%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : KRS012-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n008.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 01:01:19 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.19s 15.72s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.19s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 6
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 19 ( 6 unt; 2 nHn; 17 RR)
% Number of literals : 42 ( 0 equ; 24 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 6 ( 5 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 2 ( 2 usr; 1 con; 0-1 aty)
% Number of variables : 20 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(clause_3,axiom,
( ~ d(X1)
| ~ r(X2,X1)
| ~ c(X2)
| e(X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',clause_3) ).
cnf(clause_4,axiom,
( ~ r(X2,X1)
| ~ c(X2)
| d(X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',clause_4) ).
cnf(clause_12,axiom,
( ~ e(u1r1(X1))
| f(X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',clause_12) ).
cnf(clause_2,negated_conjecture,
~ f(exists),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',clause_2) ).
cnf(clause_13,axiom,
( r(X1,u1r1(X1))
| f(X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',clause_13) ).
cnf(clause_1,negated_conjecture,
c(exists),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',clause_1) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ d(X1)
| ~ r(X2,X1)
| ~ c(X2)
| e(X1) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[clause_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ r(X2,X1)
| ~ c(X2)
| d(X1) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[clause_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ d(X1)
| ~ r(X2,X1)
| ~ c(X2)
| e(X1) ),
c_0_6 ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ r(X2,X1)
| ~ c(X2)
| d(X1) ),
c_0_7 ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( ~ e(u1r1(X1))
| f(X1) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[clause_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
~ f(exists),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[clause_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( ~ c(X2)
| ~ r(X2,X1)
| e(X1) ),
inference(csr,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,axiom,
( r(X1,u1r1(X1))
| f(X1) ),
clause_13 ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
( ~ e(u1r1(X1))
| f(X1) ),
c_0_10 ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
~ f(exists),
c_0_11 ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
( ~ c(X1)
| f(X1) ),
inference(csr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]),c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
c(exists),
clause_1 ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16]),c_0_17])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : KRS012-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.0.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.14/15.63 % Computer : n008.cluster.edu
% 0.14/15.63 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.14/15.63 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.14/15.63 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.14/15.63 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.14/15.63 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.14/15.63 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.14/15.63 % DateTime : Sun Sep 20 22:51:40 UTC 2026
% 0.14/15.63 % CPUTime :
% 0.14/15.63 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.14/15.70 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.19/15.70 Running: /export/starexec/sandbox/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/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.19/15.72 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.19/15.72 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.19/15.72 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.19/15.72 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.19/15.72 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.19/15.72 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.19/15.72 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.19/15.72 % sh5l with pid 3770011 completed with status 0
% 0.19/15.72 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.19/15.72 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.19/15.72 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.19/15.72 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.19/15.72 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.19/15.72 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.19/15.72 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.19/15.72 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.19/15.72 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.19/15.72 % Search class: FGUNF-FFSF11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.19/15.72 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.19/15.72 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.19/15.72 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3770019 completed with status 0
% 0.19/15.72 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.19/15.72 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.19/15.72 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.19/15.72 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.19/15.72 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.19/15.72 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.19/15.72 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.19/15.72 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.19/15.72 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.19/15.72 % Search class: FGUNF-FFSF11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.19/15.72 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.19/15.72 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.19/15.72 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.19/15.72
% 0.19/15.72 % Proof found!
% 0.19/15.72 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.19/15.72 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.19/15.72 % Parsed axioms : 13
% 0.19/15.72 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.19/15.72 % Initial clauses : 13
% 0.19/15.72 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.19/15.72 % Initial clauses in saturation : 13
% 0.19/15.72 % Processed clauses : 12
% 0.19/15.72 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.19/15.72 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.19/15.72 % ...remaining for further processing : 12
% 0.19/15.72 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.19/15.72 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.19/15.72 % Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.19/15.72 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.19/15.72 % Generated clauses : 7
% 0.19/15.72 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 3
% 0.19/15.72 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.19/15.72 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 2
% 0.19/15.72 % Paramodulations : 7
% 0.19/15.72 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.19/15.72 % NegExts : 0
% 0.19/15.72 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.19/15.72 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.19/15.72 % Total rewrite steps : 1
% 0.19/15.72 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.19/15.72 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.19/15.72 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.19/15.72 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.19/15.72 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.19/15.72 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.19/15.72 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.19/15.72 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.19/15.72 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.19/15.72 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.19/15.72 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.19/15.72 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.19/15.72 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.19/15.72 % Current number of processed clauses : 11
% 0.19/15.72 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 1
% 0.19/15.72 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.19/15.72 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.19/15.72 % Non-unit-clauses : 9
% 0.19/15.72 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 4
% 0.19/15.72 % ...number of literals in the above : 13
% 0.19/15.72 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.19/15.72 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.19/15.72 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 3
% 0.19/15.72 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3
% 0.19/15.72 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 3
% 0.19/15.72 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.19/15.72 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.19/15.72 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.19/15.72 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.19/15.72 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.19/15.72 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.19/15.72 % Termbank termtop insertions : 491
% 0.19/15.72 % Search garbage collected termcells : 28
% 0.19/15.72
% 0.19/15.72 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.19/15.72 % User time : 0.004 s
% 0.19/15.72 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.19/15.72 % Total time : 0.007 s
% 0.19/15.72 % Maximum resident set size: 3636 pages
% 0.19/15.72
% 0.19/15.72 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.19/15.72 % User time : 0.004 s
% 0.19/15.72 % System time : 0.008 s
% 0.19/15.72 % Total time : 0.012 s
% 0.19/15.72 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.19/15.72 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------