%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : ITP225^1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v9.2.1.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n002.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 08:04:47 AM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 9.89s 6.79s
% Output : CNFRefutation 9.89s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 10 ( 10 unt; 0 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 10 ( 2 equ; 0 cnn)
% Maximal formula atoms : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 22 ( 3 ~; 0 |; 0 &; 19 @)
% ( 0 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 4 ( 3 avg)
% Number of types : 2 ( 1 usr)
% Number of type conns : 0 ( 0 >; 0 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of symbols : 7 ( 5 usr; 4 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 3 ( 0 ^; 3 !; 0 ?; 3 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thf(decl_sort1,type,
nat: $tType ).
thf(decl_395,type,
zero_zero_nat: nat ).
thf(decl_589,type,
suc: nat > nat ).
thf(decl_697,type,
ord_less_nat: nat > nat > $o ).
thf(decl_1020,type,
m: nat ).
thf(decl_1021,type,
na: nat ).
thf(conj_0,conjecture,
ord_less_nat @ zero_zero_nat @ m,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.ADfpsDTfxh/E---3.1_1799414.p',conj_0) ).
thf(fact_16_zero__less__Suc,axiom,
! [X2: nat] : ( ord_less_nat @ zero_zero_nat @ ( suc @ X2 ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.ADfpsDTfxh/E---3.1_1799414.p',fact_16_zero__less__Suc) ).
thf(fact_4__C3_Ohyps_C_I3_J,axiom,
( m
= ( suc @ na ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.ADfpsDTfxh/E---3.1_1799414.p',fact_4__C3_Ohyps_C_I3_J) ).
thf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ( ord_less_nat @ zero_zero_nat @ m ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[conj_0]) ).
thf(c_0_4,plain,
! [X20705: nat] : ( ord_less_nat @ zero_zero_nat @ ( suc @ X20705 ) ),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[fact_16_zero__less__Suc]) ).
thf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ ( ord_less_nat @ zero_zero_nat @ m ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
thf(c_0_6,plain,
! [X1: nat] : ( ord_less_nat @ zero_zero_nat @ ( suc @ X1 ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
thf(c_0_7,plain,
( m
= ( suc @ na ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[fact_4__C3_Ohyps_C_I3_J]) ).
thf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
~ ( ord_less_nat @ zero_zero_nat @ m ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
thf(c_0_9,plain,
$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 : ITP225^1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v9.2.1.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/0.19 % Computer : n002.cluster.edu
% 0.08/0.19 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.08/0.19 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.08/0.19 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.08/0.19 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.08/0.19 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.08/0.19 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.08/0.19 % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 20:23:37 UTC 2026
% 0.08/0.19 % CPUTime :
% 0.08/0.19 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/0.23 Running higher-order theorem proving
% 4.36/4.41 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.ADfpsDTfxh/E---3.1_1799414.p
% 9.89/6.79 % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 9.89/6.79 % partial match(2): HMLMSMSMSSLCHFA
% 9.89/6.79 % Preprocessing class: HMLLSMLMSSLCHFA.
% 9.89/6.79 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 299 seconds (2392 total)
% 9.89/6.79 % Starting new_ho_10 with 1495s (5) cores
% 9.89/6.79 % Starting sh5l with 299s (1) cores
% 9.89/6.79 % Starting new_bool_1 with 299s (1) cores
% 9.89/6.79 % Starting new_bool_2 with 299s (1) cores
% 9.89/6.79 % new_bool_2 with pid 1799430 completed with status 0
% 9.89/6.79 % Result found by new_bool_2
% 9.89/6.79 % partial match(2): HMLMSMSMSSLCHFA
% 9.89/6.79 % Preprocessing class: HMLLSMLMSSLCHFA.
% 9.89/6.79 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 299 seconds (2392 total)
% 9.89/6.79 % Starting new_ho_10 with 1495s (5) cores
% 9.89/6.79 % Starting sh5l with 299s (1) cores
% 9.89/6.79 % Starting new_bool_1 with 299s (1) cores
% 9.89/6.79 % Starting new_bool_2 with 299s (1) cores
% 9.89/6.79 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 9.89/6.79 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 9.89/6.79 % Search class: HGHSM-SMLM32-DHFFFSBN
% 9.89/6.79 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 298 seconds (298 total)
% 9.89/6.79 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 30s (1) cores
% 9.89/6.79 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1799431 completed with status 0
% 9.89/6.79 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 9.89/6.79 % partial match(2): HMLMSMSMSSLCHFA
% 9.89/6.79 % Preprocessing class: HMLLSMLMSSLCHFA.
