%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : LCL185-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.1.0.
% 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 01:12:00 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.22s 0.53s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.22s
% 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 : 29 ( 0 equ; 15 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 : 4 ( 4 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 28 ( 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/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/LCL003-0.ax',rule_3) ).
cnf(rule_1,axiom,
( ~ axiom(X1)
| theorem(X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/LCL003-0.ax',rule_1) ).
cnf(axiom_1_3,axiom,
axiom(or(not(X1),or(X2,X1))),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/LCL003-0.ax',axiom_1_3) ).
cnf(prove_this,negated_conjecture,
~ theorem(or(not(p),or(p,q))),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_this) ).
cnf(axiom_1_4,axiom,
axiom(or(not(or(X1,X2)),or(X2,X1))),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/LCL003-0.ax',axiom_1_4) ).
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,
( ~ axiom(X1)
| theorem(X1) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[rule_1]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ theorem(or(not(X3),X2))
| ~ axiom(or(not(X1),X3))
| theorem(or(not(X1),X2)) ),
c_0_5 ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ axiom(X1)
| theorem(X1) ),
c_0_6 ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ axiom(or(not(X3),X2))
| ~ axiom(or(not(X1),X3))
| theorem(or(not(X1),X2)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,axiom,
axiom(or(not(X1),or(X2,X1))),
axiom_1_3 ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
~ theorem(or(not(p),or(p,q))),
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,X2)),or(X2,X1))),
axiom_1_4 ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
~ theorem(or(not(p),or(p,q))),
c_0_11 ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
theorem(or(not(X1),or(X1,X2))),
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
% 0.00/0.04 % Problem : LCL185-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.1.0.
% 0.00/0.06 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.42 % Computer : n020.cluster.edu
% 0.16/0.42 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.16/0.42 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.16/0.42 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.16/0.42 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.16/0.42 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.16/0.42 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.16/0.42 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 00:10:47 UTC 2026
% 0.16/0.43 % CPUTime :
% 0.16/0.43 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.22/0.50 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.22/0.50 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
% 0.22/0.53 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.22/0.53 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.22/0.53 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.22/0.53 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.22/0.53 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.53 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.53 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.53 % G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with pid 1571420 completed with status 0
% 0.22/0.53 % Result found by G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
% 0.22/0.53 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.22/0.53 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.22/0.53 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.22/0.53 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.22/0.53 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.22/0.53 % Search class: FHUNM-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.22/0.53 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.22/0.53 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.53 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.53 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S04BN with 136s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.53 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.53 % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.53 % G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S04BN with pid 1571428 completed with status 0
% 0.22/0.53 % Result found by G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S04BN
% 0.22/0.53 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.22/0.53 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.22/0.53 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.22/0.53 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.22/0.53 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.22/0.53 % Search class: FHUNM-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.22/0.53 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.22/0.53 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.53 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.53 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S04BN with 136s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.53 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.22/0.53
% 0.22/0.53 % Proof found!
% 0.22/0.53 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.22/0.53 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.22/0.53 % Parsed axioms : 9
% 0.22/0.53 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.22/0.53 % Initial clauses : 9
% 0.22/0.53 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.22/0.53 % Initial clauses in saturation : 9
% 0.22/0.53 % Processed clauses : 50
% 0.22/0.53 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.22/0.53 % ...subsumed : 9
% 0.22/0.53 % ...remaining for further processing : 41
% 0.22/0.53 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.22/0.53 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.22/0.53 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.22/0.53 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.22/0.53 % Generated clauses : 79
% 0.22/0.53 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 73
% 0.22/0.53 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.22/0.53 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.22/0.53 % Paramodulations : 79
% 0.22/0.53 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.22/0.53 % NegExts : 0
% 0.22/0.53 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.22/0.53 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.22/0.53 % Total rewrite steps : 2
% 0.22/0.53 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.22/0.53 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.22/0.53 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.22/0.53 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.22/0.53 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.22/0.53 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.22/0.53 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.22/0.53 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.22/0.53 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.22/0.53 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.22/0.53 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.22/0.53 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.22/0.53 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.22/0.53 % Current number of processed clauses : 40
% 0.22/0.53 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 8
% 0.22/0.53 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.22/0.53 % Negative unit clauses : 11
% 0.22/0.53 % Non-unit-clauses : 21
% 0.22/0.53 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 32
% 0.22/0.53 % ...number of literals in the above : 61
% 0.22/0.53 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.22/0.53 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.22/0.53 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 114
% 0.22/0.53 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 114
% 0.22/0.53 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 8
% 0.22/0.53 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 32
% 0.22/0.53 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.22/0.53 % BW rewrite match attempts : 16
% 0.22/0.53 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.22/0.53 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.22/0.53 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.22/0.53 % Termbank termtop insertions : 1274
% 0.22/0.53 % Search garbage collected termcells : 17
% 0.22/0.53
% 0.22/0.53 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.22/0.53 % User time : 0.005 s
% 0.22/0.53 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.22/0.53 % Total time : 0.008 s
% 0.22/0.53 % Maximum resident set size: 3644 pages
% 0.22/0.53
% 0.22/0.53 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.22/0.53 % User time : 0.023 s
% 0.22/0.53 % System time : 0.017 s
% 0.22/0.53 % Total time : 0.040 s
% 0.22/0.53 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.22/0.53 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------