%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : LCL135-1 : 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 : n016.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 0.04s 0.42s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.04s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 7
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 16 ( 16 unt; 0 nHn; 4 RR)
% Number of literals : 16 ( 15 equ; 3 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 0 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 20 ( 3 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(wajsberg_2,axiom,
implies(implies(X1,X2),implies(implies(X2,X3),implies(X1,X3))) = truth,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/LCL001-0.ax',wajsberg_2) ).
cnf(wajsberg_1,axiom,
implies(truth,X1) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/LCL001-0.ax',wajsberg_1) ).
cnf(wajsberg_3,axiom,
implies(implies(X1,X2),X2) = implies(implies(X2,X1),X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/LCL001-0.ax',wajsberg_3) ).
cnf(prove_wajsberg_lemma,negated_conjecture,
implies(x,implies(y,x)) != truth,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_wajsberg_lemma) ).
cnf(c_0_4,axiom,
implies(implies(X1,X2),implies(implies(X2,X3),implies(X1,X3))) = truth,
wajsberg_2 ).
cnf(c_0_5,axiom,
implies(truth,X1) = X1,
wajsberg_1 ).
cnf(c_0_6,axiom,
implies(implies(X1,X2),X2) = implies(implies(X2,X1),X1),
wajsberg_3 ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
implies(X1,implies(implies(X1,X2),X2)) = truth,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_5]),c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
implies(implies(X1,truth),truth) = implies(X1,X1),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
implies(X1,X1) = truth,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_7]),c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
implies(implies(X1,truth),truth) = truth,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
implies(x,implies(y,x)) != truth,
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_wajsberg_lemma]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
implies(X1,truth) = truth,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
implies(x,implies(y,x)) != truth,
c_0_11 ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
implies(X1,implies(X2,X1)) = truth,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_12]),c_0_5]),c_0_5]) ).
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
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : LCL135-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.35 % Computer : n016.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.35 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/0.35 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.09/0.36 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 00:11:53 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.04/0.36 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.04/0.40 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.04/0.40 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
% 0.04/0.42 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.04/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.04/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.04/0.42 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.04/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.04/0.42 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.04/0.42 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.04/0.42 % new_bool_3 with pid 1151627 completed with status 0
% 0.04/0.42 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.04/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.04/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.04/0.42 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.04/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.04/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.04/0.42 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.04/0.42 % Search class: FUUPS-FFSF22-MFFFFFNN
% 0.04/0.42 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.04/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.04/0.42 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1151632 completed with status 0
% 0.04/0.42 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.04/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.04/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.04/0.42 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.04/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.04/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.04/0.42 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.04/0.42 % Search class: FUUPS-FFSF22-MFFFFFNN
% 0.04/0.42 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.04/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.04/0.42 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.04/0.42
% 0.04/0.42 % Proof found!
% 0.04/0.42 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.04/0.42 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.04/0.42 % Parsed axioms : 5
% 0.04/0.42 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 1
% 0.04/0.42 % Initial clauses : 4
% 0.04/0.42 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.04/0.42 % Initial clauses in saturation : 4
% 0.04/0.42 % Processed clauses : 13
% 0.04/0.42 % ...of these trivial : 1
% 0.04/0.42 % ...subsumed : 1
% 0.04/0.42 % ...remaining for further processing : 11
% 0.04/0.42 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.04/0.42 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.04/0.42 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.04/0.42 % Backward-rewritten : 3
% 0.04/0.42 % Generated clauses : 139
% 0.04/0.42 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 82
% 0.04/0.42 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.04/0.42 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.04/0.42 % Paramodulations : 139
% 0.04/0.42 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.04/0.42 % NegExts : 0
% 0.04/0.42 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.04/0.42 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.04/0.42 % Total rewrite steps : 152
% 0.04/0.42 % ...of those cached : 110
% 0.04/0.42 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.04/0.42 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.04/0.42 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.04/0.42 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.04/0.42 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.04/0.42 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.04/0.42 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.04/0.42 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.04/0.42 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.04/0.42 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.04/0.42 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.04/0.42 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.04/0.42 % Current number of processed clauses : 8
% 0.04/0.42 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 7
% 0.04/0.42 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.04/0.42 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.04/0.42 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.04/0.42 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 67
% 0.04/0.42 % ...number of literals in the above : 67
% 0.04/0.42 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.04/0.42 % Current number of archived clauses : 3
% 0.04/0.42 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.04/0.42 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.04/0.42 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.04/0.42 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.04/0.42 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.04/0.42 % BW rewrite match attempts : 30
% 0.04/0.42 % BW rewrite match successes : 4
% 0.04/0.42 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.04/0.42 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.04/0.42 % Termbank termtop insertions : 1461
% 0.04/0.42 % Search garbage collected termcells : 7
% 0.04/0.42
% 0.04/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.04/0.42 % User time : 0.001 s
% 0.04/0.42 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.04/0.42 % Total time : 0.004 s
% 0.04/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 3636 pages
% 0.04/0.42
% 0.04/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.04/0.42 % User time : 0.003 s
% 0.04/0.42 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.04/0.42 % Total time : 0.008 s
% 0.04/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.04/0.42 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------