%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : LCL484+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v9.2.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n001.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 01:12:53 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.19s 0.51s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.19s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 6
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 23 ( 14 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 36 ( 4 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 26 ( 13 ~; 8 |; 2 &)
% ( 2 <=>; 1 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 6 ( 2 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 6 ( 4 usr; 4 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 7 ( 7 usr; 4 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 22 ( 3 sgn 12 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(hilbert_implies_1,conjecture,
implies_1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',hilbert_implies_1) ).
fof(r2,axiom,
( r2
<=> ! [X4,X5] : is_a_theorem(implies(X5,or(X4,X5))) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/LCL006+0.ax',r2) ).
fof(op_implies_or,axiom,
( op_implies_or
=> ! [X1,X2] : implies(X1,X2) = or(not(X1),X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/LCL006+1.ax',op_implies_or) ).
fof(implies_1,axiom,
( implies_1
<=> ! [X1,X2] : is_a_theorem(implies(X1,implies(X2,X1))) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/LCL006+0.ax',implies_1) ).
fof(principia_r2,axiom,
r2,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/LCL006+4.ax',principia_r2) ).
fof(principia_op_implies_or,axiom,
op_implies_or,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/LCL006+4.ax',principia_op_implies_or) ).
fof(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
~ implies_1,
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[hilbert_implies_1]) ).
fof(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
~ implies_1,
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
fof(c_0_8,plain,
! [X97,X98] :
( ( r2
| ~ is_a_theorem(implies(esk47_0,or(esk46_0,esk47_0))) )
& ( is_a_theorem(implies(X98,or(X97,X98)))
| ~ r2 ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[r2])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_9,plain,
! [X123,X124] :
( implies(X123,X124) = or(not(X123),X124)
| ~ op_implies_or ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[op_implies_or])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_10,plain,
! [X19,X20] :
( ( implies_1
| ~ is_a_theorem(implies(esk7_0,implies(esk8_0,esk7_0))) )
& ( is_a_theorem(implies(X19,implies(X20,X19)))
| ~ implies_1 ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[implies_1])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
~ implies_1,
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( ~ r2
| is_a_theorem(implies(X1,or(X2,X1))) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
r2,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[principia_r2]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
( ~ op_implies_or
| implies(X1,X2) = or(not(X1),X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
op_implies_or,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[principia_op_implies_or]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
( ~ is_a_theorem(implies(esk7_0,implies(esk8_0,esk7_0)))
| implies_1 ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
~ implies_1,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,plain,
is_a_theorem(implies(X1,or(X2,X1))),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13])]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,plain,
or(not(X1),X2) = implies(X1,X2),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15])]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,plain,
~ is_a_theorem(implies(esk7_0,implies(esk8_0,esk7_0))),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,plain,
is_a_theorem(implies(X1,implies(X2,X1))),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_18,c_0_19]) ).
