%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : ITP119^1 : 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 : n013.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 08:04:25 AM UTC 2026
% Result : ContradictoryAxioms 0.41s 0.39s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.41s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 6
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 20 ( 20 unt; 0 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 20 ( 12 equ; 0 cnn)
% Maximal formula atoms : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 50 ( 4 ~; 0 |; 0 &; 46 @)
% ( 0 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 5 ( 2 avg)
% Number of types : 2 ( 1 usr)
% Number of type conns : 0 ( 0 >; 0 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of symbols : 8 ( 6 usr; 4 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 7 ( 0 ^; 7 !; 0 ?; 7 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thf(decl_sort1,type,
a: $tType ).
thf(decl_80,type,
a2: a ).
thf(decl_81,type,
b: a ).
thf(decl_82,type,
c: a ).
thf(decl_83,type,
inf: a > a > a ).
thf(decl_84,type,
less: a > a > $o ).
thf(decl_85,type,
sup: a > a > a ).
thf(conj_1,hypothesis,
( ( inf @ c @ ( sup @ b @ c ) )
= b ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.unnaNaq2N9/E---3.1_2586022.p',conj_1) ).
thf(conj_2,hypothesis,
( a2
= ( sup @ b @ c ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.unnaNaq2N9/E---3.1_2586022.p',conj_2) ).
thf(conj_4,hypothesis,
( ( inf @ c @ ( sup @ b @ c ) )
= c ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.unnaNaq2N9/E---3.1_2586022.p',conj_4) ).
thf(fact_51_local_Osup_Oidem,axiom,
! [X2: a] :
( ( sup @ X2 @ X2 )
= X2 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.unnaNaq2N9/E---3.1_2586022.p',fact_51_local_Osup_Oidem) ).
thf(fact_10_local_Oless__irrefl,axiom,
! [X4: a] :
~ ( less @ X4 @ X4 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.unnaNaq2N9/E---3.1_2586022.p',fact_10_local_Oless__irrefl) ).
thf(conj_3,hypothesis,
less @ b @ ( sup @ b @ c ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.unnaNaq2N9/E---3.1_2586022.p',conj_3) ).
thf(c_0_6,hypothesis,
( ( inf @ c @ ( sup @ b @ c ) )
= b ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[conj_1]) ).
thf(c_0_7,hypothesis,
( a2
= ( sup @ b @ c ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[conj_2]) ).
thf(c_0_8,hypothesis,
( ( inf @ c @ ( sup @ b @ c ) )
= c ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[conj_4]) ).
thf(c_0_9,hypothesis,
( ( inf @ c @ a2 )
= b ),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).
thf(c_0_10,plain,
! [X1803: a] :
( ( sup @ X1803 @ X1803 )
= X1803 ),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[fact_51_local_Osup_Oidem]) ).
thf(c_0_11,plain,
! [X4: a] :
~ ( less @ X4 @ X4 ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[fact_10_local_Oless__irrefl]) ).
thf(c_0_12,hypothesis,
less @ b @ ( sup @ b @ c ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[conj_3]) ).
thf(c_0_13,hypothesis,
c = b,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_7]),c_0_9]) ).
thf(c_0_14,plain,
! [X1: a] :
( ( sup @ X1 @ X1 )
= X1 ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
thf(c_0_15,plain,
! [X1695: a] :
~ ( less @ X1695 @ X1695 ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[c_0_11])]) ).
thf(c_0_16,hypothesis,
less @ b @ a2,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_7]) ).
thf(c_0_17,hypothesis,
a2 = b,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_13]),c_0_14]) ).
thf(c_0_18,plain,
! [X1: a] :
~ ( less @ X1 @ X1 ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_15]) ).
thf(c_0_19,hypothesis,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]),c_0_18]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : ITP119^1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v7.5.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.07/0.18 % Computer : n013.cluster.edu
% 0.07/0.18 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.07/0.18 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.07/0.18 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.07/0.18 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.07/0.19 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.07/0.19 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.07/0.19 % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 19:55:51 UTC 2026
% 0.07/0.19 % CPUTime :
% 0.07/0.19 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.07/0.23 Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.20/0.29 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.unnaNaq2N9/E---3.1_2586022.p
% 0.41/0.39 % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 0.41/0.39 % Preprocessing class: HSLSSMSSSSSNHFA.
