%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : LCL755-1 : 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 : 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 01:16:20 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.26s 0.64s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.26s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 3
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 9 ( 6 unt; 0 nHn; 7 RR)
% Number of literals : 12 ( 0 equ; 6 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 5 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-1 aty)
% Number of functors : 7 ( 7 usr; 3 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 7 ( 4 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_conjecture_2,negated_conjecture,
~ c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(c_Lambda_Osubst(v_ra,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(c_Suc(v_ia)),c_Suc(v_ja)))),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_2) ).
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_conjecture_1,negated_conjecture,
c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_Osubst(v_ra,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X1),X2)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_1) ).
cnf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(c_Lambda_Osubst(v_ra,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(c_Suc(v_ia)),c_Suc(v_ja)))),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_4,plain,
( ~ c_InductTermi_OIT(X1)
| c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(X1)) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_Lambda_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(c_Lambda_Osubst(v_ra,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(c_Suc(v_ia)),c_Suc(v_ja)))),
c_0_3 ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ c_InductTermi_OIT(X1)
| c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(X1)) ),
c_0_4 ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_Osubst(v_ra,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X1),X2)),
cls_conjecture_1 ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]),c_0_7])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.04 % Problem : LCL755-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.06 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.41 % Computer : n026.cluster.edu
% 0.15/0.41 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.15/0.41 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.15/0.41 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.15/0.41 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.15/0.41 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.15/0.41 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.15/0.41 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 01:04:38 UTC 2026
% 0.15/0.41 % CPUTime :
% 0.15/0.41 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.48 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/0.49 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
% 0.26/0.64 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.26/0.64 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.64 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.64 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.64 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.64 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.64 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.64 % sh5l with pid 1024197 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.64 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.26/0.64 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.64 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.64 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.64 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.64 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.64 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.64 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.26/0.64 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.26/0.64 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.64 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.26/0.64 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.64 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1024198 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.64 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.26/0.64 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.64 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.64 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.64 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.64 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.64 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.64 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.26/0.64 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.26/0.64 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.64 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.26/0.64 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.64 % Preprocessing time : 0.010 s
% 0.26/0.64
% 0.26/0.64 % Proof found!
% 0.26/0.64 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.26/0.64 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.26/0.64 % Parsed axioms : 755
% 0.26/0.64 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 239
% 0.26/0.64 % Initial clauses : 516
% 0.26/0.64 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.26/0.64 % Initial clauses in saturation : 516
% 0.26/0.64 % Processed clauses : 348
% 0.26/0.64 % ...of these trivial : 26
% 0.26/0.64 % ...subsumed : 165
% 0.26/0.64 % ...remaining for further processing : 157
% 0.26/0.64 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.26/0.64 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.26/0.64 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.26/0.64 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.26/0.64 % Generated clauses : 562
% 0.26/0.64 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 307
% 0.26/0.64 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.26/0.64 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.26/0.64 % Paramodulations : 555
% 0.26/0.64 % Factorizations : 2
% 0.26/0.64 % NegExts : 0
% 0.26/0.64 % Equation resolutions : 5
% 0.26/0.64 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.26/0.64 % Total rewrite steps : 336
% 0.26/0.64 % ...of those cached : 268
% 0.26/0.64 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.26/0.64 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.26/0.64 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.26/0.64 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.26/0.64 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.26/0.64 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.26/0.64 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.64 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.64 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.64 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.64 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.64 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.64 % Current number of processed clauses : 157
% 0.26/0.64 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 63
% 0.26/0.64 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 2
% 0.26/0.64 % Negative unit clauses : 37
% 0.26/0.64 % Non-unit-clauses : 55
% 0.26/0.64 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 475
% 0.26/0.64 % ...number of literals in the above : 1044
% 0.26/0.64 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.26/0.64 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.26/0.64 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 591
% 0.26/0.64 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 557
% 0.26/0.64 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 20
% 0.26/0.64 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 256
% 0.26/0.64 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.26/0.64 % BW rewrite match attempts : 46
% 0.26/0.64 % BW rewrite match successes : 22
% 0.26/0.64 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.26/0.64 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.26/0.64 % Termbank termtop insertions : 21752
% 0.26/0.64 % Search garbage collected termcells : 1542
% 0.26/0.64
% 0.26/0.64 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.64 % User time : 0.032 s
% 0.26/0.64 % System time : 0.012 s
% 0.26/0.64 % Total time : 0.044 s
% 0.26/0.64 % Maximum resident set size: 4332 pages
% 0.26/0.64
% 0.26/0.64 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.64 % User time : 0.068 s
% 0.26/0.64 % System time : 0.021 s
% 0.26/0.64 % Total time : 0.088 s
% 0.26/0.64 % Maximum resident set size: 5120 pages
% 0.26/0.64 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------