%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : LCL686+1.001 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n009.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 01:16:11 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.24s 0.54s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.24s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 8
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 17 ( 7 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 114 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 29 ( 6 avg)
% Number of connectives : 189 ( 92 ~; 72 |; 25 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 21 ( 7 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 6 ( 4 usr; 2 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 7 ( 7 usr; 4 con; 0-1 aty)
% Number of variables : 39 ( 0 sgn 28 !; 3 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(main,conjecture,
~ ? [X1] :
~ ( ! [X2] :
( ~ ! [X1] :
( ~ ( ! [X2] :
( ( p1(X2)
& p2(X2) )
| ( ~ p2(X2)
& ~ p1(X2) )
| ~ r1(X1,X2) )
| ! [X2] :
( p3(X2)
| ~ r1(X1,X2) )
| ~ ! [X2] :
( ~ ( ( p1(X2)
& ~ p2(X2) )
| ( ~ p1(X2)
& p2(X2) ) )
| ~ r1(X1,X2) )
| ! [X2] :
( ~ $true
| ~ r1(X1,X2) ) )
| ~ r1(X2,X1) )
| ~ r1(X1,X2) )
| ! [X2] :
( ! [X1] :
( ~ p1(X1)
| ~ r1(X2,X1) )
| ~ p3(X2)
| ~ r1(X1,X2) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',main) ).
fof(reflexivity,axiom,
! [X1] : r1(X1,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',reflexivity) ).
fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ ~ ? [X1] :
~ ( ! [X2] :
( ~ ! [X1] :
( ~ ( ! [X2] :
( ( p1(X2)
& p2(X2) )
| ( ~ p2(X2)
& ~ p1(X2) )
| ~ r1(X1,X2) )
| ! [X2] :
( p3(X2)
| ~ r1(X1,X2) )
| ~ ! [X2] :
( ~ ( ( p1(X2)
& ~ p2(X2) )
| ( ~ p1(X2)
& p2(X2) ) )
| ~ r1(X1,X2) )
| ! [X2] :
( ~ $true
| ~ r1(X1,X2) ) )
| ~ r1(X2,X1) )
| ~ r1(X1,X2) )
| ! [X2] :
( ! [X1] :
( ~ p1(X1)
| ~ r1(X2,X1) )
| ~ p3(X2)
| ~ r1(X1,X2) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[main]) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ~ ? [X1] :
~ ( ! [X2] :
( ~ ! [X1] :
( ~ ( ! [X2] :
( ( p1(X2)
& p2(X2) )
| ( ~ p2(X2)
& ~ p1(X2) )
| ~ r1(X1,X2) )
| ! [X2] :
( p3(X2)
| ~ r1(X1,X2) )
| ~ ! [X2] :
( ~ ( ( p1(X2)
& ~ p2(X2) )
| ( ~ p1(X2)
& p2(X2) ) )
| ~ r1(X1,X2) )
| ! [X2] :
( ~ $true
| ~ r1(X1,X2) ) )
| ~ r1(X2,X1) )
| ~ r1(X1,X2) )
| ! [X2] :
( ! [X1] :
( ~ p1(X1)
| ~ r1(X2,X1) )
| ~ p3(X2)
| ~ r1(X1,X2) ) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
! [X12,X14] :
( ( ~ r1(esk4_0,X12)
| ~ p1(esk7_1(X12))
| ~ p2(esk7_1(X12)) )
& ( ~ r1(esk4_0,X12)
| p2(esk7_1(X12))
| p1(esk7_1(X12)) )
& ( ~ r1(esk4_0,X12)
| r1(X12,esk7_1(X12)) )
& ( ~ r1(esk4_0,X12)
| ~ p3(esk6_1(X12)) )
& ( ~ r1(esk4_0,X12)
| r1(X12,esk6_1(X12)) )
& ( ~ r1(esk4_0,X12)
| ~ r1(X12,X14)
| ~ p1(X14)
| p2(X14) )
& ( ~ r1(esk4_0,X12)
| ~ r1(X12,X14)
| p1(X14)
| ~ p2(X14) )
& ( ~ r1(esk4_0,X12)
| $true )
& ( ~ r1(esk4_0,X12)
| r1(X12,esk5_1(X12)) )
& r1(esk1_0,esk4_0)
& p1(esk3_0)
& r1(esk2_0,esk3_0)
& p3(esk2_0)
& r1(esk1_0,esk2_0) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X4] : r1(X4,X4),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[reflexivity]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( ~ r1(esk4_0,X1)
| r1(X1,esk7_1(X1)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
r1(X1,X1),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
( ~ r1(esk4_0,X1)
| p2(esk7_1(X1))
| p1(esk7_1(X1)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
( ~ r1(esk4_0,X2)
| ~ r1(X2,X1)
| ~ p2(X1)
| p1(X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
r1(esk4_0,esk7_1(esk4_0)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
( p1(esk7_1(esk4_0))
| p2(esk7_1(esk4_0)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
( ~ r1(esk4_0,X2)
| ~ r1(X2,X1)
| ~ p1(X1)
| p2(X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
p1(esk7_1(esk4_0)),
inference(csr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_7])]),c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
( ~ r1(esk4_0,X1)
| ~ p1(esk7_1(X1))
| ~ p2(esk7_1(X1)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
p2(esk7_1(esk4_0)),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_10]),c_0_7])]),c_0_13])]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]),c_0_13]),c_0_7])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : LCL686+1.001 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.18/0.45 % Computer : n009.cluster.edu
% 0.18/0.45 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.18/0.45 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.18/0.45 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.18/0.45 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.18/0.45 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.18/0.45 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.18/0.45 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 00:57:42 UTC 2026
% 0.18/0.45 % CPUTime :
% 0.18/0.45 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.24/0.52 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.24/0.52 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
% 0.24/0.54 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.24/0.54 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.54 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.54 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.54 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.54 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.54 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.54 % G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with pid 497087 completed with status 0
% 0.24/0.54 % Result found by G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
