%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : ITP209^1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v8.1.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n011.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 08:04:42 AM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.25s 0.37s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.25s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 12 ( 12 unt; 0 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 12 ( 11 equ; 0 cnn)
% Maximal formula atoms : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 80 ( 4 ~; 0 |; 0 &; 76 @)
% ( 0 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 4 ( 3 avg)
% Number of types : 1 ( 1 usr)
% Number of type conns : 0 ( 0 >; 0 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of symbols : 6 ( 4 usr; 4 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 15 ( 0 ^; 15 !; 0 ?; 15 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thf(decl_sort1,type,
a: $tType ).
thf(decl_24,type,
a2: a ).
thf(decl_25,type,
b: a ).
thf(decl_26,type,
c: a ).
thf(decl_27,type,
f: a > a > a ).
thf(conj_0,conjecture,
( ( f @ ( f @ a2 @ b ) @ c )
= ( f @ ( f @ a2 @ c ) @ b ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.Y3i8JJZjeO/E---3.1_581787.p',conj_0) ).
thf(fact_3_right__assoc,axiom,
! [X1: a,X2: a,X3: a] :
( ( f @ ( f @ X1 @ X2 ) @ X3 )
= ( f @ X1 @ ( f @ X2 @ X3 ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.Y3i8JJZjeO/E---3.1_581787.p',fact_3_right__assoc) ).
thf(fact_1_commute,axiom,
! [X1: a,X2: a] :
( ( f @ X1 @ X2 )
= ( f @ X2 @ X1 ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.Y3i8JJZjeO/E---3.1_581787.p',fact_1_commute) ).
thf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
( ( f @ ( f @ a2 @ b ) @ c )
!= ( f @ ( f @ a2 @ c ) @ b ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[conj_0]) ).
thf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
( ( f @ ( f @ a2 @ b ) @ c )
!= ( f @ ( f @ a2 @ c ) @ b ) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
thf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
( ( f @ ( f @ a2 @ b ) @ c )
!= ( f @ ( f @ a2 @ c ) @ b ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
thf(c_0_6,plain,
! [X47: a,X48: a,X49: a] :
( ( f @ ( f @ X47 @ X48 ) @ X49 )
= ( f @ X47 @ ( f @ X48 @ X49 ) ) ),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[fact_3_right__assoc]) ).
thf(c_0_7,plain,
! [X42: a,X43: a] :
( ( f @ X42 @ X43 )
= ( f @ X43 @ X42 ) ),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[fact_1_commute]) ).
thf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
( ( f @ ( f @ a2 @ b ) @ c )
!= ( f @ ( f @ a2 @ c ) @ b ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
thf(c_0_9,plain,
! [X1: a,X2: a,X3: a] :
( ( f @ ( f @ X1 @ X2 ) @ X3 )
= ( f @ X1 @ ( f @ X2 @ X3 ) ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
thf(c_0_10,plain,
! [X2: a,X1: a] :
( ( f @ X1 @ X2 )
= ( f @ X2 @ X1 ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
thf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]),c_0_9]),c_0_10])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.04 % Problem : ITP209^1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v8.1.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.25 % Computer : n011.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.25 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.25 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.25 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.25 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.25 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.25 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/0.25 % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 20:13:56 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.25 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/0.25 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.25/0.32 Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.25/0.34 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.Y3i8JJZjeO/E---3.1_581787.p
% 0.25/0.37 % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 0.25/0.37 % partial match(1): HSMSSMSSSSSNHHA
% 0.25/0.37 % Preprocessing class: HSMSSMSSSSSNHFA.
% 0.25/0.37 % Scheduled 6 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.37 % Starting full_lambda_6 with 900s (3) cores
% 0.25/0.37 % Starting post_as_ho1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.37 % Starting lpo6_lambda_fix with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.37 % Starting ho_unfolding_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.37 % Starting new_ho_10_unif with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.37 % Starting ho_unfolding_2 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.37 % ho_unfolding_1 with pid 581803 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.37 % Result found by ho_unfolding_1
% 0.25/0.37 % partial match(1): HSMSSMSSSSSNHHA
% 0.25/0.37 % Preprocessing class: HSMSSMSSSSSNHFA.
% 0.25/0.37 % Scheduled 6 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.37 % Starting full_lambda_6 with 900s (3) cores
% 0.25/0.37 % Starting post_as_ho1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.37 % Starting lpo6_lambda_fix with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.37 % Starting ho_unfolding_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.37 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.25/0.37 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.25/0.37 % Search class: HHUSS-FFSF21-MHFFFMNN
% 0.25/0.37 % partial match(2): HHUSS-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.37 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.37 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.37 % SubtermCWHack with pid 581806 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.37 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.25/0.37 % partial match(1): HSMSSMSSSSSNHHA
% 0.25/0.37 % Preprocessing class: HSMSSMSSSSSNHFA.
% 0.25/0.37 % Scheduled 6 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.37 % Starting full_lambda_6 with 900s (3) cores
% 0.25/0.37 % Starting post_as_ho1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.37 % Starting lpo6_lambda_fix with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.37 % Starting ho_unfolding_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.37 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.25/0.37 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.25/0.37 % Search class: HHUSS-FFSF21-MHFFFMNN
% 0.25/0.37 % partial match(2): HHUSS-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.37 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.37 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.37 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.25/0.37
% 0.25/0.37 % Proof found!
% 0.25/0.37 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.25/0.37 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.25/0.37 % Parsed axioms : 17
% 0.25/0.37 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.25/0.37 % Initial clauses : 19
% 0.25/0.37 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 6
% 0.25/0.37 % Initial clauses in saturation : 13
% 0.25/0.37 % Processed clauses : 8
% 0.25/0.37 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.25/0.37 % ...subsumed : 2
% 0.25/0.37 % ...remaining for further processing : 5
% 0.25/0.37 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.25/0.37 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.25/0.37 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.37 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.25/0.37 % Generated clauses : 24
% 0.25/0.37 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 23
% 0.25/0.37 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.37 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.25/0.37 % Paramodulations : 24
% 0.25/0.37 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.25/0.37 % NegExts : 0
% 0.25/0.37 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.25/0.37 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.25/0.37 % Total rewrite steps : 18
% 0.25/0.37 % ...of those cached : 7
% 0.25/0.37 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.25/0.37 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.25/0.37 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.25/0.37 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.37 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.25/0.37 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.25/0.37 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.37 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.37 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.37 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.37 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.37 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.37 % Current number of processed clauses : 5
% 0.25/0.37 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 2
% 0.25/0.37 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 2
% 0.25/0.37 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.37 % Non-unit-clauses : 1
% 0.25/0.37 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 28
% 0.25/0.37 % ...number of literals in the above : 36
% 0.25/0.37 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.25/0.37 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.37 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1
% 0.25/0.37 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.25/0.37 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 1
% 0.25/0.37 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.25/0.37 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.25/0.37 % BW rewrite match attempts : 2
% 0.25/0.37 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.25/0.37 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.25/0.37 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.25/0.37 % Termbank termtop insertions : 1479
% 0.25/0.37 % Search garbage collected termcells : 322
% 0.25/0.37
% 0.25/0.37 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.37 % User time : 0.006 s
% 0.25/0.37 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.25/0.37 % Total time : 0.008 s
% 0.25/0.37 % Maximum resident set size: 3648 pages
% 0.25/0.37
% 0.25/0.37 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.37 % User time : 0.010 s
% 0.25/0.37 % System time : 0.007 s
% 0.25/0.37 % Total time : 0.017 s
% 0.25/0.37 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.25/0.37 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------