% 0.41/0.39 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.41/0.39 % Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.41/0.39 % Starting new_ho_10_unif with 300s (1) cores
% 0.41/0.39 % Starting sh10 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.41/0.39 % Starting lpo5_rw_fix with 300s (1) cores
% 0.41/0.39 % lpo5_rw_fix with pid 2586077 completed with status 9
% 0.41/0.39 % new_ho_10_unif with pid 2586075 completed with status 0
% 0.41/0.39 % Result found by new_ho_10_unif
% 0.41/0.39 % Preprocessing class: HSLSSMSSSSSNHFA.
% 0.41/0.39 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.41/0.39 % Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.41/0.39 % Starting new_ho_10_unif with 300s (1) cores
% 0.41/0.39 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.41/0.39 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.41/0.39 % Search class: HGHSM-FSLM32-MHFFFSBN
% 0.41/0.39 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.41/0.39 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.41/0.39 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2586111 completed with status 0
% 0.41/0.39 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.41/0.39 % Preprocessing class: HSLSSMSSSSSNHFA.
% 0.41/0.39 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.41/0.39 % Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.41/0.39 % Starting new_ho_10_unif with 300s (1) cores
% 0.41/0.39 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.41/0.39 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.41/0.39 % Search class: HGHSM-FSLM32-MHFFFSBN
% 0.41/0.39 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.41/0.39 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.41/0.39 % Preprocessing time : 0.008 s
% 0.41/0.39
% 0.41/0.39 % Proof found!
% 0.41/0.39 % SZS status ContradictoryAxioms
% 0.41/0.39 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.41/0.39 % Parsed axioms : 425
% 0.41/0.39 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.41/0.39 % Initial clauses : 990
% 0.41/0.39 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 90
% 0.41/0.39 % Initial clauses in saturation : 900
% 0.41/0.39 % Processed clauses : 139
% 0.41/0.39 % ...of these trivial : 11
% 0.41/0.39 % ...subsumed : 26
% 0.41/0.39 % ...remaining for further processing : 102
% 0.41/0.39 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 12
% 0.41/0.39 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.41/0.39 % Backward-subsumed : 2
% 0.41/0.39 % Backward-rewritten : 9
% 0.41/0.39 % Generated clauses : 32
% 0.41/0.39 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 15
% 0.41/0.39 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.41/0.39 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.41/0.39 % Paramodulations : 17
% 0.41/0.39 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.41/0.39 % NegExts : 0
% 0.41/0.39 % Equation resolutions : 12
% 0.41/0.39 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.41/0.39 % Total rewrite steps : 42
% 0.41/0.39 % ...of those cached : 16
% 0.41/0.39 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.41/0.39 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.41/0.39 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.41/0.39 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.41/0.39 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.41/0.39 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.41/0.39 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.41/0.39 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.41/0.39 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.41/0.39 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.41/0.39 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.41/0.39 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.41/0.39 % Current number of processed clauses : 78
% 0.41/0.39 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 50
% 0.41/0.39 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 2
% 0.41/0.39 % Negative unit clauses : 12
% 0.41/0.39 % Non-unit-clauses : 14
% 0.41/0.39 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 775
% 0.41/0.39 % ...number of literals in the above : 2596
% 0.41/0.39 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.41/0.39 % Current number of archived clauses : 12
% 0.41/0.39 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 95
% 0.41/0.39 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 95
% 0.41/0.39 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 16
% 0.41/0.39 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 80
% 0.41/0.39 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.41/0.39 % BW rewrite match attempts : 28
% 0.41/0.39 % BW rewrite match successes : 14
% 0.41/0.39 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.41/0.39 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.41/0.39 % Termbank termtop insertions : 64773
% 0.41/0.39 % Search garbage collected termcells : 18646
% 0.41/0.39
% 0.41/0.39 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.41/0.39 % User time : 0.064 s
% 0.41/0.39 % System time : 0.008 s
% 0.41/0.39 % Total time : 0.072 s
% 0.41/0.39 % Maximum resident set size: 7856 pages
% 0.41/0.39
% 0.41/0.39 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.41/0.39 % User time : 0.092 s
% 0.41/0.39 % System time : 0.033 s
% 0.41/0.39 % Total time : 0.125 s
% 0.41/0.39 % Maximum resident set size: 5376 pages
% 0.41/0.39 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------