%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : LCL104-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n026.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 0.16s 5.45s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.16s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 12
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 21 ( 11 unt; 0 nHn; 13 RR)
% Number of literals : 36 ( 0 equ; 18 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 : 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/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',condensed_detachment) ).
cnf(q_3,axiom,
is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(X1,X2),equivalent(equivalent(X2,X1),X3)),X3)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',q_3) ).
cnf(p_4,axiom,
is_a_theorem(equivalent(X1,equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(X2,X3),equivalent(X2,X4)),equivalent(X3,X4)),X1))),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',p_4) ).
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/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_p_1) ).
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(X1,X2),equivalent(equivalent(X2,X1),X3)),X3)),
q_3 ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(X2,X3),equivalent(equivalent(X3,X2),X1)))
| is_a_theorem(X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,axiom,
is_a_theorem(equivalent(X1,equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(X2,X3),equivalent(X2,X4)),equivalent(X3,X4)),X1))),
p_4 ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(X1,X2),equivalent(equivalent(X3,X1),equivalent(X3,X2)))),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( ~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(X2,X3))
| is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(X1,X2),equivalent(X1,X3))) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_9]) ).
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_5,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( ~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(X2,X4))
| ~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(X1,X4),X3))
| is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(X1,X2),X3)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,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_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
( ~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(X3,equivalent(equivalent(X2,X1),X4)))
| is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(equivalent(X1,X2),X3),X4)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
( ~ is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(X4,X2),equivalent(equivalent(X1,X4),X3)))
| is_a_theorem(equivalent(equivalent(X1,X2),X3)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,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_17,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_15,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)))),
c_0_16 ).
cnf(c_0_19,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_13,c_0_17]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_18,c_0_19])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : LCL104-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.14/5.39 % Computer : n026.cluster.edu
% 0.14/5.39 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.14/5.39 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.14/5.39 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.14/5.39 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.14/5.39 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.14/5.39 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.14/5.39 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 00:07:43 UTC 2026
% 0.14/5.39 % CPUTime :
% 0.14/5.39 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/5.43 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.16/5.43 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
% 0.16/5.45 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.16/5.45 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.16/5.45 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.16/5.45 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.16/5.45 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/5.45 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/5.45 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/5.45 % G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with pid 939208 completed with status 0
% 0.16/5.45 % Result found by G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN
% 0.16/5.45 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.16/5.45 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.16/5.45 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.16/5.45 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.16/5.45 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.16/5.45 % Search class: FHUNS-FFSF22-MFFFFFNN
% 0.16/5.45 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.16/5.45 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.16/5.45 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.16/5.45 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S00 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.16/5.45 % Starting G-E--_060_C18_F1_PI_AE_CS_SP_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.16/5.45 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.16/5.45 % G-E--_060_C18_F1_PI_AE_CS_SP_S0Y with pid 939217 completed with status 0
% 0.16/5.45 % Result found by G-E--_060_C18_F1_PI_AE_CS_SP_S0Y
% 0.16/5.45 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.16/5.45 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.16/5.45 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.16/5.45 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.16/5.45 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.16/5.45 % Search class: FHUNS-FFSF22-MFFFFFNN
% 0.16/5.45 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.16/5.45 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.16/5.45 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.16/5.45 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S00 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.16/5.45 % Starting G-E--_060_C18_F1_PI_AE_CS_SP_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.16/5.45 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.16/5.45
% 0.16/5.45 % Proof found!
% 0.16/5.45 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.16/5.45 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.16/5.45 % Parsed axioms : 4
% 0.16/5.45 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.16/5.45 % Initial clauses : 4
% 0.16/5.45 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.16/5.45 % Initial clauses in saturation : 4
% 0.16/5.45 % Processed clauses : 31
% 0.16/5.45 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.16/5.45 % ...subsumed : 6
% 0.16/5.45 % ...remaining for further processing : 25
% 0.16/5.45 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.16/5.45 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.16/5.45 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.16/5.45 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.16/5.45 % Generated clauses : 106
% 0.16/5.45 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 85
% 0.16/5.45 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.16/5.45 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.16/5.45 % Paramodulations : 106
% 0.16/5.45 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.16/5.45 % NegExts : 0
% 0.16/5.45 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.16/5.45 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.16/5.45 % Total rewrite steps : 10
% 0.16/5.45 % ...of those cached : 5
% 0.16/5.45 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.16/5.45 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.16/5.45 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.16/5.45 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.16/5.45 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.16/5.45 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.16/5.45 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.16/5.45 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.16/5.45 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.16/5.45 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.16/5.45 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.16/5.45 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.16/5.45 % Current number of processed clauses : 24
% 0.16/5.45 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 10
% 0.16/5.45 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.16/5.45 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.16/5.45 % Non-unit-clauses : 14
% 0.16/5.45 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 58
% 0.16/5.45 % ...number of literals in the above : 131
% 0.16/5.45 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.16/5.45 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.16/5.45 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 41
% 0.16/5.45 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 41
% 0.16/5.45 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 6
% 0.16/5.45 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.16/5.45 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.16/5.45 % BW rewrite match attempts : 70
% 0.16/5.45 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.16/5.45 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.16/5.45 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.16/5.45 % Termbank termtop insertions : 1752
% 0.16/5.45 % Search garbage collected termcells : 8
% 0.16/5.45
% 0.16/5.45 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.16/5.45 % User time : 0.005 s
% 0.16/5.45 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.16/5.45 % Total time : 0.008 s
% 0.16/5.45 % Maximum resident set size: 3636 pages
% 0.16/5.45
% 0.16/5.45 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.16/5.45 % User time : 0.024 s
% 0.16/5.45 % System time : 0.016 s
% 0.16/5.45 % Total time : 0.040 s
% 0.16/5.45 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.16/5.45 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------