%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : LCL748-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n011.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 01:16:19 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.32s 20.54s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.32s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 6
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 18 ( 14 unt; 0 nHn; 10 RR)
% Number of literals : 22 ( 8 equ; 7 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 5 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 9 ( 9 usr; 3 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 16 ( 2 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_Suc__eq__plus1_0,axiom,
c_Suc(X1) = c_HOL_Oplus__class_Oplus(X1,c_HOL_Oone__class_Oone(tc_nat),tc_nat),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_Suc__eq__plus1_0) ).
cnf(cls_One__nat__def_0,axiom,
c_HOL_Oone__class_Oone(tc_nat) = c_Suc(c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_One__nat__def_0) ).
cnf(cls_Lambda_0,axiom,
( ~ c_InductTermi_OIT(X1)
| c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(X1)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_Lambda_0) ).
cnf(cls_lift_Osimps_I3_J_0,axiom,
c_Lambda_Olift(c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(X1),X2) = c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(c_Lambda_Olift(X1,c_HOL_Oplus__class_Oplus(X2,c_HOL_Oone__class_Oone(tc_nat),tc_nat))),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_lift_Osimps_I3_J_0) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_2,negated_conjecture,
~ c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_Olift(c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(v_r),v_ia)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_2) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_1,negated_conjecture,
c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_Olift(v_r,X1)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_1) ).
cnf(c_0_6,axiom,
c_Suc(X1) = c_HOL_Oplus__class_Oplus(X1,c_HOL_Oone__class_Oone(tc_nat),tc_nat),
cls_Suc__eq__plus1_0 ).
cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
c_HOL_Oone__class_Oone(tc_nat) = c_Suc(c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),
cls_One__nat__def_0 ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ c_InductTermi_OIT(X1)
| c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(X1)) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_Lambda_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,axiom,
c_Lambda_Olift(c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(X1),X2) = c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(c_Lambda_Olift(X1,c_HOL_Oplus__class_Oplus(X2,c_HOL_Oone__class_Oone(tc_nat),tc_nat))),
cls_lift_Osimps_I3_J_0 ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
c_HOL_Oplus__class_Oplus(X1,c_Suc(c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),tc_nat) = c_Suc(X1),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
~ c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_Olift(c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(v_r),v_ia)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( ~ c_InductTermi_OIT(X1)
| c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(X1)) ),
c_0_8 ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(c_Lambda_Olift(X1,c_Suc(X2))) = c_Lambda_Olift(c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(X1),X2),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_7]),c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
~ c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_Olift(c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(v_r),v_ia)),
c_0_11 ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
( ~ c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_Olift(X1,c_Suc(X2)))
| c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_Olift(c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(X1),X2)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_Olift(v_r,X1)),
cls_conjecture_1 ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]),c_0_16])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : LCL748-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/0.34 % Computer : n011.cluster.edu
% 0.08/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.08/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.08/0.34 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.08/0.34 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/20.42 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/20.42 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.09/20.42 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 01:01:46 UTC 2026
% 0.09/20.43 % CPUTime :
% 0.09/20.43 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/20.47 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.09/20.47 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
% 0.32/20.54 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.32/20.54 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.32/20.54 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.32/20.54 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.32/20.54 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.32/20.54 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.32/20.54 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.32/20.54 % new_bool_3 with pid 1264962 completed with status 0
% 0.32/20.54 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.32/20.54 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.32/20.54 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.32/20.54 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.32/20.54 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.32/20.54 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.32/20.54 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.32/20.54 % Search class: FGHSM-FFLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.32/20.54 % Scheduled 9 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.32/20.54 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.32/20.54 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1264965 completed with status 0
% 0.32/20.54 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.32/20.54 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.32/20.54 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.32/20.54 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.32/20.54 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.32/20.54 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.32/20.54 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.32/20.54 % Search class: FGHSM-FFLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.32/20.54 % Scheduled 9 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.32/20.54 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.32/20.54 % Preprocessing time : 0.003 s
% 0.32/20.54
% 0.32/20.54 % Proof found!
% 0.32/20.54 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.32/20.54 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.32/20.54 % Parsed axioms : 370
% 0.32/20.54 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 184
% 0.32/20.54 % Initial clauses : 186
% 0.32/20.54 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.32/20.54 % Initial clauses in saturation : 186
% 0.32/20.54 % Processed clauses : 818
% 0.32/20.54 % ...of these trivial : 62
% 0.32/20.54 % ...subsumed : 545
% 0.32/20.54 % ...remaining for further processing : 211
% 0.32/20.54 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 20
% 0.32/20.54 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.32/20.54 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.32/20.54 % Backward-rewritten : 21
% 0.32/20.54 % Generated clauses : 1982
% 0.32/20.54 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1557
% 0.32/20.54 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.32/20.54 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.32/20.54 % Paramodulations : 1951
% 0.32/20.54 % Factorizations : 4
% 0.32/20.54 % NegExts : 0
% 0.32/20.54 % Equation resolutions : 27
% 0.32/20.54 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.32/20.54 % Total rewrite steps : 1326
% 0.32/20.54 % ...of those cached : 1151
% 0.32/20.54 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.32/20.54 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.32/20.54 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.32/20.54 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.32/20.54 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.32/20.54 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.32/20.54 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.32/20.54 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.32/20.54 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.32/20.54 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.32/20.54 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.32/20.54 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.32/20.54 % Current number of processed clauses : 190
% 0.32/20.54 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 53
% 0.32/20.54 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 2
% 0.32/20.54 % Negative unit clauses : 64
% 0.32/20.54 % Non-unit-clauses : 71
% 0.32/20.54 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 908
% 0.32/20.54 % ...number of literals in the above : 1602
% 0.32/20.54 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.32/20.54 % Current number of archived clauses : 21
% 0.32/20.54 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1384
% 0.32/20.54 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1352
% 0.32/20.54 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 80
% 0.32/20.54 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 820
% 0.32/20.54 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.32/20.54 % BW rewrite match attempts : 124
% 0.32/20.54 % BW rewrite match successes : 28
% 0.32/20.54 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.32/20.54 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.32/20.54 % Termbank termtop insertions : 25476
% 0.32/20.54 % Search garbage collected termcells : 866
% 0.32/20.54
% 0.32/20.54 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.32/20.54 % User time : 0.030 s
% 0.32/20.54 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.32/20.54 % Total time : 0.034 s
% 0.32/20.54 % Maximum resident set size: 4084 pages
% 0.32/20.54
% 0.32/20.54 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.32/20.54 % User time : 0.040 s
% 0.32/20.54 % System time : 0.008 s
% 0.32/20.54 % Total time : 0.048 s
% 0.32/20.54 % Maximum resident set size: 5120 pages
% 0.32/20.54 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------