%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : LCL441-2 : 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 : n026.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 01:12:46 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.26s 0.54s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.26s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 10 ( 4 unt; 0 nHn; 8 RR)
% Number of literals : 16 ( 0 equ; 10 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 5 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 9 ( 9 usr; 4 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 15 ( 2 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_conjecture_3,negated_conjecture,
( ~ c_in(c_PropLog_Opl_Ovar(v_a,t_a),c_PropLog_Othms(c_insert(c_PropLog_Opl_Ovar(v_a,t_a),c_emptyset,tc_PropLog_Opl(t_a)),t_a),tc_PropLog_Opl(t_a))
| ~ c_in(c_PropLog_Opl_Oop_A_N_62(c_PropLog_Opl_Ovar(v_a,t_a),c_PropLog_Opl_Ofalse,t_a),c_PropLog_Othms(c_insert(c_PropLog_Opl_Oop_A_N_62(c_PropLog_Opl_Ovar(v_a,t_a),c_PropLog_Opl_Ofalse,t_a),c_emptyset,tc_PropLog_Opl(t_a)),t_a),tc_PropLog_Opl(t_a)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_3) ).
cnf(cls_PropLog_Othms_OH_0,axiom,
( ~ c_in(X1,X2,tc_PropLog_Opl(X3))
| c_in(X1,c_PropLog_Othms(X2,X3),tc_PropLog_Opl(X3)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_PropLog_Othms_OH_0) ).
cnf(cls_Set_OinsertCI_1,axiom,
c_in(X1,c_insert(X1,X2,X3),X3),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_Set_OinsertCI_1) ).
cnf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
( ~ c_in(c_PropLog_Opl_Ovar(v_a,t_a),c_PropLog_Othms(c_insert(c_PropLog_Opl_Ovar(v_a,t_a),c_emptyset,tc_PropLog_Opl(t_a)),t_a),tc_PropLog_Opl(t_a))
| ~ c_in(c_PropLog_Opl_Oop_A_N_62(c_PropLog_Opl_Ovar(v_a,t_a),c_PropLog_Opl_Ofalse,t_a),c_PropLog_Othms(c_insert(c_PropLog_Opl_Oop_A_N_62(c_PropLog_Opl_Ovar(v_a,t_a),c_PropLog_Opl_Ofalse,t_a),c_emptyset,tc_PropLog_Opl(t_a)),t_a),tc_PropLog_Opl(t_a)) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_4,plain,
( ~ c_in(X1,X2,tc_PropLog_Opl(X3))
| c_in(X1,c_PropLog_Othms(X2,X3),tc_PropLog_Opl(X3)) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_PropLog_Othms_OH_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
( ~ c_in(c_PropLog_Opl_Ovar(v_a,t_a),c_PropLog_Othms(c_insert(c_PropLog_Opl_Ovar(v_a,t_a),c_emptyset,tc_PropLog_Opl(t_a)),t_a),tc_PropLog_Opl(t_a))
| ~ c_in(c_PropLog_Opl_Oop_A_N_62(c_PropLog_Opl_Ovar(v_a,t_a),c_PropLog_Opl_Ofalse,t_a),c_PropLog_Othms(c_insert(c_PropLog_Opl_Oop_A_N_62(c_PropLog_Opl_Ovar(v_a,t_a),c_PropLog_Opl_Ofalse,t_a),c_emptyset,tc_PropLog_Opl(t_a)),t_a),tc_PropLog_Opl(t_a)) ),
c_0_3 ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ c_in(X1,X2,tc_PropLog_Opl(X3))
| c_in(X1,c_PropLog_Othms(X2,X3),tc_PropLog_Opl(X3)) ),
c_0_4 ).
cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
c_in(X1,c_insert(X1,X2,X3),X3),
cls_Set_OinsertCI_1 ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
~ c_in(c_PropLog_Opl_Ovar(v_a,t_a),c_PropLog_Othms(c_insert(c_PropLog_Opl_Ovar(v_a,t_a),c_emptyset,tc_PropLog_Opl(t_a)),t_a),tc_PropLog_Opl(t_a)),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]),c_0_7])]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_6]),c_0_7])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : LCL441-2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.18/0.44 % Computer : n026.cluster.edu
% 0.18/0.44 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.18/0.44 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.18/0.44 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.18/0.44 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.18/0.44 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.18/0.44 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.18/0.44 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 00:35:07 UTC 2026
% 0.18/0.44 % CPUTime :
% 0.18/0.44 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.26/0.51 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.26/0.51 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
% 0.26/0.54 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.26/0.54 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.54 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.54 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.54 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.54 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.54 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.54 % new_bool_3 with pid 983151 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.26/0.54 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.54 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.54 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.54 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.54 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.26/0.54 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.26/0.54 % Search class: FHHNF-FFSF32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.54 % partial match(1): FHUNF-FFSF32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.54 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.26/0.54 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.54 % SubtermCWHack with pid 983156 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.26/0.54 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.54 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.54 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.54 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.54 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.26/0.54 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.26/0.54 % Search class: FHHNF-FFSF32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.54 % partial match(1): FHUNF-FFSF32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.54 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.26/0.54 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.54 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.26/0.54
% 0.26/0.54 % Proof found!
% 0.26/0.54 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.26/0.54 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.26/0.54 % Parsed axioms : 3
% 0.26/0.54 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Initial clauses : 3
% 0.26/0.54 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Initial clauses in saturation : 3
% 0.26/0.54 % Processed clauses : 4
% 0.26/0.54 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % ...remaining for further processing : 4
% 0.26/0.54 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.26/0.54 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Generated clauses : 2
% 0.26/0.54 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1
% 0.26/0.54 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Paramodulations : 2
% 0.26/0.54 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % NegExts : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Total rewrite steps : 2
% 0.26/0.54 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.54 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.54 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.54 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.54 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.54 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.54 % Current number of processed clauses : 3
% 0.26/0.54 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 1
% 0.26/0.54 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.26/0.54 % Non-unit-clauses : 1
% 0.26/0.54 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.26/0.54 % ...number of literals in the above : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.26/0.54 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 2
% 0.26/0.54 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% 0.26/0.54 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.26/0.54 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.26/0.54 % Termbank termtop insertions : 163
% 0.26/0.54 % Search garbage collected termcells : 8
% 0.26/0.54
% 0.26/0.54 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.54 % User time : 0.002 s
% 0.26/0.54 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.26/0.54 % Total time : 0.006 s
% 0.26/0.54 % Maximum resident set size: 3632 pages
% 0.26/0.54
% 0.26/0.54 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.54 % User time : 0.005 s
% 0.26/0.54 % System time : 0.008 s
% 0.26/0.54 % Total time : 0.014 s
% 0.26/0.54 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.26/0.54 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------