%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : LCL133-1 : 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 : n018.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 01:11:52 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.15s 0.83s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.15s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 8
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 19 ( 19 unt; 0 nHn; 4 RR)
% Number of literals : 19 ( 18 equ; 3 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 0 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 23 ( 3 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(wajsberg_3,axiom,
implies(implies(X1,X2),X2) = implies(implies(X2,X1),X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/LCL001-0.ax',wajsberg_3) ).
cnf(lemma_antecedent,negated_conjecture,
implies(X1,X2) = implies(X2,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',lemma_antecedent) ).
cnf(wajsberg_1,axiom,
implies(truth,X1) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/LCL001-0.ax',wajsberg_1) ).
cnf(wajsberg_4,axiom,
implies(implies(not(X1),not(X2)),implies(X2,X1)) = truth,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/LCL001-0.ax',wajsberg_4) ).
cnf(prove_wajsberg_lemma,negated_conjecture,
x != y,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_wajsberg_lemma) ).
cnf(c_0_5,axiom,
implies(implies(X1,X2),X2) = implies(implies(X2,X1),X1),
wajsberg_3 ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
implies(X1,X2) = implies(X2,X1),
lemma_antecedent ).
cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
implies(truth,X1) = X1,
wajsberg_1 ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
implies(X1,implies(X2,X1)) = implies(X2,implies(X1,X2)),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]),c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
implies(X1,truth) = X1,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,axiom,
implies(implies(not(X1),not(X2)),implies(X2,X1)) = truth,
wajsberg_4 ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
implies(X1,X1) = X1,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]),c_0_7]),c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
implies(X1,not(X1)) = truth,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]),c_0_11]),c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
not(X1) = X1,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_12]),c_0_6]),c_0_12]),c_0_9]),c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
x != y,
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_wajsberg_lemma]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
X1 = truth,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]),c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
x != y,
c_0_14 ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
X1 = X2,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : LCL133-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.77 % Computer : n018.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.77 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.77 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.77 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.12/0.77 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.12/0.77 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.77 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.12/0.77 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 00:09:14 UTC 2026
% 0.12/0.78 % CPUTime :
% 0.12/0.78 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.82 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/0.82 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
% 0.15/0.83 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.15/0.83 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.83 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.83 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.83 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.83 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.83 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.83 % G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with pid 548411 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.83 % Result found by G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN
% 0.15/0.83 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.83 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.83 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.83 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.15/0.83 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.15/0.83 % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.83 % Scheduled 8 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.15/0.83 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.83 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.83 % Starting H----_047_B31_F1_PI_AE_R4_CS_SP_S2S with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.83 % Starting G-E--_060_C18_F1_PI_SE_CS_SP_CO_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.83 % Starting U----_043_B31_F1_PI_AE_CS_SP_S2S with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.83 % H----_047_B31_F1_PI_AE_R4_CS_SP_S2S with pid 548418 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.83 % Result found by H----_047_B31_F1_PI_AE_R4_CS_SP_S2S
% 0.15/0.83 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.83 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.83 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.83 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.15/0.83 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.15/0.83 % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.83 % Scheduled 8 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.15/0.83 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.83 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.83 % Starting H----_047_B31_F1_PI_AE_R4_CS_SP_S2S with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.83 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.15/0.83
% 0.15/0.83 % Proof found!
% 0.15/0.83 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.15/0.83 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.15/0.84 % Parsed axioms : 6
% 0.15/0.84 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.15/0.84 % Initial clauses : 6
% 0.15/0.84 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.15/0.84 % Initial clauses in saturation : 6
% 0.15/0.84 % Processed clauses : 14
% 0.15/0.84 % ...of these trivial : 2
% 0.15/0.84 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.15/0.84 % ...remaining for further processing : 12
% 0.15/0.84 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.15/0.84 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.15/0.84 % Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.15/0.84 % Backward-rewritten : 9
% 0.15/0.84 % Generated clauses : 89
% 0.15/0.84 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 86
% 0.15/0.84 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.15/0.84 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.15/0.84 % Paramodulations : 88
% 0.15/0.84 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.15/0.84 % NegExts : 0
% 0.15/0.84 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.15/0.84 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.15/0.84 % Total rewrite steps : 73
% 0.15/0.84 % ...of those cached : 37
% 0.15/0.84 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.15/0.84 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.15/0.84 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.15/0.84 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.15/0.84 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.15/0.84 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.15/0.84 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.84 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.84 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.84 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.84 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.84 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.84 % Current number of processed clauses : 1
% 0.15/0.84 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 0
% 0.15/0.84 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.15/0.84 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.15/0.84 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.15/0.84 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 78
% 0.15/0.84 % ...number of literals in the above : 78
% 0.15/0.84 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.15/0.84 % Current number of archived clauses : 11
% 0.15/0.84 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.15/0.84 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.15/0.84 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.15/0.84 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.15/0.84 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 19
% 0.15/0.84 % BW rewrite match attempts : 38
% 0.15/0.84 % BW rewrite match successes : 25
% 0.15/0.84 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.15/0.84 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.15/0.84 % Termbank termtop insertions : 725
% 0.15/0.84 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2
% 0.15/0.84
% 0.15/0.84 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.84 % User time : 0.003 s
% 0.15/0.84 % System time : 0.001 s
% 0.15/0.84 % Total time : 0.005 s
% 0.15/0.84 % Maximum resident set size: 3636 pages
% 0.15/0.84
% 0.15/0.84 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.84 % User time : 0.013 s
% 0.15/0.84 % System time : 0.008 s
% 0.15/0.84 % Total time : 0.022 s
% 0.15/0.84 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.15/0.84 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------