% 0.24/0.54 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.54 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.54 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.54 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.24/0.54 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.24/0.54 % Search class: FGHNF-FFSS11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.24/0.54 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.24/0.54 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.54 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.54 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.54 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.54 % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.54 % new_bool_1 with pid 497095 completed with status 0
% 0.24/0.54 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.24/0.54 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.54 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.54 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.54 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.24/0.54 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.24/0.54 % Search class: FGHNF-FFSS11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.24/0.54 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.24/0.54 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.54 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.54 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.54 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.54 % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.54 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.24/0.54 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.24/0.54
% 0.24/0.54 % Proof found!
% 0.24/0.54 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.24/0.54 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.24/0.54 % Parsed axioms : 3
% 0.24/0.54 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.24/0.54 % Initial clauses : 16
% 0.24/0.54 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 1
% 0.24/0.54 % Initial clauses in saturation : 15
% 0.24/0.54 % Processed clauses : 46
% 0.24/0.54 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.24/0.54 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.24/0.54 % ...remaining for further processing : 46
% 0.24/0.54 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.24/0.54 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.24/0.54 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.24/0.54 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.24/0.54 % Generated clauses : 50
% 0.24/0.54 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 46
% 0.24/0.54 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.24/0.54 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 1
% 0.24/0.54 % Paramodulations : 50
% 0.24/0.54 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.24/0.54 % NegExts : 0
% 0.24/0.54 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.24/0.54 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.24/0.54 % Total rewrite steps : 15
% 0.24/0.54 % ...of those cached : 11
% 0.24/0.54 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.24/0.54 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.24/0.54 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.24/0.54 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.24/0.54 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.24/0.54 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.24/0.54 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.54 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.54 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.54 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.54 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.54 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.54 % Current number of processed clauses : 30
% 0.24/0.54 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 12
% 0.24/0.54 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.24/0.54 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.24/0.54 % Non-unit-clauses : 18
% 0.24/0.54 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 30
% 0.24/0.54 % ...number of literals in the above : 56
% 0.24/0.54 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.24/0.54 % Current number of archived clauses : 16
% 0.24/0.54 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 86
% 0.24/0.54 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 64
% 0.24/0.54 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 1
% 0.24/0.54 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 7
% 0.24/0.54 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.24/0.54 % BW rewrite match attempts : 6
% 0.24/0.54 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.24/0.54 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.24/0.54 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.24/0.54 % Termbank termtop insertions : 1683
% 0.24/0.54 % Search garbage collected termcells : 237
% 0.24/0.54
% 0.24/0.54 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/0.54 % User time : 0.005 s
% 0.24/0.54 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.24/0.54 % Total time : 0.007 s
% 0.24/0.54 % Maximum resident set size: 3632 pages
% 0.24/0.54
% 0.24/0.54 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/0.54 % User time : 0.020 s
% 0.24/0.54 % System time : 0.018 s
% 0.24/0.54 % Total time : 0.038 s
% 0.24/0.54 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.24/0.54 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------