%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : LCL357-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n002.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 01:12:29 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.24s 0.56s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.24s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 12 ( 6 unt; 0 nHn; 8 RR)
% Number of literals : 22 ( 0 equ; 13 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 5 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-1 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 4 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 22 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(condensed_detachment,axiom,
( ~ is_a_theorem(X1)
| ~ is_a_theorem(implies(X1,X2))
| is_a_theorem(X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',condensed_detachment) ).
cnf(cn_1,axiom,
is_a_theorem(implies(implies(X1,X2),implies(implies(X2,X3),implies(X1,X3)))),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cn_1) ).
cnf(prove_cn_06,negated_conjecture,
~ is_a_theorem(implies(implies(x,y),implies(implies(implies(x,z),u),implies(implies(y,z),u)))),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_cn_06) ).
cnf(c_0_3,plain,
( ~ is_a_theorem(X1)
| ~ is_a_theorem(implies(X1,X2))
| is_a_theorem(X2) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[condensed_detachment]) ).
cnf(c_0_4,plain,
( ~ is_a_theorem(X1)
| ~ is_a_theorem(implies(X1,X2))
| is_a_theorem(X2) ),
c_0_3 ).
cnf(c_0_5,axiom,
is_a_theorem(implies(implies(X1,X2),implies(implies(X2,X3),implies(X1,X3)))),
cn_1 ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ is_a_theorem(implies(X3,X1))
| is_a_theorem(implies(implies(X1,X2),implies(X3,X2))) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
~ is_a_theorem(implies(implies(x,y),implies(implies(implies(x,z),u),implies(implies(y,z),u)))),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_cn_06]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ is_a_theorem(implies(X1,X3))
| ~ is_a_theorem(implies(X3,X2))
| is_a_theorem(implies(X1,X2)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
~ is_a_theorem(implies(implies(x,y),implies(implies(implies(x,z),u),implies(implies(y,z),u)))),
c_0_7 ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( ~ is_a_theorem(implies(X1,implies(X4,X2)))
| is_a_theorem(implies(X1,implies(implies(X2,X3),implies(X4,X3)))) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_5])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : LCL357-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.3.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.19/0.46 % Computer : n002.cluster.edu
% 0.19/0.46 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.19/0.46 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.19/0.46 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.19/0.46 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.19/0.46 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.19/0.46 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.19/0.46 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 00:26:33 UTC 2026
% 0.19/0.46 % CPUTime :
% 0.19/0.46 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.24/0.53 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.24/0.53 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
% 0.24/0.56 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.24/0.56 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.56 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.56 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.56 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.56 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.56 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.56 % new_bool_1 with pid 2059772 completed with status 0
% 0.24/0.56 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.24/0.56 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.56 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.56 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.56 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.56 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.56 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.24/0.56 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.24/0.56 % Search class: FHUNF-FFSF22-MFFFFFNN
% 0.24/0.56 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.24/0.56 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.56 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2059778 completed with status 0
% 0.24/0.56 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.24/0.56 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.56 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.56 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.56 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.56 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.56 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.24/0.56 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.24/0.56 % Search class: FHUNF-FFSF22-MFFFFFNN
% 0.24/0.56 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.24/0.56 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.56 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.24/0.56
% 0.24/0.56 % Proof found!
% 0.24/0.56 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.24/0.56 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.24/0.56 % Parsed axioms : 5
% 0.24/0.56 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 2
% 0.24/0.56 % Initial clauses : 3
% 0.24/0.56 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.24/0.56 % Initial clauses in saturation : 3
% 0.24/0.56 % Processed clauses : 6
% 0.24/0.56 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.24/0.56 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.24/0.56 % ...remaining for further processing : 6
% 0.24/0.56 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.24/0.56 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.24/0.56 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.24/0.56 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.24/0.56 % Generated clauses : 7
% 0.24/0.56 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 4
% 0.24/0.56 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.24/0.56 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.24/0.56 % Paramodulations : 7
% 0.24/0.56 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.24/0.56 % NegExts : 0
% 0.24/0.56 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.24/0.56 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.24/0.56 % Total rewrite steps : 1
% 0.24/0.56 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.24/0.56 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.24/0.56 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.24/0.56 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.24/0.56 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.24/0.56 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.24/0.56 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.24/0.56 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.56 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.56 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.56 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.56 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.56 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.56 % Current number of processed clauses : 6
% 0.24/0.56 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 1
% 0.24/0.56 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.24/0.56 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.24/0.56 % Non-unit-clauses : 4
% 0.24/0.56 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 1
% 0.24/0.56 % ...number of literals in the above : 3
% 0.24/0.56 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.24/0.56 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.24/0.56 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 2
% 0.24/0.56 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% 0.24/0.56 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.24/0.56 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.24/0.56 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.24/0.56 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.24/0.56 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.24/0.56 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.24/0.56 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.24/0.56 % Termbank termtop insertions : 244
% 0.24/0.56 % Search garbage collected termcells : 17
% 0.24/0.56
% 0.24/0.56 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/0.56 % User time : 0.000 s
% 0.24/0.56 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.24/0.56 % Total time : 0.005 s
% 0.24/0.56 % Maximum resident set size: 3636 pages
% 0.24/0.56
% 0.24/0.56 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/0.56 % User time : 0.001 s
% 0.24/0.56 % System time : 0.011 s
% 0.24/0.56 % Total time : 0.012 s
% 0.24/0.56 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.24/0.56 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------