%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : LCL760-1 : 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 : n017.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 01:16:21 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.17s 0.52s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.17s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 10 ( 10 unt; 0 nHn; 5 RR)
% Number of literals : 10 ( 2 equ; 4 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 12 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 20 ( 20 usr; 10 con; 0-5 aty)
% Number of variables : 8 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_conjecture_4,negated_conjecture,
~ hBOOL(hAPP(c_InductTermi_OIT,c_List_Ofoldl(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Osubst,hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Osubst,v_ra),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(c_Suc(v_ia))),c_Suc(v_ja))),hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Osubst,v_s),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(v_ia)),v_ja)),c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),c_List_Omap(c_COMBC(c_COMBC(c_Lambda_Osubst,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(v_ia),tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_fun(tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB)),v_ja,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB),v_ss,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB),tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB))),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_4) ).
cnf(cls_Suc__eq__plus1_0,axiom,
c_Suc(X1) = hAPP(hAPP(c_HOL_Oplus__class_Oplus(tc_nat),X1),c_HOL_Oone__class_Oone(tc_nat)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_Suc__eq__plus1_0) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_1,negated_conjecture,
hBOOL(hAPP(c_InductTermi_OIT,c_List_Ofoldl(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Osubst,hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Osubst,v_ra),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(c_Suc(X1))),c_Suc(X2))),hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Osubst,v_s),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X1)),X2)),c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),c_List_Omap(c_COMBC(c_COMBC(c_Lambda_Osubst,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X1),tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_fun(tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB)),X2,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB),v_ss,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB),tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB))),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_1) ).
cnf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ hBOOL(hAPP(c_InductTermi_OIT,c_List_Ofoldl(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Osubst,hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Osubst,v_ra),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(c_Suc(v_ia))),c_Suc(v_ja))),hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Osubst,v_s),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(v_ia)),v_ja)),c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),c_List_Omap(c_COMBC(c_COMBC(c_Lambda_Osubst,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(v_ia),tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_fun(tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB)),v_ja,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB),v_ss,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB),tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB))),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ hBOOL(hAPP(c_InductTermi_OIT,c_List_Ofoldl(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Osubst,hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Osubst,v_ra),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(c_Suc(v_ia))),c_Suc(v_ja))),hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Osubst,v_s),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(v_ia)),v_ja)),c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),c_List_Omap(c_COMBC(c_COMBC(c_Lambda_Osubst,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(v_ia),tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_fun(tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB)),v_ja,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB),v_ss,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB),tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB))),
c_0_3 ).
cnf(c_0_5,axiom,
c_Suc(X1) = hAPP(hAPP(c_HOL_Oplus__class_Oplus(tc_nat),X1),c_HOL_Oone__class_Oone(tc_nat)),
cls_Suc__eq__plus1_0 ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
hBOOL(hAPP(c_InductTermi_OIT,c_List_Ofoldl(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Osubst,hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Osubst,v_ra),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(c_Suc(X1))),c_Suc(X2))),hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Osubst,v_s),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X1)),X2)),c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),c_List_Omap(c_COMBC(c_COMBC(c_Lambda_Osubst,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X1),tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_fun(tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB)),X2,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB),v_ss,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB),tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB))),
cls_conjecture_1 ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
~ hBOOL(hAPP(c_InductTermi_OIT,c_List_Ofoldl(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Osubst,hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Osubst,v_ra),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(hAPP(hAPP(c_HOL_Oplus__class_Oplus(tc_nat),v_ia),c_HOL_Oone__class_Oone(tc_nat)))),hAPP(hAPP(c_HOL_Oplus__class_Oplus(tc_nat),v_ja),c_HOL_Oone__class_Oone(tc_nat)))),hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Osubst,v_s),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(v_ia)),v_ja)),c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),c_List_Omap(c_COMBC(c_COMBC(c_Lambda_Osubst,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(v_ia),tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_fun(tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB)),v_ja,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB),v_ss,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB),tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB))),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_5]),c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
