%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : KLE089+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n009.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 : Thu Sep 24 12:58:49 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.24s 0.62s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.24s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 7
% Number of leaves : 6
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 27 ( 23 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 31 ( 30 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 9 ( 5 ~; 0 |; 1 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 1 =>; 2 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 5 ( 2 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 0 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 7 ( 7 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 33 ( 0 sgn 22 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(goals,conjecture,
! [X4,X5] :
( multiplication(domain(X4),X5) = zero
<= addition(domain(X4),antidomain(X5)) = antidomain(X5) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',goals) ).
fof(additive_identity,axiom,
! [X1] : addition(X1,zero) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/KLE001+0.ax',additive_identity) ).
fof(additive_commutativity,axiom,
! [X1,X2] : addition(X1,X2) = addition(X2,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/KLE001+0.ax',additive_commutativity) ).
fof(domain4,axiom,
! [X4] : domain(X4) = antidomain(antidomain(X4)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/KLE001+4.ax',domain4) ).
fof(left_distributivity,axiom,
! [X1,X2,X3] : multiplication(addition(X1,X2),X3) = addition(multiplication(X1,X3),multiplication(X2,X3)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/KLE001+0.ax',left_distributivity) ).
fof(domain1,axiom,
! [X4] : multiplication(antidomain(X4),X4) = zero,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/KLE001+4.ax',domain1) ).
fof(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X4,X5] :
( multiplication(domain(X4),X5) = zero
<= addition(domain(X4),antidomain(X5)) = antidomain(X5) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[goals]) ).
fof(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X4,X5] :
( addition(domain(X4),antidomain(X5)) = antidomain(X5)
=> multiplication(domain(X4),X5) = zero ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
fof(c_0_8,plain,
! [X25] : addition(X25,zero) = X25,
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[additive_identity]) ).
fof(c_0_9,plain,
! [X12,X13] : addition(X12,X13) = addition(X13,X12),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[additive_commutativity]) ).
fof(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
( multiplication(domain(esk1_0),esk2_0) != zero
& addition(domain(esk1_0),antidomain(esk2_0)) = antidomain(esk2_0) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_7])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_11,plain,
! [X24] : domain(X24) = antidomain(antidomain(X24)),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[domain4]) ).
fof(c_0_12,plain,
! [X21,X22,X23] : multiplication(addition(X21,X22),X23) = addition(multiplication(X21,X23),multiplication(X22,X23)),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[left_distributivity]) ).
fof(c_0_13,plain,
! [X8] : multiplication(antidomain(X8),X8) = zero,
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[domain1]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
addition(X1,zero) = X1,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
addition(X1,X2) = addition(X2,X1),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
addition(domain(esk1_0),antidomain(esk2_0)) = antidomain(esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,plain,
domain(X1) = antidomain(antidomain(X1)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,plain,
multiplication(addition(X1,X2),X3) = addition(multiplication(X1,X3),multiplication(X2,X3)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,plain,
multiplication(antidomain(X1),X1) = zero,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,plain,
addition(zero,X1) = X1,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,negated_conjecture,
addition(antidomain(antidomain(esk1_0)),antidomain(esk2_0)) = antidomain(esk2_0),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]) ).
cnf(c_0_22,negated_conjecture,
multiplication(domain(esk1_0),esk2_0) != zero,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_23,plain,
multiplication(addition(antidomain(X1),X2),X1) = multiplication(X2,X1),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_18,c_0_19]),c_0_20]) ).
cnf(c_0_24,negated_conjecture,
addition(antidomain(esk2_0),antidomain(antidomain(esk1_0))) = antidomain(esk2_0),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_21,c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_25,negated_conjecture,
multiplication(antidomain(antidomain(esk1_0)),esk2_0) != zero,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_22,c_0_17]) ).
cnf(c_0_26,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_23,c_0_24]),c_0_19]),c_0_25]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : KLE089+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.20/0.47 % Computer : n009.cluster.edu
% 0.20/0.47 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.20/0.47 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.20/0.47 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.20/0.47 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.20/0.47 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.20/0.47 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.20/0.47 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 22:42:28 UTC 2026
% 0.20/0.47 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.47 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.24/0.56 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.24/0.56 Running: /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/eprover --delete-bad-limit=2000000000 --definitional-cnf=24 -s --print-statistics -R --print-version --proof-object --auto-schedule=8 --cpu-limit=300 /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.24/0.62 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.24/0.62 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.62 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.62 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.62 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.62 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.62 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.62 % new_bool_1 with pid 210632 completed with status 0
% 0.24/0.62 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.24/0.62 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.62 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.62 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.62 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.62 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.62 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.24/0.62 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.24/0.62 % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.24/0.62 % Scheduled 8 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.24/0.62 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.62 % SubtermCWHack with pid 210639 completed with status 0
% 0.24/0.62 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.24/0.62 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.62 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.62 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.62 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.62 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.62 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.24/0.62 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.24/0.62 % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.24/0.62 % Scheduled 8 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.24/0.62 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.62 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.24/0.62
% 0.24/0.62 % Proof found!
% 0.24/0.62 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.24/0.62 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.24/0.62 % Parsed axioms : 21
% 0.24/0.62 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 2
% 0.24/0.62 % Initial clauses : 20
% 0.24/0.62 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.24/0.62 % Initial clauses in saturation : 20
% 0.24/0.62 % Processed clauses : 64
% 0.24/0.62 % ...of these trivial : 16
% 0.24/0.62 % ...subsumed : 2
% 0.24/0.62 % ...remaining for further processing : 46
% 0.24/0.62 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.24/0.62 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.24/0.62 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.24/0.62 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.24/0.62 % Generated clauses : 380
% 0.24/0.62 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 150
% 0.24/0.62 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.24/0.62 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.24/0.62 % Paramodulations : 380
% 0.24/0.62 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.24/0.62 % NegExts : 0
% 0.24/0.62 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.24/0.62 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.24/0.62 % Total rewrite steps : 482
% 0.24/0.62 % ...of those cached : 302
% 0.24/0.62 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.24/0.62 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.24/0.62 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.24/0.62 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.24/0.62 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.24/0.62 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.24/0.62 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.62 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.62 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.62 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.62 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.62 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.62 % Current number of processed clauses : 45
% 0.24/0.62 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 43
% 0.24/0.62 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.24/0.62 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.24/0.62 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.24/0.62 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 100
% 0.24/0.62 % ...number of literals in the above : 100
% 0.24/0.62 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.24/0.62 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.24/0.62 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.24/0.62 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.24/0.62 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.24/0.62 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.24/0.62 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.24/0.62 % BW rewrite match attempts : 11
% 0.24/0.62 % BW rewrite match successes : 6
% 0.24/0.62 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.24/0.62 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.24/0.62 % Termbank termtop insertions : 3624
% 0.24/0.62 % Search garbage collected termcells : 37
% 0.24/0.62
% 0.24/0.62 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/0.62 % User time : 0.008 s
% 0.24/0.62 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.24/0.62 % Total time : 0.012 s
% 0.24/0.62 % Maximum resident set size: 3652 pages
% 0.24/0.62
% 0.24/0.62 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/0.62 % User time : 0.010 s
% 0.24/0.62 % System time : 0.010 s
% 0.24/0.62 % Total time : 0.020 s
% 0.24/0.62 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.24/0.62 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------