%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : LCL799-1 : 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 : n014.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 01:16:28 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.26s 0.61s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.26s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 12 ( 8 unt; 0 nHn; 12 RR)
% Number of literals : 19 ( 0 equ; 10 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 9 ( 9 usr; 7 con; 0-4 aty)
% Number of variables : 19 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_subst__lemma_0,axiom,
( ~ c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(X1,X4,X3,tc_Type_Otype),X5,X6)
| ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,X2,X3)
| c_Type_Otyping(X1,c_Lambda_Osubst(X5,X2,X4),X6) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_subst__lemma_0) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
~ c_Type_Otyping(v_e____,c_Lambda_Osubst(v_a____,v_u____,v_i____),v_T_H_H____),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_0) ).
cnf(cls_argT_0,axiom,
c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_e____,v_i____,v_T____,tc_Type_Otype),v_a____,v_T_H_H____),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_argT_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_4,plain,
( ~ c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(X1,X4,X3,tc_Type_Otype),X5,X6)
| ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,X2,X3)
| c_Type_Otyping(X1,c_Lambda_Osubst(X5,X2,X4),X6) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_subst__lemma_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ c_Type_Otyping(v_e____,c_Lambda_Osubst(v_a____,v_u____,v_i____),v_T_H_H____),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(X1,X4,X3,tc_Type_Otype),X5,X6)
| ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,X2,X3)
| c_Type_Otyping(X1,c_Lambda_Osubst(X5,X2,X4),X6) ),
c_0_4 ).
cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_e____,v_i____,v_T____,tc_Type_Otype),v_a____,v_T_H_H____),
cls_argT_0 ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
~ c_Type_Otyping(v_e____,c_Lambda_Osubst(v_a____,v_u____,v_i____),v_T_H_H____),
c_0_5 ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ c_Type_Otyping(v_e____,X1,v_T____)
| c_Type_Otyping(v_e____,c_Lambda_Osubst(v_a____,X1,v_i____),v_T_H_H____) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,axiom,
c_Type_Otyping(v_e____,v_u____,v_T____),
cls_uT_0 ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]),c_0_10])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : LCL799-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.41 % Computer : n014.cluster.edu
% 0.16/0.41 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.16/0.41 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.16/0.41 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.16/0.41 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.16/0.41 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.16/0.41 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.16/0.41 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 01:04:49 UTC 2026
% 0.16/0.41 % CPUTime :
% 0.16/0.41 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.20/0.49 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.20/0.50 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
% 0.26/0.61 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.26/0.61 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.61 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.61 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.61 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.61 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.61 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.61 % new_bool_3 with pid 2823683 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.61 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.26/0.61 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.61 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.61 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.61 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.61 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.26/0.61 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.26/0.61 % Search class: FGUSM-FFLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.61 % partial match(1): FGHSM-FFLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.61 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.26/0.61 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.61 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2823686 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.61 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.26/0.61 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.61 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.61 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.61 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.61 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.26/0.61 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.26/0.61 % Search class: FGUSM-FFLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.61 % partial match(1): FGHSM-FFLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.61 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.26/0.61 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.61 % Preprocessing time : 0.004 s
% 0.26/0.61
% 0.26/0.61 % Proof found!
% 0.26/0.61 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.26/0.61 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.26/0.61 % Parsed axioms : 294
% 0.26/0.61 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 155
% 0.26/0.61 % Initial clauses : 139
% 0.26/0.61 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.26/0.61 % Initial clauses in saturation : 139
% 0.26/0.61 % Processed clauses : 322
% 0.26/0.61 % ...of these trivial : 24
% 0.26/0.61 % ...subsumed : 150
% 0.26/0.61 % ...remaining for further processing : 148
% 0.26/0.61 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.26/0.61 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.26/0.61 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.26/0.61 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.26/0.61 % Generated clauses : 541
% 0.26/0.61 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 476
% 0.26/0.61 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.26/0.61 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.26/0.61 % Paramodulations : 520
% 0.26/0.61 % Factorizations : 2
% 0.26/0.61 % NegExts : 0
% 0.26/0.61 % Equation resolutions : 19
% 0.26/0.61 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.26/0.61 % Total rewrite steps : 146
% 0.26/0.61 % ...of those cached : 50
% 0.26/0.61 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.26/0.61 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.26/0.61 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.26/0.61 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.26/0.61 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.26/0.61 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.26/0.61 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.61 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.61 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.61 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.61 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.61 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.61 % Current number of processed clauses : 148
% 0.26/0.61 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 29
% 0.26/0.61 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 2
% 0.26/0.61 % Negative unit clauses : 30
% 0.26/0.61 % Non-unit-clauses : 87
% 0.26/0.61 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 293
% 0.26/0.61 % ...number of literals in the above : 643
% 0.26/0.61 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.26/0.61 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.26/0.61 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 2634
% 0.26/0.61 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2139
% 0.26/0.61 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 77
% 0.26/0.61 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 785
% 0.26/0.61 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 6
% 0.26/0.61 % BW rewrite match attempts : 28
% 0.26/0.61 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.26/0.61 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.26/0.61 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.26/0.61 % Termbank termtop insertions : 12212
% 0.26/0.61 % Search garbage collected termcells : 936
% 0.26/0.61
% 0.26/0.61 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.61 % User time : 0.022 s
% 0.26/0.61 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.26/0.61 % Total time : 0.029 s
% 0.26/0.61 % Maximum resident set size: 4132 pages
% 0.26/0.61
% 0.26/0.61 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.61 % User time : 0.038 s
% 0.26/0.61 % System time : 0.012 s
% 0.26/0.61 % Total time : 0.050 s
% 0.26/0.61 % Maximum resident set size: 5120 pages
% 0.26/0.61 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------