%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : LCL138-1 : 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 : 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 2.74s 0.83s
% Output : CNFRefutation 2.74s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 14 ( 14 unt; 0 nHn; 4 RR)
% Number of literals : 14 ( 13 equ; 3 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 5 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 0 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 4 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 25 ( 0 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(prove_wajsberg_lemma,negated_conjecture,
implies(x,implies(y,z)) != implies(y,implies(x,z)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_wajsberg_lemma) ).
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(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,plain,
implies(implies(implies(implies(X1,X2),implies(X3,X2)),X4),implies(implies(X3,X1),X4)) = truth,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_4]),c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
implies(implies(implies(implies(X1,X2),X2),X3),implies(X1,X3)) = truth,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_5]),c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
implies(x,implies(y,z)) != implies(y,implies(x,z)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_wajsberg_lemma]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,axiom,
implies(implies(X1,X2),X2) = implies(implies(X2,X1),X1),
wajsberg_3 ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
implies(implies(X1,implies(X2,X3)),implies(X2,implies(X1,X3))) = truth,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]),c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
implies(x,implies(y,z)) != implies(y,implies(x,z)),
c_0_8 ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
implies(X1,implies(X2,X3)) = implies(X2,implies(X1,X3)),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_5]),c_0_10]),c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : LCL138-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.37 % Computer : n018.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/0.37 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 00:09:00 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.42 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/0.42 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
% 2.74/0.83 % Version: 3.5.1
% 2.74/0.83 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 2.74/0.83 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 2.74/0.83 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 2.74/0.83 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 2.74/0.83 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 2.74/0.83 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 2.74/0.83 % G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with pid 547471 completed with status 0
% 2.74/0.83 % Result found by G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN
% 2.74/0.83 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 2.74/0.83 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 2.74/0.83 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 2.74/0.83 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 2.74/0.83 % No SInE strategy applied
% 2.74/0.83 % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 2.74/0.83 % Scheduled 8 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 2.74/0.83 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 2.74/0.83 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 2.74/0.83 % Starting H----_047_B31_F1_PI_AE_R4_CS_SP_S2S with 136s (1) cores
% 2.74/0.83 % Starting G-E--_060_C18_F1_PI_SE_CS_SP_CO_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 2.74/0.83 % Starting U----_043_B31_F1_PI_AE_CS_SP_S2S with 136s (1) cores
% 2.74/0.83 % G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with pid 547477 completed with status 0
% 2.74/0.83 % Result found by G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN
% 2.74/0.83 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 2.74/0.83 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 2.74/0.83 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 2.74/0.83 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 2.74/0.83 % No SInE strategy applied
% 2.74/0.83 % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 2.74/0.83 % Scheduled 8 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 2.74/0.83 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 2.74/0.83 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 2.74/0.83 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 2.74/0.83
% 2.74/0.83 % Proof found!
% 2.74/0.83 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 2.74/0.83 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 2.74/0.83 % Parsed axioms : 5
% 2.74/0.83 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 2.74/0.83 % Initial clauses : 5
% 2.74/0.83 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 2.74/0.83 % Initial clauses in saturation : 5
% 2.74/0.83 % Processed clauses : 345
% 2.74/0.83 % ...of these trivial : 189
% 2.74/0.83 % ...subsumed : 48
% 2.74/0.83 % ...remaining for further processing : 108
% 2.74/0.83 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 2.74/0.83 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 2.74/0.83 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 2.74/0.83 % Backward-rewritten : 56
% 2.74/0.83 % Generated clauses : 18577
% 2.74/0.83 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 9567
% 2.74/0.83 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 2.74/0.83 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 2.74/0.83 % Paramodulations : 18577
% 2.74/0.83 % Factorizations : 0
% 2.74/0.83 % NegExts : 0
% 2.74/0.83 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 2.74/0.83 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 2.74/0.83 % Total rewrite steps : 31198
% 2.74/0.83 % ...of those cached : 24496
% 2.74/0.83 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 2.74/0.83 % Propositional check models : 0
% 2.74/0.83 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 2.74/0.83 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 2.74/0.83 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 2.74/0.83 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 2.74/0.83 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 2.74/0.83 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 2.74/0.83 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 2.74/0.83 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 2.74/0.83 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 2.74/0.83 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 2.74/0.83 % Current number of processed clauses : 52
% 2.74/0.83 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 45
% 2.74/0.83 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 7
% 2.74/0.83 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 2.74/0.83 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 2.74/0.83 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 8940
% 2.74/0.83 % ...number of literals in the above : 8940
% 2.74/0.83 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 2.74/0.83 % Current number of archived clauses : 56
% 2.74/0.83 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 2.74/0.83 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 2.74/0.83 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 2.74/0.83 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 38
% 2.74/0.83 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 2.74/0.83 % BW rewrite match attempts : 914
% 2.74/0.83 % BW rewrite match successes : 234
% 2.74/0.83 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 2.74/0.83 % Condensation successes : 0
% 2.74/0.83 % Termbank termtop insertions : 257641
% 2.74/0.83 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2
% 2.74/0.83
% 2.74/0.83 % -------------------------------------------------
% 2.74/0.83 % User time : 0.366 s
% 2.74/0.83 % System time : 0.019 s
% 2.74/0.83 % Total time : 0.385 s
% 2.74/0.83 % Maximum resident set size: 3584 pages
% 2.74/0.83
% 2.74/0.83 % -------------------------------------------------
% 2.74/0.83 % User time : 1.678 s
% 2.74/0.83 % System time : 0.092 s
% 2.74/0.83 % Total time : 1.770 s
% 2.74/0.83 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 2.74/0.83 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------