% 9.89/6.79 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 299 seconds (2392 total)
% 9.89/6.79 % Starting new_ho_10 with 1495s (5) cores
% 9.89/6.79 % Starting sh5l with 299s (1) cores
% 9.89/6.79 % Starting new_bool_1 with 299s (1) cores
% 9.89/6.79 % Starting new_bool_2 with 299s (1) cores
% 9.89/6.79 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 9.89/6.79 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 9.89/6.79 % Search class: HGHSM-SMLM32-DHFFFSBN
% 9.89/6.79 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 298 seconds (298 total)
% 9.89/6.79 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 30s (1) cores
% 9.89/6.79 % Preprocessing time : 0.103 s
% 9.89/6.79
% 9.89/6.79 % Proof found!
% 9.89/6.79 % SZS status Theorem
% 9.89/6.79 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 9.89/6.79 % Parsed axioms : 11266
% 9.89/6.79 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 8682
% 9.89/6.79 % Initial clauses : 7130
% 9.89/6.79 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 1854
% 9.89/6.79 % Initial clauses in saturation : 5276
% 9.89/6.79 % Processed clauses : 151
% 9.89/6.79 % ...of these trivial : 23
% 9.89/6.79 % ...subsumed : 26
% 9.89/6.79 % ...remaining for further processing : 102
% 9.89/6.79 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 3
% 9.89/6.79 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 9.89/6.79 % Backward-subsumed : 9
% 9.89/6.79 % Backward-rewritten : 7
% 9.89/6.79 % Generated clauses : 27
% 9.89/6.79 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 14
% 9.89/6.79 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 9.89/6.79 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 9.89/6.79 % Paramodulations : 17
% 9.89/6.79 % Factorizations : 0
% 9.89/6.79 % NegExts : 0
% 9.89/6.79 % Equation resolutions : 3
% 9.89/6.79 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 9.89/6.79 % Total rewrite steps : 43
% 9.89/6.79 % ...of those cached : 12
% 9.89/6.79 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 9.89/6.79 % Propositional check models : 0
% 9.89/6.79 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 9.89/6.79 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 9.89/6.79 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 9.89/6.79 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 9.89/6.79 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 9.89/6.79 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 9.89/6.79 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 9.89/6.79 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 9.89/6.79 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 9.89/6.79 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 9.89/6.79 % Current number of processed clauses : 83
% 9.89/6.79 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 52
% 9.89/6.79 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 9.89/6.79 % Negative unit clauses : 31
% 9.89/6.79 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 9.89/6.79 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 5139
% 9.89/6.79 % ...number of literals in the above : 20233
% 9.89/6.79 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 9.89/6.79 % Current number of archived clauses : 16
% 9.89/6.79 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 9.89/6.79 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 9.89/6.79 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 9.89/6.79 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 432
% 9.89/6.79 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 9.89/6.79 % BW rewrite match attempts : 27
% 9.89/6.79 % BW rewrite match successes : 7
% 9.89/6.79 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 9.89/6.79 % Condensation successes : 0
% 9.89/6.79 % Termbank termtop insertions : 584761
% 9.89/6.79 % Search garbage collected termcells : 151338
% 9.89/6.79
% 9.89/6.79 % -------------------------------------------------
% 9.89/6.79 % User time : 1.067 s
% 9.89/6.79 % System time : 0.104 s
% 9.89/6.79 % Total time : 1.172 s
% 9.89/6.79 % Maximum resident set size: 40036 pages
% 9.89/6.79
% 9.89/6.79 % -------------------------------------------------
% 9.89/6.79 % User time : 2.202 s
% 9.89/6.79 % System time : 0.147 s
% 9.89/6.79 % Total time : 2.349 s
% 9.89/6.79 % Maximum resident set size: 25856 pages
% 9.89/6.79 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------