%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : ITP098^1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v7.5.0.
% 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 : Wed Sep 30 08:05:31 AM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.32s 0.44s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.32s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 18 ( 15 unt; 0 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 24 ( 17 equ; 0 cnn)
% Maximal formula atoms : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 96 ( 8 ~; 4 |; 0 &; 82 @)
% ( 0 <=>; 2 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 12 ( 4 avg)
% Number of types : 6 ( 5 usr)
% Number of type conns : 9 ( 9 >; 0 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of symbols : 10 ( 8 usr; 2 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 17 ( 2 ^; 15 !; 0 ?; 17 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thf(decl_sort1,type,
a: $tType ).
thf(decl_sort2,type,
c: $tType ).
thf(decl_sort3,type,
b: $tType ).
thf(decl_sort4,type,
set_a: $tType ).
thf(decl_sort5,type,
set_c: $tType ).
thf(decl_27,type,
comp_a_b_c: ( a > b ) > ( c > a ) > c > b ).
thf(decl_53,type,
inj_on_a_b: ( a > b ) > set_a > $o ).
thf(decl_62,type,
sup_sup_set_a: set_a > set_a > set_a ).
thf(decl_71,type,
top_top_set_c: set_c ).
thf(decl_81,type,
image_c_a: ( c > a ) > set_c > set_a ).
thf(decl_88,type,
f: a > b ).
thf(decl_89,type,
g: c > a ).
thf(decl_90,type,
h: c > a ).
thf(fact_136_sup__commute,axiom,
( sup_sup_set_a
= ( ^ [X323: set_a,X324: set_a] : ( sup_sup_set_a @ X324 @ X323 ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.R7sHS5V3wT/E---3.1_810953.p',fact_136_sup__commute) ).
thf(conj_2,conjecture,
g = h,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.R7sHS5V3wT/E---3.1_810953.p',conj_2) ).
thf(fact_8_o__inj__on,axiom,
! [X33: a > b,X34: c > a,X35: c > a] :
( ( ( comp_a_b_c @ X33 @ X34 )
= ( comp_a_b_c @ X33 @ X35 ) )
=> ( ( inj_on_a_b @ X33 @ ( sup_sup_set_a @ ( image_c_a @ X34 @ top_top_set_c ) @ ( image_c_a @ X35 @ top_top_set_c ) ) )
=> ( X34 = X35 ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.R7sHS5V3wT/E---3.1_810953.p',fact_8_o__inj__on) ).
thf(conj_0,hypothesis,
inj_on_a_b @ f @ ( sup_sup_set_a @ ( image_c_a @ g @ top_top_set_c ) @ ( image_c_a @ h @ top_top_set_c ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.R7sHS5V3wT/E---3.1_810953.p',conj_0) ).
thf(conj_1,hypothesis,
( ( comp_a_b_c @ f @ g )
= ( comp_a_b_c @ f @ h ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.R7sHS5V3wT/E---3.1_810953.p',conj_1) ).
thf(c_0_5,plain,
! [X1139: set_a,X1140: set_a] :
( ( sup_sup_set_a @ X1139 @ X1140 )
= ( sup_sup_set_a @ X1140 @ X1139 ) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[fact_136_sup__commute])]) ).
thf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
g != h,
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[conj_2]) ).
thf(c_0_7,plain,
! [X1220: set_a,X1221: set_a] :
( ( sup_sup_set_a @ X1220 @ X1221 )
= ( sup_sup_set_a @ X1221 @ X1220 ) ),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
thf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
g != h,
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
thf(c_0_9,plain,
! [X1198: a > b,X1199: c > a,X1200: c > a] :
( ( ( comp_a_b_c @ X1198 @ X1199 )
!= ( comp_a_b_c @ X1198 @ X1200 ) )
| ~ ( inj_on_a_b @ X1198 @ ( sup_sup_set_a @ ( image_c_a @ X1199 @ top_top_set_c ) @ ( image_c_a @ X1200 @ top_top_set_c ) ) )
| ( X1199 = X1200 ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[fact_8_o__inj__on])])]) ).
thf(c_0_10,hypothesis,
inj_on_a_b @ f @ ( sup_sup_set_a @ ( image_c_a @ g @ top_top_set_c ) @ ( image_c_a @ h @ top_top_set_c ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[conj_0]) ).
thf(c_0_11,plain,
! [X93: set_a,X90: set_a] :
( ( sup_sup_set_a @ X90 @ X93 )
= ( sup_sup_set_a @ X93 @ X90 ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
thf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
g != h,
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
thf(c_0_13,plain,
! [X5: a > b,X13: c > a,X28: c > a] :
( ( X13 = X28 )
| ( ( comp_a_b_c @ X5 @ X13 )
!= ( comp_a_b_c @ X5 @ X28 ) )
| ~ ( inj_on_a_b @ X5 @ ( sup_sup_set_a @ ( image_c_a @ X13 @ top_top_set_c ) @ ( image_c_a @ X28 @ top_top_set_c ) ) ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
thf(c_0_14,hypothesis,
inj_on_a_b @ f @ ( sup_sup_set_a @ ( image_c_a @ h @ top_top_set_c ) @ ( image_c_a @ g @ top_top_set_c ) ),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).
thf(c_0_15,hypothesis,
( ( comp_a_b_c @ f @ g )
= ( comp_a_b_c @ f @ h ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[conj_1]) ).
thf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
g != h,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_12]) ).
thf(c_0_17,hypothesis,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]),c_0_15])]),c_0_16]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : ITP098^1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v7.5.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.22 % Computer : n017.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.22 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.22 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.22 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/0.22 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.22 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.22 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.09/0.22 % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 19:48:37 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.22 % CPUTime :
% 0.09/0.22 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.23/0.29 Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.23/0.35 Running: /export/starexec/sandbox2/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/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.R7sHS5V3wT/E---3.1_810953.p
% 0.32/0.44 % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 0.32/0.44 % Preprocessing class: HSLSSMSSSSSNHSA.