hBOOL(hAPP(c_InductTermi_OIT,c_List_Ofoldl(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Osubst,hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Osubst,v_ra),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(hAPP(hAPP(c_HOL_Oplus__class_Oplus(tc_nat),X1),c_HOL_Oone__class_Oone(tc_nat)))),hAPP(hAPP(c_HOL_Oplus__class_Oplus(tc_nat),X2),c_HOL_Oone__class_Oone(tc_nat)))),hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_Osubst,v_s),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X1)),X2)),c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),c_List_Omap(c_COMBC(c_COMBC(c_Lambda_Osubst,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X1),tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_fun(tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB)),X2,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB),v_ss,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB),tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB))),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_5]),c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : LCL760-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.37 % Computer : n017.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.37 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 00:57:41 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.41 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.10/0.41 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
% 0.17/0.52 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.17/0.52 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.17/0.52 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.17/0.52 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.17/0.52 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.17/0.52 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.17/0.52 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.17/0.52 % C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with pid 1075222 completed with status 0
% 0.17/0.52 % Result found by C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr
% 0.17/0.52 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.17/0.52 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.17/0.52 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.17/0.52 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.17/0.52 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.17/0.52 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-DFFFFFNN
% 0.17/0.52 % Scheduled 13 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.17/0.52 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.17/0.52 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 0.17/0.52 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 113s (1) cores
% 0.17/0.52 % Starting G-E--_300_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with 113s (1) cores
% 0.17/0.52 % Starting U----_206c_05_B11_00_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 113s (1) cores
% 0.17/0.52 % G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with pid 1075236 completed with status 0
% 0.17/0.52 % Result found by G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S
% 0.17/0.52 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.17/0.52 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.17/0.52 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.17/0.52 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.17/0.52 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.17/0.52 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-DFFFFFNN
% 0.17/0.52 % Scheduled 13 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.17/0.52 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.17/0.52 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 0.17/0.52 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 113s (1) cores
% 0.17/0.52 % Preprocessing time : 0.011 s
% 0.17/0.52 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.17/0.52
% 0.17/0.52 % Proof found!
% 0.17/0.52 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.17/0.52 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.17/0.52 % Parsed axioms : 651
% 0.17/0.52 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.17/0.52 % Initial clauses : 651
% 0.17/0.52 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 2
% 0.17/0.52 % Initial clauses in saturation : 649
% 0.17/0.52 % Processed clauses : 543
% 0.17/0.52 % ...of these trivial : 33
% 0.17/0.52 % ...subsumed : 74
% 0.17/0.52 % ...remaining for further processing : 436
% 0.17/0.52 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.17/0.52 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.17/0.52 % Backward-subsumed : 7
% 0.17/0.52 % Backward-rewritten : 8
% 0.17/0.52 % Generated clauses : 0
% 0.17/0.52 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1
% 0.17/0.52 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.17/0.52 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.17/0.52 % Paramodulations : 0
% 0.17/0.52 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.17/0.52 % NegExts : 0
% 0.17/0.52 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.17/0.52 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.17/0.52 % Total rewrite steps : 138
% 0.17/0.52 % ...of those cached : 78
% 0.17/0.52 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.17/0.52 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.17/0.52 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.17/0.52 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.17/0.52 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.17/0.52 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.17/0.52 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.17/0.52 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.17/0.52 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.17/0.52 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.17/0.52 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.17/0.52 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.17/0.52 % Current number of processed clauses : 421
% 0.17/0.52 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 89
% 0.17/0.52 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 6
% 0.17/0.52 % Negative unit clauses : 12
% 0.17/0.52 % Non-unit-clauses : 314
% 0.17/0.52 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 107
% 0.17/0.52 % ...number of literals in the above : 294
% 0.17/0.52 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.17/0.52 % Current number of archived clauses : 17
% 0.17/0.52 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 8288
% 0.17/0.52 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 6232
% 0.17/0.52 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 69
% 0.17/0.52 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 123
% 0.17/0.52 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.17/0.52 % BW rewrite match attempts : 125
% 0.17/0.52 % BW rewrite match successes : 59
% 0.17/0.52 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.17/0.52 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.17/0.52 % Termbank termtop insertions : 27235
% 0.17/0.52 % Search garbage collected termcells : 1115
% 0.17/0.52
% 0.17/0.52 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.17/0.52 % User time : 0.059 s
% 0.17/0.52 % System time : 0.010 s
% 0.17/0.52 % Total time : 0.069 s
% 0.17/0.52 % Maximum resident set size: 4884 pages
% 0.17/0.52
% 0.17/0.52 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.17/0.52 % User time : 0.245 s
% 0.17/0.52 % System time : 0.039 s
% 0.17/0.52 % Total time : 0.284 s
% 0.17/0.52 % Maximum resident set size: 5120 pages
% 0.17/0.52 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------