%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : LCL787-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/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 01:23:20 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 9.81s 1.88s
% Output : CNFRefutation 9.81s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 6
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 20 ( 9 unt; 0 nHn; 20 RR)
% Number of literals : 34 ( 2 equ; 19 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 2 usr; 2 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 15 ( 15 usr; 10 con; 0-5 aty)
% Number of variables : 29 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_that_0,axiom,
( ~ c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_e____,v_i____,v_T____,tc_Type_Otype),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(v_n____),hAPP(hAPP(c_Type_Otype_OFun,X1),c_List_Ofoldr(c_Type_Otype_OFun,v_Ts____,v_T_H____,tc_Type_Otype,tc_Type_Otype)))
| ~ c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_e____,v_i____,v_T____,tc_Type_Otype),v_a____,X1)
| v_thesis____ ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_that_0) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
~ v_thesis____,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_0) ).
cnf(cls_True_0,axiom,
v_n____ = v_i____,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_True_0) ).
cnf(cls_typing__elims_I2_J_0,axiom,
( ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,X2),X4),X3)
| c_Type_Otyping(X1,X2,hAPP(hAPP(c_Type_Otype_OFun,c_Type_Osko__Type__Xtyping__elims__2__1(X3,X1,X2,X4)),X3)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_typing__elims_I2_J_0) ).
cnf(cls_typing__elims_I2_J_1,axiom,
( ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,X4),X2),X3)
| c_Type_Otyping(X1,X2,c_Type_Osko__Type__Xtyping__elims__2__1(X3,X1,X4,X2)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_typing__elims_I2_J_1) ).
cnf(cls_headT_0,axiom,
c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_e____,v_i____,v_T____,tc_Type_Otype),hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(v_n____)),v_a____),c_List_Ofoldr(c_Type_Otype_OFun,v_Ts____,v_T_H____,tc_Type_Otype,tc_Type_Otype)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_headT_0) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_e____,v_i____,v_T____,tc_Type_Otype),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(v_n____),hAPP(hAPP(c_Type_Otype_OFun,X1),c_List_Ofoldr(c_Type_Otype_OFun,v_Ts____,v_T_H____,tc_Type_Otype,tc_Type_Otype)))
| ~ c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_e____,v_i____,v_T____,tc_Type_Otype),v_a____,X1)
| v_thesis____ ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_that_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
~ v_thesis____,
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_e____,v_i____,v_T____,tc_Type_Otype),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(v_n____),hAPP(hAPP(c_Type_Otype_OFun,X1),c_List_Ofoldr(c_Type_Otype_OFun,v_Ts____,v_T_H____,tc_Type_Otype,tc_Type_Otype)))
| ~ c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_e____,v_i____,v_T____,tc_Type_Otype),v_a____,X1)
| v_thesis____ ),
c_0_6 ).
cnf(c_0_9,axiom,
v_n____ = v_i____,
cls_True_0 ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
~ v_thesis____,
c_0_7 ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,X2),X4),X3)
| c_Type_Otyping(X1,X2,hAPP(hAPP(c_Type_Otype_OFun,c_Type_Osko__Type__Xtyping__elims__2__1(X3,X1,X2,X4)),X3)) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_typing__elims_I2_J_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( ~ c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_e____,v_i____,v_T____,tc_Type_Otype),v_a____,X1)
| ~ c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_e____,v_i____,v_T____,tc_Type_Otype),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(v_i____),hAPP(hAPP(c_Type_Otype_OFun,X1),c_List_Ofoldr(c_Type_Otype_OFun,v_Ts____,v_T_H____,tc_Type_Otype,tc_Type_Otype))) ),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]),c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
( ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,X2),X4),X3)
| c_Type_Otyping(X1,X2,hAPP(hAPP(c_Type_Otype_OFun,c_Type_Osko__Type__Xtyping__elims__2__1(X3,X1,X2,X4)),X3)) ),
c_0_11 ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
( ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,X4),X2),X3)
| c_Type_Otyping(X1,X2,c_Type_Osko__Type__Xtyping__elims__2__1(X3,X1,X4,X2)) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_typing__elims_I2_J_1]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,axiom,
c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_e____,v_i____,v_T____,tc_Type_Otype),hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(v_n____)),v_a____),c_List_Ofoldr(c_Type_Otype_OFun,v_Ts____,v_T_H____,tc_Type_Otype,tc_Type_Otype)),
cls_headT_0 ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
( ~ c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_e____,v_i____,v_T____,tc_Type_Otype),hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(v_i____)),X1),c_List_Ofoldr(c_Type_Otype_OFun,v_Ts____,v_T_H____,tc_Type_Otype,tc_Type_Otype))
| ~ c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_e____,v_i____,v_T____,tc_Type_Otype),v_a____,c_Type_Osko__Type__Xtyping__elims__2__1(c_List_Ofoldr(c_Type_Otype_OFun,v_Ts____,v_T_H____,tc_Type_Otype,tc_Type_Otype),c_Type_Oshift(v_e____,v_i____,v_T____,tc_Type_Otype),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(v_i____),X1)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,plain,
( ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,X4),X2),X3)
| c_Type_Otyping(X1,X2,c_Type_Osko__Type__Xtyping__elims__2__1(X3,X1,X4,X2)) ),
c_0_14 ).
