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.26/0.39 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.39 % SubtermCWHack with pid 560851 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.39 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.26/0.39 % Preprocessing class: HSLSSMSMSSMNSFA.
% 0.26/0.39 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.39 % Starting new_ho_3 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.39 % Starting pre_casc_2 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.39 % Starting additional_ho_7 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.39 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,4.0,,2,20000,1.0))
% 0.26/0.39 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,4.0,,2,20000,1.0)
% 0.26/0.39 % Search class: HGHSM-FSLM32-SSFFFFBN
% 0.26/0.39 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.26/0.39 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.39 % Preprocessing time : 0.008 s
% 0.26/0.39
% 0.26/0.39 % Proof found!
% 0.26/0.39 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.26/0.39 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.26/0.39 % Parsed axioms : 453
% 0.26/0.39 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 259
% 0.26/0.39 % Initial clauses : 389
% 0.26/0.39 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 18
% 0.26/0.39 % Initial clauses in saturation : 371
% 0.26/0.39 % Processed clauses : 166
% 0.26/0.39 % ...of these trivial : 3
% 0.26/0.39 % ...subsumed : 55
% 0.26/0.39 % ...remaining for further processing : 108
% 0.26/0.39 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 34
% 0.26/0.39 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.26/0.39 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.26/0.39 % Backward-rewritten : 3
% 0.26/0.39 % Generated clauses : 127
% 0.26/0.39 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 66
% 0.26/0.39 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.26/0.39 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.26/0.39 % Paramodulations : 93
% 0.26/0.39 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.26/0.39 % NegExts : 0
% 0.26/0.39 % Equation resolutions : 39
% 0.26/0.39 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.26/0.39 % Total rewrite steps : 43
% 0.26/0.39 % ...of those cached : 23
% 0.26/0.39 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.26/0.39 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.26/0.39 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.26/0.39 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.26/0.39 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.26/0.39 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.26/0.39 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.39 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.39 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.39 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.39 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.39 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.39 % Current number of processed clauses : 81
% 0.26/0.39 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 22
% 0.26/0.39 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.26/0.39 % Negative unit clauses : 10
% 0.26/0.39 % Non-unit-clauses : 48
% 0.26/0.39 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 271
% 0.26/0.39 % ...number of literals in the above : 1265
% 0.26/0.39 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.26/0.39 % Current number of archived clauses : 3
% 0.26/0.39 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 656
% 0.26/0.39 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 628
% 0.26/0.39 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 33
% 0.26/0.39 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 19
% 0.26/0.39 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.26/0.39 % BW rewrite match attempts : 12
% 0.26/0.39 % BW rewrite match successes : 9
% 0.26/0.39 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.26/0.39 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.26/0.39 % Termbank termtop insertions : 44166
% 0.26/0.39 % Search garbage collected termcells : 13055
% 0.26/0.39
% 0.26/0.39 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.39 % User time : 0.027 s
% 0.26/0.39 % System time : 0.010 s
% 0.26/0.39 % Total time : 0.037 s
% 0.26/0.39 % Maximum resident set size: 6348 pages
% 0.26/0.39
% 0.26/0.39 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.39 % User time : 0.044 s
% 0.26/0.39 % System time : 0.015 s
% 0.26/0.39 % Total time : 0.058 s
% 0.26/0.39 % Maximum resident set size: 5888 pages
% 0.26/0.39 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------