%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : LCL098-1 : 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 : n015.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 01:18:28 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.14s 0.43s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.14s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 10
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 16 ( 10 unt; 0 nHn; 9 RR)
% Number of literals : 25 ( 0 equ; 12 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 8 ( 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 : 56 ( 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(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_3,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_4,plain,
( ~ is_a_theorem(X1)
| ~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(X1,X2))
| is_a_theorem(X2) ),
c_0_3 ).
cnf(c_0_5,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_6,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_4,c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,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_6,c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,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_6,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,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_4,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(X1,X2),equivalent(X1,X3)),equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(X4,X5),equivalent(X4,X6)),X7),equivalent(equivalent(X5,X6),X7)),X8)),equivalent(equivalent(X2,X3),X8))),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,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_12,plain,
( ~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(X4,X1),equivalent(X4,X2)),equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(X5,X6),equivalent(X5,X7)),X8),equivalent(equivalent(X6,X7),X8)),X3)))
| is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(X1,X2),X3)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,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_11 ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(X1,X2),X3),X4),equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(X1,X5),X3),equivalent(equivalent(X2,X5),X4)))),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : LCL098-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/0.34 % Computer : n015.cluster.edu
% 0.08/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.08/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.08/0.34 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.08/0.34 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.08/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.08/0.34 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.08/0.34 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 00:08:05 UTC 2026
% 0.08/0.34 % CPUTime :
% 0.08/0.34 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.14/0.38 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.14/0.38 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
% 0.14/0.43 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.14/0.43 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with pid 126619 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Result found by G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN
% 0.14/0.43 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.14/0.43 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.14/0.43 % Search class: FHUNF-FFSF22-DFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.43 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting G-E--_208_C41_F1_AE_CS_SP_PS_S00 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % new_bool_1 with pid 126630 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.14/0.43 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.14/0.43 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.14/0.43 % Search class: FHUNF-FFSF22-DFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.43 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting G-E--_208_C41_F1_AE_CS_SP_PS_S00 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.14/0.43 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.14/0.43
% 0.14/0.43 % Proof found!
% 0.14/0.43 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.14/0.43 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.14/0.43 % Parsed axioms : 3
% 0.14/0.43 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Initial clauses : 3
% 0.14/0.43 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Initial clauses in saturation : 3
% 0.14/0.43 % Processed clauses : 57
% 0.14/0.43 % ...of these trivial : 3
% 0.14/0.43 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % ...remaining for further processing : 54
% 0.14/0.43 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.14/0.43 % Generated clauses : 625
% 0.14/0.43 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 579
% 0.14/0.43 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Paramodulations : 625
% 0.14/0.43 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % NegExts : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Total rewrite steps : 25
% 0.14/0.43 % ...of those cached : 12
% 0.14/0.43 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.43 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.43 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.43 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.43 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.43 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.43 % Current number of processed clauses : 50
% 0.14/0.43 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 25
% 0.14/0.43 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Non-unit-clauses : 25
% 0.14/0.43 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 528
% 0.14/0.43 % ...number of literals in the above : 528
% 0.14/0.43 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Current number of archived clauses : 4
% 0.14/0.43 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 130
% 0.14/0.43 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 130
% 0.14/0.43 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 40
% 0.14/0.43 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % BW rewrite match attempts : 571
% 0.14/0.43 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.14/0.43 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Termbank termtop insertions : 13170
% 0.14/0.43 % Search garbage collected termcells : 8
% 0.14/0.43
% 0.14/0.43 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.43 % User time : 0.015 s
% 0.14/0.43 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.14/0.43 % Total time : 0.018 s
% 0.14/0.43 % Maximum resident set size: 3380 pages
% 0.14/0.43
% 0.14/0.43 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.43 % User time : 0.109 s
% 0.14/0.43 % System time : 0.021 s
% 0.14/0.43 % Total time : 0.130 s
% 0.14/0.43 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.14/0.43 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------