cnf(c_0_18,plain,
c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_e____,v_i____,v_T____,tc_Type_Otype),hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(v_i____)),v_a____),c_List_Ofoldr(c_Type_Otype_OFun,v_Ts____,v_T_H____,tc_Type_Otype,tc_Type_Otype)),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,plain,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]),c_0_18])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : LCL787-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.21/0.47 % Computer : n011.cluster.edu
% 0.21/0.47 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.21/0.47 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.21/0.47 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.21/0.47 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.21/0.47 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.21/0.47 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.21/0.47 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 01:04:10 UTC 2026
% 0.21/0.47 % CPUTime :
% 0.21/0.47 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.26/0.53 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.26/0.53 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
% 9.81/1.88 % Version: 3.5.1
% 9.81/1.88 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 9.81/1.88 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 9.81/1.88 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 9.81/1.88 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 9.81/1.88 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 9.81/1.88 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 9.81/1.88 % C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with pid 628821 completed with status 0
% 9.81/1.88 % Result found by C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr
% 9.81/1.88 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 9.81/1.88 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 9.81/1.88 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 9.81/1.88 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 9.81/1.88 % No SInE strategy applied
% 9.81/1.88 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 9.81/1.88 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 9.81/1.88 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 9.81/1.88 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 9.81/1.88 % Starting G-E--_107_B42_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 123s (1) cores
% 9.81/1.88 % Starting U----_100_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_ND_S04AN with 123s (1) cores
% 9.81/1.88 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S032N with 123s (1) cores
% 9.81/1.88 % G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S032N with pid 628830 completed with status 0
% 9.81/1.88 % Result found by G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S032N
% 9.81/1.88 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 9.81/1.88 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 9.81/1.88 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 9.81/1.88 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 9.81/1.88 % No SInE strategy applied
% 9.81/1.88 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 9.81/1.88 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 9.81/1.88 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 9.81/1.88 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 9.81/1.88 % Starting G-E--_107_B42_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 123s (1) cores
% 9.81/1.88 % Starting U----_100_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_ND_S04AN with 123s (1) cores
% 9.81/1.88 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S032N with 123s (1) cores
% 9.81/1.88 % Preprocessing time : 0.009 s
% 9.81/1.88 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 9.81/1.88
% 9.81/1.88 % Proof found!
% 9.81/1.88 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 9.81/1.88 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 9.81/1.88 % Parsed axioms : 378
% 9.81/1.88 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 9.81/1.88 % Initial clauses : 378
% 9.81/1.88 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 9.81/1.88 % Initial clauses in saturation : 378
% 9.81/1.88 % Processed clauses : 6089
% 9.81/1.88 % ...of these trivial : 60
% 9.81/1.88 % ...subsumed : 4401
% 9.81/1.88 % ...remaining for further processing : 1628
% 9.81/1.88 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 1286
% 9.81/1.88 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 9.81/1.88 % Backward-subsumed : 89
% 9.81/1.88 % Backward-rewritten : 20
% 9.81/1.88 % Generated clauses : 29520
% 9.81/1.88 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 26784
% 9.81/1.88 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 9.81/1.88 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 3
% 9.81/1.88 % Paramodulations : 28199
% 9.81/1.88 % Factorizations : 4
% 9.81/1.88 % NegExts : 0
% 9.81/1.88 % Equation resolutions : 1317
% 9.81/1.88 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 9.81/1.88 % Total rewrite steps : 9949
% 9.81/1.88 % ...of those cached : 7691
% 9.81/1.88 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 9.81/1.88 % Propositional check models : 0
% 9.81/1.88 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 9.81/1.88 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 9.81/1.88 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 9.81/1.88 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 9.81/1.88 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 9.81/1.88 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 9.81/1.88 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 9.81/1.88 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 9.81/1.88 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 9.81/1.88 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 9.81/1.88 % Current number of processed clauses : 1216
% 9.81/1.88 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 141
% 9.81/1.88 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 13
% 9.81/1.88 % Negative unit clauses : 258
% 9.81/1.88 % Non-unit-clauses : 804
% 9.81/1.88 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 21315
% 9.81/1.88 % ...number of literals in the above : 62081
% 9.81/1.88 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 9.81/1.88 % Current number of archived clauses : 412
% 9.81/1.88 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 113827
% 9.81/1.88 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 82667
% 9.81/1.88 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 1382
% 9.81/1.88 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 23522
% 9.81/1.88 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 90
% 9.81/1.88 % BW rewrite match attempts : 401
% 9.81/1.88 % BW rewrite match successes : 65
% 9.81/1.88 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 9.81/1.88 % Condensation successes : 0
% 9.81/1.88 % Termbank termtop insertions : 373093
% 9.81/1.88 % Search garbage collected termcells : 665
% 9.81/1.88
% 9.81/1.88 % -------------------------------------------------
% 9.81/1.88 % User time : 1.206 s
% 9.81/1.88 % System time : 0.057 s
% 9.81/1.88 % Total time : 1.262 s
% 9.81/1.88 % Maximum resident set size: 4396 pages
% 9.81/1.88
% 9.81/1.88 % -------------------------------------------------
% 9.81/1.88 % User time : 5.962 s
% 9.81/1.88 % System time : 0.255 s
% 9.81/1.88 % Total time : 6.217 s
% 9.81/1.88 % Maximum resident set size: 5120 pages
% 9.81/1.88 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------