%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : LCL794-1 : 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 : n016.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 01:23:21 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 3.66s 0.97s
% Output : CNFRefutation 3.66s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 7
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 21 ( 14 unt; 0 nHn; 13 RR)
% Number of literals : 32 ( 4 equ; 15 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 5 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 16 ( 16 usr; 10 con; 0-5 aty)
% Number of variables : 49 ( 9 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_App_0,axiom,
( ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,X2,hAPP(hAPP(c_Type_Otype_OFun,X5),X4))
| ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,X3,X5)
| c_Type_Otyping(X1,hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,X2),X3),X4) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_App_0) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
~ c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_e____,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat),v_T_H_H____,tc_Type_Otype),hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,c_Lambda_Olift(v_u____,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat))),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat))),c_List_Ofoldr(c_Type_Otype_OFun,v_Ts____,v_T_H____,tc_Type_Otype,tc_Type_Otype)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_0) ).
cnf(cls_T_0,axiom,
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/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_T_0) ).
cnf(cls_typing_OVar_0,axiom,
c_Type_Otyping(X1,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X2),hAPP(X1,X2)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_typing_OVar_0) ).
cnf(cls_shift__eq_0,axiom,
hAPP(c_Type_Oshift(X1,X2,X3,X4),X2) = X3,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_shift__eq_0) ).
cnf(cls_lift__type_0,axiom,
( ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,X4,X5)
| c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(X1,X2,X3,tc_Type_Otype),c_Lambda_Olift(X4,X2),X5) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_lift__type_0) ).
cnf(cls_uT_0,axiom,
c_Type_Otyping(v_e____,v_u____,v_T____),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_uT_0) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,X2,hAPP(hAPP(c_Type_Otype_OFun,X5),X4))
| ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,X3,X5)
| c_Type_Otyping(X1,hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,X2),X3),X4) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_App_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
~ c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_e____,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat),v_T_H_H____,tc_Type_Otype),hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,c_Lambda_Olift(v_u____,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat))),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat))),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,X2,hAPP(hAPP(c_Type_Otype_OFun,X5),X4))
| ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,X3,X5)
| c_Type_Otyping(X1,hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,X2),X3),X4) ),
c_0_7 ).
cnf(c_0_10,axiom,
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)),
cls_T_0 ).
cnf(c_0_11,axiom,
c_Type_Otyping(X1,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X2),hAPP(X1,X2)),
cls_typing_OVar_0 ).
cnf(c_0_12,axiom,
hAPP(c_Type_Oshift(X1,X2,X3,X4),X2) = X3,
cls_shift__eq_0 ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
~ c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_e____,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat),v_T_H_H____,tc_Type_Otype),hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,c_Lambda_Olift(v_u____,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat))),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat))),c_List_Ofoldr(c_Type_Otype_OFun,v_Ts____,v_T_H____,tc_Type_Otype,tc_Type_Otype)),
c_0_8 ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
( ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,X3,v_T_H_H____)
| ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,X2,v_T____)
| c_Type_Otyping(X1,hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,X2),X3),c_List_Ofoldr(c_Type_Otype_OFun,v_Ts____,v_T_H____,tc_Type_Otype,tc_Type_Otype)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(X1,X2,X3,X4),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X2),X3),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
( ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,X4,X5)
| c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(X1,X2,X3,tc_Type_Otype),c_Lambda_Olift(X4,X2),X5) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_lift__type_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
~ c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_e____,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat),v_T_H_H____,tc_Type_Otype),c_Lambda_Olift(v_u____,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),v_T____),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]),c_0_15])]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,plain,
( ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,X4,X5)
| c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(X1,X2,X3,tc_Type_Otype),c_Lambda_Olift(X4,X2),X5) ),
c_0_16 ).
cnf(c_0_19,axiom,
c_Type_Otyping(v_e____,v_u____,v_T____),
cls_uT_0 ).
