%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : LCL176-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.1.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n019.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 01:11:58 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.24s 0.53s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.24s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 17 ( 9 unt; 0 nHn; 12 RR)
% Number of literals : 28 ( 0 equ; 14 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-1 aty)
% Number of functors : 3 ( 3 usr; 1 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 25 ( 4 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(rule_3,axiom,
( ~ theorem(or(not(X3),X2))
| ~ axiom(or(not(X1),X3))
| theorem(or(not(X1),X2)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/LCL003-0.ax',rule_3) ).
cnf(axiom_1_3,axiom,
axiom(or(not(X1),or(X2,X1))),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/LCL003-0.ax',axiom_1_3) ).
cnf(rule_1,axiom,
( ~ axiom(X1)
| theorem(X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/LCL003-0.ax',rule_1) ).
cnf(prove_this,negated_conjecture,
~ theorem(or(not(p),p)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_this) ).
cnf(axiom_1_2,axiom,
axiom(or(not(or(X1,X1)),X1)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/LCL003-0.ax',axiom_1_2) ).
cnf(c_0_5,plain,
( ~ theorem(or(not(X3),X2))
| ~ axiom(or(not(X1),X3))
| theorem(or(not(X1),X2)) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[rule_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ theorem(or(not(X3),X2))
| ~ axiom(or(not(X1),X3))
| theorem(or(not(X1),X2)) ),
c_0_5 ).
cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
axiom(or(not(X1),or(X2,X1))),
axiom_1_3 ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ axiom(X1)
| theorem(X1) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[rule_1]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ theorem(or(not(or(X3,X1)),X2))
| theorem(or(not(X1),X2)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( ~ axiom(X1)
| theorem(X1) ),
c_0_8 ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
~ theorem(or(not(p),p)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_this]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( ~ axiom(or(not(or(X3,X1)),X2))
| theorem(or(not(X1),X2)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,axiom,
axiom(or(not(or(X1,X1)),X1)),
axiom_1_2 ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
~ theorem(or(not(p),p)),
c_0_11 ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
theorem(or(not(X1),X1)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : LCL176-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.1.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.17/0.43 % Computer : n019.cluster.edu
% 0.17/0.43 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.17/0.43 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.17/0.43 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.17/0.43 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.17/0.43 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.17/0.43 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.17/0.43 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 00:09:05 UTC 2026
% 0.17/0.44 % CPUTime :
% 0.17/0.44 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.17/0.50 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.17/0.50 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
% 0.24/0.53 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.24/0.53 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.53 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.53 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.53 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.53 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.53 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.53 % new_bool_3 with pid 1276728 completed with status 0
% 0.24/0.53 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.24/0.53 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.53 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.53 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.53 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.53 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.24/0.53 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.24/0.53 % Search class: FHUNM-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.24/0.53 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.24/0.53 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.53 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1276734 completed with status 0
% 0.24/0.53 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.24/0.53 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.53 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.53 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.53 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.53 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.24/0.53 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.24/0.53 % Search class: FHUNM-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.24/0.53 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.24/0.53 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.53 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.24/0.53
% 0.24/0.53 % Proof found!
% 0.24/0.53 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.24/0.53 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.24/0.53 % Parsed axioms : 9
% 0.24/0.53 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.24/0.53 % Initial clauses : 9
% 0.24/0.53 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.24/0.53 % Initial clauses in saturation : 9
% 0.24/0.53 % Processed clauses : 67
% 0.24/0.53 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.24/0.53 % ...subsumed : 26
% 0.24/0.53 % ...remaining for further processing : 41
% 0.24/0.53 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.24/0.53 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.24/0.53 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.24/0.53 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.24/0.53 % Generated clauses : 105
% 0.24/0.53 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 96
% 0.24/0.53 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.24/0.53 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.24/0.53 % Paramodulations : 105
% 0.24/0.53 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.24/0.53 % NegExts : 0
% 0.24/0.53 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.24/0.53 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.24/0.53 % Total rewrite steps : 1
% 0.24/0.53 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.24/0.53 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.24/0.53 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.24/0.53 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.24/0.53 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.24/0.53 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.24/0.53 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.24/0.53 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.53 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.53 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.53 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.53 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.53 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.53 % Current number of processed clauses : 40
% 0.24/0.53 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 6
% 0.24/0.53 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.24/0.53 % Negative unit clauses : 6
% 0.24/0.53 % Non-unit-clauses : 28
% 0.24/0.53 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 38
% 0.24/0.53 % ...number of literals in the above : 72
% 0.24/0.53 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.24/0.53 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.24/0.53 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 239
% 0.24/0.53 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 239
% 0.24/0.53 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 26
% 0.24/0.53 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 13
% 0.24/0.53 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.24/0.53 % BW rewrite match attempts : 17
% 0.24/0.53 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.24/0.53 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.24/0.53 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.24/0.53 % Termbank termtop insertions : 1479
% 0.24/0.53 % Search garbage collected termcells : 17
% 0.24/0.53
% 0.24/0.53 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/0.53 % User time : 0.007 s
% 0.24/0.53 % System time : 0.001 s
% 0.24/0.53 % Total time : 0.007 s
% 0.24/0.53 % Maximum resident set size: 3644 pages
% 0.24/0.53
% 0.24/0.53 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/0.53 % User time : 0.008 s
% 0.24/0.53 % System time : 0.008 s
% 0.24/0.53 % Total time : 0.016 s
% 0.24/0.53 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.24/0.53 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------