%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---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 : n006.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 01:18:34 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 3.92s 26.32s
% Output : CNFRefutation 3.92s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 15 ( 15 unt; 0 nHn; 4 RR)
% Number of literals : 15 ( 14 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 : 27 ( 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(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_7,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_8,plain,
implies(implies(implies(implies(X1,X2),X2),X3),implies(X1,X3)) = truth,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_6]),c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
implies(x,implies(y,z)) != implies(y,implies(x,z)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_wajsberg_lemma]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,axiom,
implies(implies(X1,X2),X2) = implies(implies(X2,X1),X1),
wajsberg_3 ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
implies(implies(X1,implies(X2,X3)),implies(X2,implies(X1,X3))) = truth,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]),c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
implies(x,implies(y,z)) != implies(y,implies(x,z)),
c_0_9 ).
cnf(c_0_13,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_10,c_0_11]),c_0_5]),c_0_11]),c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : LCL138-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/25.61 % Computer : n006.cluster.edu
% 0.09/25.61 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/25.61 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/25.61 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/25.61 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/25.61 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/25.61 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.09/25.61 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 00:07:10 UTC 2026
% 0.09/25.61 % CPUTime :
% 0.09/25.61 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/25.68 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.16/25.68 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
% 3.92/26.32 % Version: 3.5.1
% 3.92/26.32 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 3.92/26.32 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 3.92/26.32 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 3.92/26.32 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 3.92/26.32 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 3.92/26.32 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 3.92/26.32 % G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with pid 1596142 completed with status 0
% 3.92/26.32 % Result found by G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN
% 3.92/26.32 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 3.92/26.32 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 3.92/26.32 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 3.92/26.32 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 3.92/26.32 % No SInE strategy applied
% 3.92/26.32 % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 3.92/26.32 % Scheduled 8 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 3.92/26.32 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 3.92/26.32 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 3.92/26.32 % Starting H----_047_B31_F1_PI_AE_R4_CS_SP_S2S with 136s (1) cores
% 3.92/26.32 % Starting G-E--_060_C18_F1_PI_SE_CS_SP_CO_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 3.92/26.32 % Starting U----_043_B31_F1_PI_AE_CS_SP_S2S with 136s (1) cores
% 3.92/26.32 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1596146 completed with status 0
% 3.92/26.32 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 3.92/26.32 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 3.92/26.32 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 3.92/26.32 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 3.92/26.32 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 3.92/26.32 % No SInE strategy applied
% 3.92/26.32 % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 3.92/26.32 % Scheduled 8 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 3.92/26.32 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 3.92/26.32 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 3.92/26.32
% 3.92/26.32 % Proof found!
% 3.92/26.32 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 3.92/26.32 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 3.92/26.32 % Parsed axioms : 5
% 3.92/26.32 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 3.92/26.32 % Initial clauses : 5
% 3.92/26.32 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 3.92/26.32 % Initial clauses in saturation : 5
% 3.92/26.32 % Processed clauses : 743
% 3.92/26.32 % ...of these trivial : 515
% 3.92/26.32 % ...subsumed : 54
% 3.92/26.32 % ...remaining for further processing : 174
% 3.92/26.32 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 3.92/26.32 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 3.92/26.32 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 3.92/26.32 % Backward-rewritten : 74
% 3.92/26.32 % Generated clauses : 56780
% 3.92/26.32 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 19579
% 3.92/26.32 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 3.92/26.32 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 3.92/26.32 % Paramodulations : 56780
% 3.92/26.32 % Factorizations : 0
% 3.92/26.32 % NegExts : 0
% 3.92/26.32 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 3.92/26.32 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 3.92/26.32 % Total rewrite steps : 129038
% 3.92/26.32 % ...of those cached : 109411
% 3.92/26.32 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 3.92/26.32 % Propositional check models : 0
% 3.92/26.32 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 3.92/26.32 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 3.92/26.32 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 3.92/26.32 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 3.92/26.32 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 3.92/26.32 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 3.92/26.32 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 3.92/26.32 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 3.92/26.32 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 3.92/26.32 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 3.92/26.32 % Current number of processed clauses : 100
% 3.92/26.32 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 95
% 3.92/26.32 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 5
% 3.92/26.32 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 3.92/26.32 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 3.92/26.32 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 18697
% 3.92/26.32 % ...number of literals in the above : 18697
% 3.92/26.32 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 3.92/26.32 % Current number of archived clauses : 74
% 3.92/26.32 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 3.92/26.32 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 3.92/26.32 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 3.92/26.32 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 79
% 3.92/26.32 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 3.92/26.32 % BW rewrite match attempts : 1940
% 3.92/26.32 % BW rewrite match successes : 466
% 3.92/26.32 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 3.92/26.32 % Condensation successes : 0
% 3.92/26.32 % Termbank termtop insertions : 851150
% 3.92/26.32 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2
% 3.92/26.32
% 3.92/26.32 % -------------------------------------------------
% 3.92/26.32 % User time : 0.554 s
% 3.92/26.32 % System time : 0.027 s
% 3.92/26.32 % Total time : 0.581 s
% 3.92/26.32 % Maximum resident set size: 3636 pages
% 3.92/26.32
% 3.92/26.32 % -------------------------------------------------
% 3.92/26.32 % User time : 2.543 s
% 3.92/26.32 % System time : 0.138 s
% 3.92/26.32 % Total time : 2.681 s
% 3.92/26.32 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 3.92/26.32 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------