cnf(c_0_20,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_18]),c_0_19])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : LCL794-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/0.36 % Computer : n016.cluster.edu
% 0.08/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.08/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.08/0.36 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.08/0.36 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.08/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.08/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.08/0.36 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 01:09:22 UTC 2026
% 0.08/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.08/0.36 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.14/0.40 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.14/0.40 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
% 3.66/0.97 % Version: 3.5.1
% 3.66/0.97 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 3.66/0.97 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 3.66/0.97 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 3.66/0.97 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 3.66/0.97 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 3.66/0.97 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 3.66/0.97 % C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with pid 1241592 completed with status 0
% 3.66/0.97 % Result found by C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr
% 3.66/0.97 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 3.66/0.97 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 3.66/0.97 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 3.66/0.97 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 3.66/0.97 % No SInE strategy applied
% 3.66/0.97 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 3.66/0.97 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 3.66/0.97 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 3.66/0.97 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 3.66/0.97 % Starting G-E--_107_B42_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 123s (1) cores
% 3.66/0.97 % Starting U----_100_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_ND_S04AN with 123s (1) cores
% 3.66/0.97 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S032N with 123s (1) cores
% 3.66/0.97 % C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with pid 1241600 completed with status 0
% 3.66/0.97 % Result found by C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr
% 3.66/0.97 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 3.66/0.97 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 3.66/0.97 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 3.66/0.97 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 3.66/0.97 % No SInE strategy applied
% 3.66/0.97 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 3.66/0.97 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 3.66/0.97 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 3.66/0.97 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 3.66/0.97 % Preprocessing time : 0.004 s
% 3.66/0.97 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 3.66/0.97
% 3.66/0.97 % Proof found!
% 3.66/0.97 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 3.66/0.97 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 3.66/0.97 % Parsed axioms : 435
% 3.66/0.97 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 3.66/0.97 % Initial clauses : 435
% 3.66/0.97 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 1
% 3.66/0.97 % Initial clauses in saturation : 434
% 3.66/0.97 % Processed clauses : 7426
% 3.66/0.97 % ...of these trivial : 147
% 3.66/0.97 % ...subsumed : 5605
% 3.66/0.97 % ...remaining for further processing : 1674
% 3.66/0.97 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 184
% 3.66/0.97 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 3.66/0.97 % Backward-subsumed : 14
% 3.66/0.97 % Backward-rewritten : 22
% 3.66/0.97 % Generated clauses : 44684
% 3.66/0.97 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 40651
% 3.66/0.97 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 3.66/0.97 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 1
% 3.66/0.97 % Paramodulations : 44446
% 3.66/0.97 % Factorizations : 8
% 3.66/0.97 % NegExts : 0
% 3.66/0.97 % Equation resolutions : 230
% 3.66/0.97 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 3.66/0.97 % Total rewrite steps : 22586
% 3.66/0.97 % ...of those cached : 20480
% 3.66/0.97 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 3.66/0.97 % Propositional check models : 0
% 3.66/0.97 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 3.66/0.97 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 3.66/0.97 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 3.66/0.97 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 3.66/0.97 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 3.66/0.97 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 3.66/0.97 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 3.66/0.97 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 3.66/0.97 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 3.66/0.97 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 3.66/0.97 % Current number of processed clauses : 1315
% 3.66/0.97 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 182
% 3.66/0.97 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 16
% 3.66/0.97 % Negative unit clauses : 353
% 3.66/0.97 % Non-unit-clauses : 764
% 3.66/0.97 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 33956
% 3.66/0.97 % ...number of literals in the above : 74071
% 3.66/0.97 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 3.66/0.97 % Current number of archived clauses : 360
% 3.66/0.97 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 126941
% 3.66/0.97 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 99089
% 3.66/0.97 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 2056
% 3.66/0.97 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 28694
% 3.66/0.97 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 8
% 3.66/0.97 % BW rewrite match attempts : 537
% 3.66/0.97 % BW rewrite match successes : 168
% 3.66/0.97 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 3.66/0.97 % Condensation successes : 0
% 3.66/0.97 % Termbank termtop insertions : 660151
% 3.66/0.97 % Search garbage collected termcells : 721
% 3.66/0.97
% 3.66/0.97 % -------------------------------------------------
% 3.66/0.97 % User time : 0.498 s
% 3.66/0.97 % System time : 0.029 s
% 3.66/0.97 % Total time : 0.527 s
% 3.66/0.97 % Maximum resident set size: 4208 pages
% 3.66/0.97
% 3.66/0.97 % -------------------------------------------------
% 3.66/0.97 % User time : 2.379 s
% 3.66/0.97 % System time : 0.127 s
% 3.66/0.97 % Total time : 2.506 s
% 3.66/0.97 % Maximum resident set size: 5120 pages
% 3.66/0.97 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------