% 0.32/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.32/0.44 % Starting full_lambda_9 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.32/0.44 % Starting new_ho_11 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.32/0.44 % Starting sh2l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.32/0.44 % Starting new_bool_6 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.32/0.44 % new_bool_6 with pid 810969 completed with status 0
% 0.32/0.44 % Result found by new_bool_6
% 0.32/0.44 % Preprocessing class: HSLSSMSSSSSNHSA.
% 0.32/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.32/0.44 % Starting full_lambda_9 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.32/0.44 % Starting new_ho_11 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.32/0.44 % Starting sh2l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.32/0.44 % Starting new_bool_6 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.32/0.44 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.0,,1,20000,1.0))
% 0.32/0.44 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.0,,1,20000,1.0)
% 0.32/0.44 % Search class: HGUSM-FFMF32-MHSFFSNN
% 0.32/0.44 % partial match(3): HGUSM-FFMF32-SHSFMSBN
% 0.32/0.44 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.32/0.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.32/0.44 % SubtermCWHack with pid 810972 completed with status 0
% 0.32/0.44 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.32/0.44 % Preprocessing class: HSLSSMSSSSSNHSA.
% 0.32/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.32/0.44 % Starting full_lambda_9 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.32/0.44 % Starting new_ho_11 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.32/0.44 % Starting sh2l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.32/0.44 % Starting new_bool_6 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.32/0.44 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.0,,1,20000,1.0))
% 0.32/0.44 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.0,,1,20000,1.0)
% 0.32/0.44 % Search class: HGUSM-FFMF32-MHSFFSNN
% 0.32/0.44 % partial match(3): HGUSM-FFMF32-SHSFMSBN
% 0.32/0.44 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.32/0.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.32/0.44 % Preprocessing time : 0.005 s
% 0.32/0.44
% 0.32/0.44 % Proof found!
% 0.32/0.44 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.32/0.44 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.32/0.44 % Parsed axioms : 434
% 0.32/0.44 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 378
% 0.32/0.44 % Initial clauses : 82
% 0.32/0.44 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 5
% 0.32/0.44 % Initial clauses in saturation : 77
% 0.32/0.44 % Processed clauses : 198
% 0.32/0.44 % ...of these trivial : 46
% 0.32/0.44 % ...subsumed : 74
% 0.32/0.44 % ...remaining for further processing : 78
% 0.32/0.44 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 3
% 0.32/0.44 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.32/0.44 % Backward-subsumed : 3
% 0.32/0.44 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.32/0.44 % Generated clauses : 381
% 0.32/0.44 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 243
% 0.32/0.44 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.32/0.44 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.32/0.44 % Paramodulations : 371
% 0.32/0.44 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.32/0.44 % NegExts : 0
% 0.32/0.44 % Equation resolutions : 6
% 0.32/0.44 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.32/0.44 % Total rewrite steps : 391
% 0.32/0.44 % ...of those cached : 280
% 0.32/0.44 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.32/0.44 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.32/0.44 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.32/0.44 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.32/0.44 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.32/0.44 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.32/0.44 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.32/0.44 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.32/0.44 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.32/0.44 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.32/0.44 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.32/0.44 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.32/0.44 % Current number of processed clauses : 71
% 0.32/0.44 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 16
% 0.32/0.44 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 4
% 0.32/0.44 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.32/0.44 % Non-unit-clauses : 50
% 0.32/0.44 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 116
% 0.32/0.44 % ...number of literals in the above : 201
% 0.32/0.44 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.32/0.44 % Current number of archived clauses : 4
% 0.32/0.44 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 385
% 0.32/0.44 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 347
% 0.32/0.44 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 15
% 0.32/0.44 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 7
% 0.32/0.44 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.32/0.44 % BW rewrite match attempts : 37
% 0.32/0.44 % BW rewrite match successes : 30
% 0.32/0.44 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.32/0.44 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.32/0.44 % Termbank termtop insertions : 14627
% 0.32/0.44 % Search garbage collected termcells : 5452
% 0.32/0.44
% 0.32/0.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.32/0.44 % User time : 0.030 s
% 0.32/0.44 % System time : 0.009 s
% 0.32/0.44 % Total time : 0.039 s
% 0.32/0.44 % Maximum resident set size: 5256 pages
% 0.32/0.44
% 0.32/0.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.32/0.44 % User time : 0.057 s
% 0.32/0.44 % System time : 0.017 s
% 0.32/0.44 % Total time : 0.074 s
% 0.32/0.44 % Maximum resident set size: 5888 pages
% 0.32/0.44 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------