cnf(c_0_22,plain,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_20,c_0_21])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : LCL484+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v9.2.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.38 % Computer : n001.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.38 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.38 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.38 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.12/0.38 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.12/0.38 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.38 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.12/0.38 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 00:39:44 UTC 2026
% 0.12/0.38 % CPUTime :
% 0.12/0.38 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.45 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.12/0.45 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
% 0.19/0.51 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.19/0.51 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSLSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.19/0.51 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.19/0.51 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AI with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.19/0.51 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.19/0.51 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.19/0.51 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.19/0.51 % G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AI with pid 1826877 completed with status 0
% 0.19/0.51 % Result found by G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AI
% 0.19/0.51 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSLSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.19/0.51 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.19/0.51 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AI with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.19/0.51 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.19/0.51 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.19/0.51 % Search class: FGUSF-FFMM21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.19/0.51 % Scheduled 6 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.19/0.51 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 151s (1) cores
% 0.19/0.51 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AI with 750s (1) cores
% 0.19/0.51 % Starting G-E--_107_B42_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_PS_S0YI with 151s (1) cores
% 0.19/0.51 % Starting H----_047_C09_12_F1_AE_ND_CS_SP_S5PRR_S2S with 151s (1) cores
% 0.19/0.51 % Starting U----_207d_00_B07_00_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.19/0.51 % H----_047_C09_12_F1_AE_ND_CS_SP_S5PRR_S2S with pid 1826887 completed with status 0
% 0.19/0.51 % Result found by H----_047_C09_12_F1_AE_ND_CS_SP_S5PRR_S2S
% 0.19/0.51 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSLSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.19/0.51 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.19/0.51 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AI with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.19/0.51 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.19/0.51 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.19/0.51 % Search class: FGUSF-FFMM21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.19/0.51 % Scheduled 6 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.19/0.51 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 151s (1) cores
% 0.19/0.51 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AI with 750s (1) cores
% 0.19/0.51 % Starting G-E--_107_B42_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_PS_S0YI with 151s (1) cores
% 0.19/0.51 % Starting H----_047_C09_12_F1_AE_ND_CS_SP_S5PRR_S2S with 151s (1) cores
% 0.19/0.51 % Preprocessing time : 0.003 s
% 0.19/0.51 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.19/0.51
% 0.19/0.51 % Proof found!
% 0.19/0.51 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.19/0.51 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.19/0.51 % Parsed axioms : 45
% 0.19/0.51 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.19/0.51 % Initial clauses : 74
% 0.19/0.51 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.19/0.51 % Initial clauses in saturation : 74
% 0.19/0.51 % Processed clauses : 106
% 0.19/0.51 % ...of these trivial : 12
% 0.19/0.51 % ...subsumed : 1
% 0.19/0.51 % ...remaining for further processing : 93
% 0.19/0.51 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.19/0.51 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.19/0.51 % Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.19/0.51 % Backward-rewritten : 2
% 0.19/0.51 % Generated clauses : 27
% 0.19/0.51 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 25
% 0.19/0.51 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.19/0.51 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.19/0.51 % Paramodulations : 27
% 0.19/0.51 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.19/0.51 % NegExts : 0
% 0.19/0.51 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.19/0.51 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.19/0.51 % Total rewrite steps : 40
% 0.19/0.51 % ...of those cached : 10
% 0.19/0.51 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.19/0.51 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.19/0.51 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.19/0.51 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.19/0.51 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.19/0.51 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.19/0.51 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.19/0.51 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.19/0.51 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.19/0.51 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.19/0.51 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.19/0.51 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.19/0.51 % Current number of processed clauses : 30
% 0.19/0.51 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 21
% 0.19/0.51 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.19/0.51 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.19/0.51 % Non-unit-clauses : 8
% 0.19/0.51 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 53
% 0.19/0.51 % ...number of literals in the above : 85
% 0.19/0.51 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.19/0.51 % Current number of archived clauses : 63
% 0.19/0.51 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 48
% 0.19/0.51 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 47
% 0.19/0.51 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.19/0.51 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 5
% 0.19/0.51 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.19/0.51 % BW rewrite match attempts : 10
% 0.19/0.51 % BW rewrite match successes : 3
% 0.19/0.51 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.19/0.51 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.19/0.51 % Termbank termtop insertions : 4944
% 0.19/0.51 % Search garbage collected termcells : 1092
% 0.19/0.51
% 0.19/0.51 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.19/0.51 % User time : 0.018 s
% 0.19/0.51 % System time : 0.007 s
% 0.19/0.51 % Total time : 0.025 s
% 0.19/0.51 % Maximum resident set size: 3944 pages
% 0.19/0.51
% 0.19/0.51 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.19/0.51 % User time : 0.040 s
% 0.19/0.51 % System time : 0.019 s
% 0.19/0.51 % Total time : 0.059 s
% 0.19/0.51 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.19/0.51 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------