%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : LCL143-1 : 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 : n015.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 01:18:35 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.23s 0.65s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.23s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 6
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 19 ( 13 unt; 0 nHn; 14 RR)
% Number of literals : 25 ( 13 equ; 10 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 4 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 21 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(partial_order_definition1,axiom,
( ~ ordered(X1,X2)
| implies(X1,X2) = truth ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/LCL001-1.ax',partial_order_definition1) ).
cnf(prove_wajsberg_theorem,negated_conjecture,
~ ordered(implies(z,x),implies(z,y)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_wajsberg_theorem) ).
cnf(partial_order_definition2,axiom,
( implies(X1,X2) != truth
| ordered(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/LCL001-1.ax',partial_order_definition2) ).
cnf(antecedent,negated_conjecture,
ordered(x,y),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',antecedent) ).
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(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ ordered(X1,X2)
| implies(X1,X2) = truth ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[partial_order_definition1]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
~ ordered(implies(z,x),implies(z,y)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_wajsberg_theorem]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( implies(X1,X2) != truth
| ordered(X1,X2) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[partial_order_definition2]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ ordered(X1,X2)
| implies(X1,X2) = truth ),
c_0_6 ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
ordered(x,y),
antecedent ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
~ ordered(implies(z,x),implies(z,y)),
c_0_7 ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( implies(X1,X2) != truth
| ordered(X1,X2) ),
c_0_8 ).
cnf(c_0_13,axiom,
implies(implies(X1,X2),implies(implies(X2,X3),implies(X1,X3))) = truth,
wajsberg_2 ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
implies(x,y) = truth,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,axiom,
implies(truth,X1) = X1,
wajsberg_1 ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
implies(implies(z,x),implies(z,y)) != truth,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
implies(implies(X1,x),implies(X1,y)) = truth,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]),c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : LCL143-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.18/0.48 % Computer : n015.cluster.edu
% 0.18/0.48 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.18/0.48 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.18/0.48 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.18/0.48 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.18/0.48 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.18/0.48 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.18/0.48 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 00:10:35 UTC 2026
% 0.18/0.49 % CPUTime :
% 0.18/0.49 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.23/0.57 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.23/0.57 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
% 0.23/0.65 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.23/0.65 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.23/0.65 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/0.65 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.23/0.65 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.65 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.65 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.65 % G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with pid 130699 completed with status 0
% 0.23/0.65 % Result found by G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN
% 0.23/0.65 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.23/0.65 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/0.65 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.23/0.65 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.23/0.65 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.23/0.65 % Search class: FHUSM-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.23/0.65 % Scheduled 11 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.23/0.65 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.65 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.65 % Starting G-E--_300_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.65 % Starting G-E--_092_C01_F1_AE_CS_SP_PS_CO_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.65 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S4d with 136s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.65 % SubtermCWHack with pid 130700 completed with status 0
% 0.23/0.65 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.23/0.65 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.23/0.65 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/0.65 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.23/0.65 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.23/0.65 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.23/0.65 % Search class: FHUSM-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.23/0.65 % Scheduled 11 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.23/0.65 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.65 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.23/0.65
% 0.23/0.65 % Proof found!
% 0.23/0.65 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.23/0.65 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.23/0.65 % Parsed axioms : 10
% 0.23/0.65 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.23/0.65 % Initial clauses : 10
% 0.23/0.65 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 2
% 0.23/0.65 % Initial clauses in saturation : 8
% 0.23/0.65 % Processed clauses : 27
% 0.23/0.65 % ...of these trivial : 1
% 0.23/0.65 % ...subsumed : 1
% 0.23/0.65 % ...remaining for further processing : 25
% 0.23/0.65 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.23/0.65 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.23/0.65 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.23/0.65 % Backward-rewritten : 10
% 0.23/0.65 % Generated clauses : 208
% 0.23/0.65 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 129
% 0.23/0.65 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.23/0.65 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.23/0.65 % Paramodulations : 208
% 0.23/0.65 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.23/0.65 % NegExts : 0
% 0.23/0.65 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.23/0.65 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.23/0.65 % Total rewrite steps : 175
% 0.23/0.65 % ...of those cached : 109
% 0.23/0.65 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.23/0.65 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.23/0.65 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.23/0.65 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.23/0.65 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.23/0.65 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.23/0.65 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.65 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.65 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.65 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.65 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.65 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.65 % Current number of processed clauses : 15
% 0.23/0.65 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 11
% 0.23/0.65 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.23/0.65 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.23/0.65 % Non-unit-clauses : 2
% 0.23/0.65 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 103
% 0.23/0.65 % ...number of literals in the above : 103
% 0.23/0.65 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.23/0.65 % Current number of archived clauses : 12
% 0.23/0.65 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.23/0.65 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.23/0.65 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.23/0.65 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.23/0.65 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.23/0.65 % BW rewrite match attempts : 55
% 0.23/0.65 % BW rewrite match successes : 10
% 0.23/0.65 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.23/0.65 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.23/0.65 % Termbank termtop insertions : 2094
% 0.23/0.65 % Search garbage collected termcells : 6
% 0.23/0.65
% 0.23/0.65 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.23/0.65 % User time : 0.008 s
% 0.23/0.65 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.23/0.65 % Total time : 0.012 s
% 0.23/0.65 % Maximum resident set size: 3384 pages
% 0.23/0.65
% 0.23/0.65 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.23/0.65 % User time : 0.038 s
% 0.23/0.65 % System time : 0.023 s
% 0.23/0.65 % Total time : 0.060 s
% 0.23/0.65 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.23/0.65 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------