%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : LCL097-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n010.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 01:11:45 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 2.65s 0.82s
% Output : CNFRefutation 2.65s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 11
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 23 ( 14 unt; 0 nHn; 11 RR)
% Number of literals : 35 ( 0 equ; 15 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 7 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-1 aty)
% Number of functors : 6 ( 6 usr; 5 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 69 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(condensed_detachment,axiom,
( ~ is_a_theorem(X1)
| ~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(X1,X2))
| is_a_theorem(X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',condensed_detachment) ).
cnf(lg_3,axiom,
is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(X1,X2),equivalent(X1,X3)),X4),equivalent(equivalent(X2,X3),X4)),X5),X5)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',lg_3) ).
cnf(lg_2,axiom,
is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(X1,X2),equivalent(X1,X3)),equivalent(X2,X3)),X4),X4)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',lg_2) ).
cnf(prove_lg_4,negated_conjecture,
~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(a,b),c),e),equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(a,falsehood),c),equivalent(equivalent(b,falsehood),e)))),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_lg_4) ).
cnf(c_0_4,plain,
( ~ is_a_theorem(X1)
| ~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(X1,X2))
| is_a_theorem(X2) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[condensed_detachment]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,plain,
( ~ is_a_theorem(X1)
| ~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(X1,X2))
| is_a_theorem(X2) ),
c_0_4 ).
cnf(c_0_6,axiom,
is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(X1,X2),equivalent(X1,X3)),X4),equivalent(equivalent(X2,X3),X4)),X5),X5)),
lg_3 ).
cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(X1,X2),equivalent(X1,X3)),equivalent(X2,X3)),X4),X4)),
lg_2 ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(X2,X3),equivalent(X2,X4)),X5),equivalent(equivalent(X3,X4),X5)),X1))
| is_a_theorem(X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(X2,X3),equivalent(X2,X4)),equivalent(X3,X4)),X1))
| is_a_theorem(X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(X1,X2),equivalent(X1,X2))),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(X1,X2),equivalent(X1,X3)),equivalent(X2,X3))),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( ~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(X3,X1),equivalent(X3,X2)))
| is_a_theorem(equivalent(X1,X2)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
is_a_theorem(equivalent(X1,X1)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(X1,X2),X3),equivalent(equivalent(X4,X2),equivalent(equivalent(X1,X4),X3)))),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(X1,X2),equivalent(X1,X3)),X4),equivalent(equivalent(X2,X3),X4))),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(X1,X2),equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(X3,X4),equivalent(X3,X5)),X1),equivalent(equivalent(X4,X5),X2)))),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(a,b),c),e),equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(a,falsehood),c),equivalent(equivalent(b,falsehood),e)))),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_lg_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,plain,
( ~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(X4,X1),equivalent(X4,X2)),X3))
| is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(X1,X2),X3)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,plain,
( ~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(X4,X5))
| is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(X1,X2),equivalent(X1,X3)),X4),equivalent(equivalent(X2,X3),X5))) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_16]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,negated_conjecture,
~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(a,b),c),e),equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(a,falsehood),c),equivalent(equivalent(b,falsehood),e)))),
c_0_17 ).
cnf(c_0_21,plain,
( ~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(X1,X4),X3),X5))
| is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(X1,X2),X3),equivalent(equivalent(X4,X2),X5))) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_18,c_0_19]) ).
cnf(c_0_22,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_20,c_0_21]),c_0_15])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : LCL097-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.37 % Computer : n010.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/0.37 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 00:04:54 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.38 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/0.38 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.45 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.16/0.45 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
% 2.65/0.82 % Version: 3.5.1
% 2.65/0.82 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 2.65/0.82 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 2.65/0.82 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 2.65/0.82 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 2.65/0.82 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 2.65/0.82 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 2.65/0.82 % new_bool_3 with pid 3832778 completed with status 0
% 2.65/0.82 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 2.65/0.82 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 2.65/0.82 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 2.65/0.82 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 2.65/0.82 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 2.65/0.82 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 2.65/0.82 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 2.65/0.82 % Search class: FHUNS-FFSF22-DFFFFFNN
% 2.65/0.82 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 2.65/0.82 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 2.65/0.82 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3832787 completed with status 0
% 2.65/0.82 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 2.65/0.82 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 2.65/0.82 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 2.65/0.82 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 2.65/0.82 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 2.65/0.82 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 2.65/0.82 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 2.65/0.82 % Search class: FHUNS-FFSF22-DFFFFFNN
% 2.65/0.82 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 2.65/0.82 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 2.65/0.82 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 2.65/0.82
% 2.65/0.82 % Proof found!
% 2.65/0.82 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 2.65/0.82 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 2.65/0.82 % Parsed axioms : 4
% 2.65/0.82 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 2.65/0.82 % Initial clauses : 4
% 2.65/0.82 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 2.65/0.82 % Initial clauses in saturation : 4
% 2.65/0.82 % Processed clauses : 2156
% 2.65/0.82 % ...of these trivial : 38
% 2.65/0.82 % ...subsumed : 1746
% 2.65/0.82 % ...remaining for further processing : 372
% 2.65/0.82 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 2.65/0.82 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 2.65/0.82 % Backward-subsumed : 1
% 2.65/0.82 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 2.65/0.82 % Generated clauses : 27609
% 2.65/0.82 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 23258
% 2.65/0.82 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 2.65/0.82 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 2.65/0.82 % Paramodulations : 27609
% 2.65/0.82 % Factorizations : 0
% 2.65/0.82 % NegExts : 0
% 2.65/0.82 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 2.65/0.82 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 2.65/0.82 % Total rewrite steps : 5610
% 2.65/0.82 % ...of those cached : 5295
% 2.65/0.82 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 2.65/0.82 % Propositional check models : 0
% 2.65/0.82 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 2.65/0.82 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 2.65/0.82 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 2.65/0.82 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 2.65/0.82 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 2.65/0.82 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 2.65/0.82 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 2.65/0.82 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 2.65/0.82 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 2.65/0.82 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 2.65/0.82 % Current number of processed clauses : 370
% 2.65/0.82 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 120
% 2.65/0.82 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 2.65/0.82 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 2.65/0.82 % Non-unit-clauses : 249
% 2.65/0.82 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 20982
% 2.65/0.82 % ...number of literals in the above : 43912
% 2.65/0.82 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 2.65/0.82 % Current number of archived clauses : 2
% 2.65/0.82 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 20728
% 2.65/0.82 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 20703
% 2.65/0.82 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 1747
% 2.65/0.82 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1241
% 2.65/0.82 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 2.65/0.82 % BW rewrite match attempts : 10544
% 2.65/0.82 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 2.65/0.82 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 2.65/0.82 % Condensation successes : 0
% 2.65/0.82 % Termbank termtop insertions : 398122
% 2.65/0.82 % Search garbage collected termcells : 8
% 2.65/0.82
% 2.65/0.82 % -------------------------------------------------
% 2.65/0.82 % User time : 0.307 s
% 2.65/0.82 % System time : 0.023 s
% 2.65/0.82 % Total time : 0.329 s
% 2.65/0.82 % Maximum resident set size: 3584 pages
% 2.65/0.82
% 2.65/0.82 % -------------------------------------------------
% 2.65/0.82 % User time : 0.309 s
% 2.65/0.82 % System time : 0.028 s
% 2.65/0.82 % Total time : 0.337 s
% 2.65/0.82 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 2.65/0.82 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------