%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : LCL102-1 : 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 : n001.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 01:11:46 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 1.77s 0.75s
% Output : CNFRefutation 1.77s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 9
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 24 ( 14 unt; 0 nHn; 13 RR)
% Number of literals : 38 ( 0 equ; 17 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 6 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-1 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 4 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 68 ( 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(q_2,axiom,
is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(X1,X2),equivalent(equivalent(X3,X1),equivalent(X3,X2)))),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',q_2) ).
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(q_1,axiom,
is_a_theorem(equivalent(X1,equivalent(equivalent(X2,X3),equivalent(equivalent(X3,X2),X1)))),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',q_1) ).
cnf(prove_p_1,negated_conjecture,
~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(a,b),c),equivalent(equivalent(e,b),equivalent(equivalent(a,e),c)))),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_p_1) ).
cnf(c_0_5,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_6,plain,
( ~ is_a_theorem(X1)
| ~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(X1,X2))
| is_a_theorem(X2) ),
c_0_5 ).
cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(X1,X2),equivalent(equivalent(X3,X1),equivalent(X3,X2)))),
q_2 ).
cnf(c_0_8,axiom,
is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(X1,X2),equivalent(X1,X3)),equivalent(X2,X3)),X4),X4)),
lg_2 ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(X2,X3))
| is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(X1,X2),equivalent(X1,X3))) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,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_6,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( ~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(X3,X2))
| ~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(X1,X3))
| is_a_theorem(equivalent(X1,X2)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,axiom,
is_a_theorem(equivalent(X1,equivalent(equivalent(X2,X3),equivalent(equivalent(X3,X2),X1)))),
q_1 ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(X1,equivalent(equivalent(X2,X3),equivalent(X2,X4))),equivalent(X1,equivalent(X3,X4)))),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,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_11,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
( ~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(X3,X4),equivalent(equivalent(X4,X3),X1)),X2))
| is_a_theorem(equivalent(X1,X2)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
( ~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(X1,equivalent(equivalent(X4,X2),equivalent(X4,X3))))
| is_a_theorem(equivalent(X1,equivalent(X2,X3))) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,plain,
is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(X1,X2),X3),equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(X4,X1),equivalent(X4,X2)),X3))),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(a,b),c),equivalent(equivalent(e,b),equivalent(equivalent(a,e),c)))),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_p_1]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,plain,
( ~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(X3,X2),X1),X4))
| is_a_theorem(equivalent(X1,equivalent(equivalent(X2,X3),X4))) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,plain,
is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(X1,X2),equivalent(equivalent(X3,X1),X4)),equivalent(equivalent(X3,X2),X4))),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,negated_conjecture,
~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(a,b),c),equivalent(equivalent(e,b),equivalent(equivalent(a,e),c)))),
c_0_18 ).
cnf(c_0_22,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_19,c_0_20]) ).
cnf(c_0_23,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_21,c_0_22])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : LCL102-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.37 % Computer : n001.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.09/0.37 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 00:10:29 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.09/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.44 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.09/0.44 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
% 1.77/0.75 % Version: 3.5.1
% 1.77/0.75 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 1.77/0.75 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 1.77/0.75 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 1.77/0.75 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 1.77/0.75 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 1.77/0.75 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 1.77/0.75 % G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with pid 1779578 completed with status 0
% 1.77/0.75 % Result found by G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN
% 1.77/0.75 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 1.77/0.75 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 1.77/0.75 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 1.77/0.75 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 1.77/0.75 % No SInE strategy applied
% 1.77/0.75 % Search class: FHUNS-FFSF22-MFFFFFNN
% 1.77/0.75 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 1.77/0.75 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 1.77/0.75 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 1.77/0.75 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S00 with 136s (1) cores
% 1.77/0.75 % Starting G-E--_060_C18_F1_PI_AE_CS_SP_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 1.77/0.75 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 1.77/0.75 % G-E--_060_C18_F1_PI_AE_CS_SP_S0Y with pid 1779585 completed with status 0
% 1.77/0.75 % Result found by G-E--_060_C18_F1_PI_AE_CS_SP_S0Y
% 1.77/0.75 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 1.77/0.75 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 1.77/0.75 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 1.77/0.75 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 1.77/0.75 % No SInE strategy applied
% 1.77/0.75 % Search class: FHUNS-FFSF22-MFFFFFNN
% 1.77/0.75 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 1.77/0.75 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 1.77/0.75 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 1.77/0.75 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S00 with 136s (1) cores
% 1.77/0.75 % Starting G-E--_060_C18_F1_PI_AE_CS_SP_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 1.77/0.75 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 1.77/0.75
% 1.77/0.75 % Proof found!
% 1.77/0.75 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 1.77/0.75 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 1.77/0.75 % Parsed axioms : 5
% 1.77/0.75 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 1.77/0.75 % Initial clauses : 5
% 1.77/0.75 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 1.77/0.75 % Initial clauses in saturation : 5
% 1.77/0.75 % Processed clauses : 989
% 1.77/0.75 % ...of these trivial : 163
% 1.77/0.75 % ...subsumed : 615
% 1.77/0.75 % ...remaining for further processing : 211
% 1.77/0.75 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 1.77/0.75 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 1.77/0.75 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 1.77/0.75 % Backward-rewritten : 2
% 1.77/0.75 % Generated clauses : 7947
% 1.77/0.75 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 5152
% 1.77/0.75 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 1.77/0.75 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 1.77/0.75 % Paramodulations : 7947
% 1.77/0.75 % Factorizations : 0
% 1.77/0.75 % NegExts : 0
% 1.77/0.75 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 1.77/0.75 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 1.77/0.75 % Total rewrite steps : 3219
% 1.77/0.75 % ...of those cached : 2995
% 1.77/0.75 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 1.77/0.75 % Propositional check models : 0
% 1.77/0.75 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 1.77/0.75 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 1.77/0.75 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 1.77/0.75 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 1.77/0.75 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 1.77/0.75 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 1.77/0.75 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 1.77/0.75 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 1.77/0.75 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 1.77/0.75 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 1.77/0.75 % Current number of processed clauses : 209
% 1.77/0.75 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 124
% 1.77/0.75 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 1.77/0.75 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 1.77/0.75 % Non-unit-clauses : 85
% 1.77/0.75 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 4166
% 1.77/0.75 % ...number of literals in the above : 5844
% 1.77/0.75 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 1.77/0.75 % Current number of archived clauses : 2
% 1.77/0.75 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 5007
% 1.77/0.75 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 5007
% 1.77/0.75 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 615
% 1.77/0.75 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 207
% 1.77/0.75 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 1.77/0.75 % BW rewrite match attempts : 7988
% 1.77/0.75 % BW rewrite match successes : 2
% 1.77/0.75 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 1.77/0.75 % Condensation successes : 0
% 1.77/0.75 % Termbank termtop insertions : 92242
% 1.77/0.75 % Search garbage collected termcells : 8
% 1.77/0.75
% 1.77/0.75 % -------------------------------------------------
% 1.77/0.75 % User time : 0.131 s
% 1.77/0.75 % System time : 0.018 s
% 1.77/0.75 % Total time : 0.149 s
% 1.77/0.75 % Maximum resident set size: 3636 pages
% 1.77/0.75
% 1.77/0.75 % -------------------------------------------------
% 1.77/0.75 % User time : 0.983 s
% 1.77/0.75 % System time : 0.071 s
% 1.77/0.75 % Total time : 1.054 s
% 1.77/0.75 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 1.77/0.75 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------