%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : LCL788-1 : 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 : 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 01:16:26 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.16s 0.47s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.16s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 3
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 14 ( 11 unt; 0 nHn; 12 RR)
% Number of literals : 17 ( 10 equ; 6 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 13 ( 13 usr; 9 con; 0-5 aty)
% Number of variables : 17 ( 4 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_typing__elims_I1_J_0,axiom,
( ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X2),X3)
| hAPP(X1,X2) = X3 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_typing__elims_I1_J_0) ).
cnf(cls_varT_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,v_T_H_H____),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_varT_0) ).
cnf(cls_True_0,axiom,
v_n____ = v_i____,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_True_0) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
v_T____ != hAPP(hAPP(c_Type_Otype_OFun,v_T_H_H____),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_conjecture_0) ).
cnf(cls_shift__eq_0,axiom,
hAPP(c_Type_Oshift(X1,X2,X3,X4),X2) = X3,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_shift__eq_0) ).
cnf(c_0_5,plain,
( ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X2),X3)
| hAPP(X1,X2) = X3 ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_typing__elims_I1_J_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,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,v_T_H_H____),c_List_Ofoldr(c_Type_Otype_OFun,v_Ts____,v_T_H____,tc_Type_Otype,tc_Type_Otype))),
cls_varT_0 ).
cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
v_n____ = v_i____,
cls_True_0 ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
v_T____ != hAPP(hAPP(c_Type_Otype_OFun,v_T_H_H____),c_List_Ofoldr(c_Type_Otype_OFun,v_Ts____,v_T_H____,tc_Type_Otype,tc_Type_Otype)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X2),X3)
| hAPP(X1,X2) = X3 ),
c_0_5 ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
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,v_T_H_H____),c_List_Ofoldr(c_Type_Otype_OFun,v_Ts____,v_T_H____,tc_Type_Otype,tc_Type_Otype))),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,axiom,
hAPP(c_Type_Oshift(X1,X2,X3,X4),X2) = X3,
cls_shift__eq_0 ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
v_T____ != hAPP(hAPP(c_Type_Otype_OFun,v_T_H_H____),c_List_Ofoldr(c_Type_Otype_OFun,v_Ts____,v_T_H____,tc_Type_Otype,tc_Type_Otype)),
c_0_8 ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_11]),c_0_12]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : LCL788-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.38 % Computer : n026.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.38 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.38 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.38 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/0.38 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.38 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.38 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.09/0.38 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 01:06:53 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.38 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/0.38 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.42 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.11/0.43 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
% 0.16/0.47 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.16/0.47 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.16/0.47 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.16/0.47 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.16/0.47 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.47 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.47 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.47 % new_bool_3 with pid 1029513 completed with status 0
% 0.16/0.47 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.16/0.47 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.16/0.47 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.16/0.47 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.16/0.47 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.47 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.16/0.47 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.16/0.47 % Search class: FGUSM-FFMM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.16/0.47 % partial match(1): FGHSM-FFMM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.16/0.47 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.16/0.47 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.47 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1029517 completed with status 0
% 0.16/0.47 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.16/0.47 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.16/0.47 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.16/0.47 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.16/0.47 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.47 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.16/0.47 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.16/0.47 % Search class: FGUSM-FFMM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.16/0.47 % partial match(1): FGHSM-FFMM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.16/0.47 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.16/0.47 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.16/0.47 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.16/0.47
% 0.16/0.47 % Proof found!
% 0.16/0.47 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.16/0.47 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.16/0.47 % Parsed axioms : 242
% 0.16/0.47 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 133
% 0.16/0.47 % Initial clauses : 109
% 0.16/0.47 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.16/0.47 % Initial clauses in saturation : 109
% 0.16/0.47 % Processed clauses : 363
% 0.16/0.47 % ...of these trivial : 21
% 0.16/0.47 % ...subsumed : 182
% 0.16/0.47 % ...remaining for further processing : 160
% 0.16/0.47 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 16
% 0.16/0.47 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.16/0.47 % Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.16/0.47 % Backward-rewritten : 2
% 0.16/0.47 % Generated clauses : 566
% 0.16/0.47 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 491
% 0.16/0.47 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.16/0.47 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.16/0.47 % Paramodulations : 532
% 0.16/0.47 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.16/0.47 % NegExts : 0
% 0.16/0.47 % Equation resolutions : 34
% 0.16/0.47 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.16/0.47 % Total rewrite steps : 150
% 0.16/0.47 % ...of those cached : 38
% 0.16/0.47 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.16/0.47 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.16/0.47 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.16/0.47 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.16/0.47 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.16/0.47 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.16/0.47 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.16/0.47 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.16/0.47 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.16/0.47 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.16/0.47 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.16/0.47 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.16/0.47 % Current number of processed clauses : 157
% 0.16/0.47 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 24
% 0.16/0.47 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 2
% 0.16/0.47 % Negative unit clauses : 68
% 0.16/0.47 % Non-unit-clauses : 63
% 0.16/0.47 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 231
% 0.16/0.47 % ...number of literals in the above : 412
% 0.16/0.47 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.16/0.47 % Current number of archived clauses : 3
% 0.16/0.47 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 656
% 0.16/0.47 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 503
% 0.16/0.47 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 50
% 0.16/0.47 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 424
% 0.16/0.47 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.16/0.47 % BW rewrite match attempts : 16
% 0.16/0.47 % BW rewrite match successes : 3
% 0.16/0.47 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.16/0.47 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.16/0.47 % Termbank termtop insertions : 9720
% 0.16/0.47 % Search garbage collected termcells : 773
% 0.16/0.47
% 0.16/0.47 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.16/0.47 % User time : 0.019 s
% 0.16/0.47 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.16/0.47 % Total time : 0.023 s
% 0.16/0.47 % Maximum resident set size: 3828 pages
% 0.16/0.47
% 0.16/0.47 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.16/0.47 % User time : 0.024 s
% 0.16/0.47 % System time : 0.010 s
% 0.16/0.47 % Total time : 0.035 s
% 0.16/0.47 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.16/0.47 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------