%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : LCL161-1 : 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 : n020.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 01:11:55 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.25s 0.56s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.25s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 8
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 22 ( 22 unt; 0 nHn; 4 RR)
% Number of literals : 22 ( 21 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 : 6 ( 6 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 26 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(axiom_2,axiom,
xor(X1,falsehood) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/LCL002-0.ax',axiom_2) ).
cnf(xor_commutativity,axiom,
xor(X1,X2) = xor(X2,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',xor_commutativity) ).
cnf(axiom_4,axiom,
and_star(X1,truth) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/LCL002-0.ax',axiom_4) ).
cnf(and_star_commutativity,axiom,
and_star(X1,X2) = and_star(X2,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',and_star_commutativity) ).
cnf(axiom_7,axiom,
xor(X1,xor(truth,X2)) = xor(xor(X1,truth),X2),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/LCL002-0.ax',axiom_7) ).
cnf(axiom_3,axiom,
xor(X1,X1) = falsehood,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/LCL002-0.ax',axiom_3) ).
cnf(prove_wajsberg_axiom,negated_conjecture,
implies(truth,x) != x,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_wajsberg_axiom) ).
cnf(implies_definition,axiom,
implies(X1,X2) = xor(truth,and_star(X1,xor(truth,X2))),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',implies_definition) ).
cnf(c_0_8,axiom,
xor(X1,falsehood) = X1,
axiom_2 ).
cnf(c_0_9,axiom,
xor(X1,X2) = xor(X2,X1),
xor_commutativity ).
cnf(c_0_10,axiom,
and_star(X1,truth) = X1,
axiom_4 ).
cnf(c_0_11,axiom,
and_star(X1,X2) = and_star(X2,X1),
and_star_commutativity ).
cnf(c_0_12,axiom,
xor(X1,xor(truth,X2)) = xor(xor(X1,truth),X2),
axiom_7 ).
cnf(c_0_13,axiom,
xor(X1,X1) = falsehood,
axiom_3 ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
xor(falsehood,X1) = X1,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
implies(truth,x) != x,
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_wajsberg_axiom]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,axiom,
implies(X1,X2) = xor(truth,and_star(X1,xor(truth,X2))),
implies_definition ).
cnf(c_0_17,plain,
and_star(truth,X1) = X1,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,plain,
xor(truth,xor(truth,X1)) = X1,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]),c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
implies(truth,x) != x,
c_0_15 ).
cnf(c_0_20,plain,
implies(truth,X1) = X1,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]),c_0_18]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_19,c_0_20])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : LCL161-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.20/0.46 % Computer : n020.cluster.edu
% 0.20/0.46 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.20/0.46 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.20/0.46 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.20/0.46 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.20/0.47 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.20/0.47 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.20/0.47 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 00:09:02 UTC 2026
% 0.20/0.47 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.47 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.25/0.53 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.25/0.53 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
% 0.25/0.56 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.25/0.56 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.56 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.56 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.56 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.56 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.56 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.56 % new_bool_3 with pid 1567727 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.56 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.25/0.56 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.56 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.56 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.56 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.56 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.25/0.56 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.25/0.56 % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF22-MFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.56 % Scheduled 10 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.56 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.56 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1567730 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.56 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.25/0.56 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.56 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.56 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.56 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.56 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.25/0.56 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.25/0.56 % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF22-MFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.56 % Scheduled 10 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.56 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.56 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.25/0.56
% 0.25/0.56 % Proof found!
% 0.25/0.56 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.25/0.56 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.25/0.56 % Parsed axioms : 14
% 0.25/0.56 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 2
% 0.25/0.56 % Initial clauses : 12
% 0.25/0.56 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.25/0.56 % Initial clauses in saturation : 12
% 0.25/0.56 % Processed clauses : 36
% 0.25/0.56 % ...of these trivial : 9
% 0.25/0.56 % ...subsumed : 2
% 0.25/0.56 % ...remaining for further processing : 25
% 0.25/0.56 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.25/0.56 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.25/0.56 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.56 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.25/0.56 % Generated clauses : 176
% 0.25/0.56 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 73
% 0.25/0.56 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.56 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.25/0.56 % Paramodulations : 176
% 0.25/0.56 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.25/0.56 % NegExts : 0
% 0.25/0.56 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.25/0.56 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.25/0.56 % Total rewrite steps : 185
% 0.25/0.56 % ...of those cached : 134
% 0.25/0.56 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.25/0.56 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.25/0.56 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.25/0.56 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.56 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.25/0.56 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.25/0.56 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.56 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.56 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.56 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.56 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.56 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.56 % Current number of processed clauses : 24
% 0.25/0.56 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 22
% 0.25/0.56 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 2
% 0.25/0.56 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.56 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.56 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 49
% 0.25/0.56 % ...number of literals in the above : 49
% 0.25/0.56 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.25/0.56 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.25/0.56 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.25/0.56 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.25/0.56 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.25/0.56 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.25/0.56 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.25/0.56 % BW rewrite match attempts : 11
% 0.25/0.56 % BW rewrite match successes : 9
% 0.25/0.56 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.25/0.56 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.25/0.56 % Termbank termtop insertions : 1305
% 0.25/0.56 % Search garbage collected termcells : 6
% 0.25/0.56
% 0.25/0.56 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.56 % User time : 0.002 s
% 0.25/0.56 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.25/0.56 % Total time : 0.005 s
% 0.25/0.56 % Maximum resident set size: 3640 pages
% 0.25/0.56
% 0.25/0.56 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.56 % User time : 0.002 s
% 0.25/0.56 % System time : 0.009 s
% 0.25/0.56 % Total time : 0.011 s
% 0.25/0.56 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.25/0.56 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------