%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : LCL431-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.2.0.
% 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 01:19:26 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 14.93s 2.57s
% Output : CNFRefutation 14.93s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 12 ( 8 unt; 0 nHn; 7 RR)
% Number of literals : 16 ( 2 equ; 7 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 5 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 8 ( 8 usr; 3 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 18 ( 8 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_PropLog_Ocompleteness__0__lemma__dest_0,axiom,
( ~ c_PropLog_Osat(c_emptyset,X1,X2)
| c_in(X1,c_PropLog_Othms(c_minus(c_PropLog_Ohyps(X1,X3,X2),c_PropLog_Ohyps(X1,X4,X2),tc_set(tc_PropLog_Opl(X2))),X2),tc_PropLog_Opl(X2)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_PropLog_Ocompleteness__0__lemma__dest_0) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_1,negated_conjecture,
~ c_in(v_p,c_PropLog_Othms(c_emptyset,t_a),tc_PropLog_Opl(t_a)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_1) ).
cnf(cls_Set_ODiff__cancel_0,axiom,
c_minus(X1,X1,tc_set(X2)) = c_emptyset,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/MSC001-1.ax',cls_Set_ODiff__cancel_0) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
c_PropLog_Osat(c_emptyset,v_p,t_a),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_0) ).
cnf(c_0_4,plain,
( ~ c_PropLog_Osat(c_emptyset,X1,X2)
| c_in(X1,c_PropLog_Othms(c_minus(c_PropLog_Ohyps(X1,X3,X2),c_PropLog_Ohyps(X1,X4,X2),tc_set(tc_PropLog_Opl(X2))),X2),tc_PropLog_Opl(X2)) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_PropLog_Ocompleteness__0__lemma__dest_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ c_in(v_p,c_PropLog_Othms(c_emptyset,t_a),tc_PropLog_Opl(t_a)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_1]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ c_PropLog_Osat(c_emptyset,X1,X2)
| c_in(X1,c_PropLog_Othms(c_minus(c_PropLog_Ohyps(X1,X3,X2),c_PropLog_Ohyps(X1,X4,X2),tc_set(tc_PropLog_Opl(X2))),X2),tc_PropLog_Opl(X2)) ),
c_0_4 ).
cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
c_minus(X1,X1,tc_set(X2)) = c_emptyset,
cls_Set_ODiff__cancel_0 ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
~ c_in(v_p,c_PropLog_Othms(c_emptyset,t_a),tc_PropLog_Opl(t_a)),
c_0_5 ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ c_PropLog_Osat(c_emptyset,X1,X2)
| c_in(X1,c_PropLog_Othms(c_emptyset,X2),tc_PropLog_Opl(X2)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
c_PropLog_Osat(c_emptyset,v_p,t_a),
cls_conjecture_0 ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]),c_0_10])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : LCL431-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.42 % Computer : n015.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
% 0.16/0.43 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.16/0.43 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 00:35:21 UTC 2026
% 0.16/0.43 % CPUTime :
% 0.16/0.43 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.22/0.49 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.22/0.49 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
% 14.93/2.57 % Version: 3.5.1
% 14.93/2.57 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 14.93/2.57 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 14.93/2.57 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 14.93/2.57 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 14.93/2.57 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 14.93/2.57 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 14.93/2.57 % new_bool_1 with pid 173938 completed with status 0
% 14.93/2.57 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 14.93/2.57 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 14.93/2.57 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 14.93/2.57 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 14.93/2.57 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 14.93/2.57 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 14.93/2.57 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 14.93/2.57 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 14.93/2.57 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 14.93/2.57 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 14.93/2.57 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 14.93/2.57 % SubtermCWHack with pid 173940 completed with status 0
% 14.93/2.57 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 14.93/2.57 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 14.93/2.57 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 14.93/2.57 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 14.93/2.57 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 14.93/2.57 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 14.93/2.57 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 14.93/2.57 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 14.93/2.57 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 14.93/2.57 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 14.93/2.57 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 14.93/2.57 % Preprocessing time : 0.009 s
% 14.93/2.57
% 14.93/2.57 % Proof found!
% 14.93/2.57 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 14.93/2.57 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 14.93/2.57 % Parsed axioms : 2753
% 14.93/2.57 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 2360
% 14.93/2.57 % Initial clauses : 393
% 14.93/2.57 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 14.93/2.57 % Initial clauses in saturation : 393
% 14.93/2.57 % Processed clauses : 15420
% 14.93/2.57 % ...of these trivial : 295
% 14.93/2.57 % ...subsumed : 13121
% 14.93/2.57 % ...remaining for further processing : 2004
% 14.93/2.57 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 1114
% 14.93/2.57 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 14.93/2.57 % Backward-subsumed : 88
% 14.93/2.57 % Backward-rewritten : 55
% 14.93/2.57 % Generated clauses : 91192
% 14.93/2.57 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 67448
% 14.93/2.57 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 14.93/2.57 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 30
% 14.93/2.57 % Paramodulations : 90008
% 14.93/2.57 % Factorizations : 10
% 14.93/2.57 % NegExts : 0
% 14.93/2.57 % Equation resolutions : 1174
% 14.93/2.57 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 14.93/2.57 % Total rewrite steps : 48573
% 14.93/2.57 % ...of those cached : 45795
% 14.93/2.57 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 14.93/2.57 % Propositional check models : 0
% 14.93/2.57 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 14.93/2.57 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 14.93/2.57 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 14.93/2.57 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 14.93/2.57 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 14.93/2.57 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 14.93/2.57 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 14.93/2.57 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 14.93/2.57 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 14.93/2.57 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 14.93/2.57 % Current number of processed clauses : 1861
% 14.93/2.57 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 318
% 14.93/2.57 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 15
% 14.93/2.57 % Negative unit clauses : 390
% 14.93/2.57 % Non-unit-clauses : 1138
% 14.93/2.57 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 52117
% 14.93/2.57 % ...number of literals in the above : 121438
% 14.93/2.57 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 14.93/2.57 % Current number of archived clauses : 143
% 14.93/2.57 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 322559
% 14.93/2.57 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 230001
% 14.93/2.57 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 4029
% 14.93/2.57 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 83463
% 14.93/2.57 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 14.93/2.57 % BW rewrite match attempts : 1981
% 14.93/2.57 % BW rewrite match successes : 96
% 14.93/2.57 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 14.93/2.57 % Condensation successes : 0
% 14.93/2.57 % Termbank termtop insertions : 1103698
% 14.93/2.57 % Search garbage collected termcells : 7385
% 14.93/2.57
% 14.93/2.57 % -------------------------------------------------
% 14.93/2.57 % User time : 1.861 s
% 14.93/2.57 % System time : 0.071 s
% 14.93/2.57 % Total time : 1.933 s
% 14.93/2.57 % Maximum resident set size: 6176 pages
% 14.93/2.57
% 14.93/2.57 % -------------------------------------------------
% 14.93/2.57 % User time : 1.955 s
% 14.93/2.57 % System time : 0.081 s
% 14.93/2.57 % Total time : 2.036 s
% 14.93/2.57 % Maximum resident set size: 6656 pages
% 14.93/2.57 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------