%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : LCL807-1 : 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 : 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 01:16:29 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.29s 0.67s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.29s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 10 ( 7 unt; 0 nHn; 10 RR)
% Number of literals : 13 ( 0 equ; 7 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 8 ( 3 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 2 usr; 2 prp; 0-1 aty)
% Number of functors : 9 ( 9 usr; 6 con; 0-4 aty)
% Number of variables : 4 ( 4 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_that_0,axiom,
( ~ hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Type_Otyping,hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Type_Oshift(tc_Type_Otype),v_e____),v_i____),v_T____)),v_b____),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_Cons_Ohyps_I1_J_1,axiom,
hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Type_Otyping,hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Type_Oshift(tc_Type_Otype),v_e____),v_i____),v_T____)),v_b____),v_sko__local__XCons__Xhyps__1__1(v_T____,v_b____,v_e____,v_i____))),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_Cons_Ohyps_I1_J_1) ).
cnf(c_0_3,plain,
( ~ hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Type_Otyping,hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Type_Oshift(tc_Type_Otype),v_e____),v_i____),v_T____)),v_b____),X1))
| v_thesis____ ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_that_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ v_thesis____,
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,plain,
( ~ hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Type_Otyping,hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Type_Oshift(tc_Type_Otype),v_e____),v_i____),v_T____)),v_b____),X1))
| v_thesis____ ),
c_0_3 ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
~ v_thesis____,
c_0_4 ).
cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Type_Otyping,hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Type_Oshift(tc_Type_Otype),v_e____),v_i____),v_T____)),v_b____),v_sko__local__XCons__Xhyps__1__1(v_T____,v_b____,v_e____,v_i____))),
cls_Cons_Ohyps_I1_J_1 ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
~ hBOOL(hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Type_Otyping,hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_Type_Oshift(tc_Type_Otype),v_e____),v_i____),v_T____)),v_b____),X1)),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : LCL807-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.18/0.48 % Computer : n014.cluster.edu
% 0.18/0.48 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.18/0.48 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.18/0.48 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.18/0.48 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.18/0.48 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.18/0.48 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.18/0.48 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 01:05:19 UTC 2026
% 0.18/0.49 % CPUTime :
% 0.18/0.49 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.24/0.58 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.24/0.58 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
% 0.29/0.67 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.29/0.67 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.29/0.67 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.29/0.67 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.29/0.67 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.29/0.67 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.29/0.67 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.29/0.67 % C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with pid 2824900 completed with status 0
% 0.29/0.67 % Result found by C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr
% 0.29/0.67 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.29/0.67 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.29/0.67 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.29/0.67 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.29/0.67 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.29/0.67 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-DFFFFFNN
% 0.29/0.67 % Scheduled 13 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.29/0.67 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.29/0.67 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 0.29/0.67 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 113s (1) cores
% 0.29/0.67 % Starting G-E--_300_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with 113s (1) cores
% 0.29/0.67 % Starting U----_206c_05_B11_00_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 113s (1) cores
% 0.29/0.67 % G-E--_300_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with pid 2824909 completed with status 0
% 0.29/0.67 % Result found by G-E--_300_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y
% 0.29/0.67 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.29/0.67 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.29/0.67 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.29/0.67 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.29/0.67 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.29/0.67 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-DFFFFFNN
% 0.29/0.67 % Scheduled 13 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.29/0.67 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.29/0.67 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 0.29/0.67 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 113s (1) cores
% 0.29/0.67 % Starting G-E--_300_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with 113s (1) cores
% 0.29/0.67 % Preprocessing time : 0.005 s
% 0.29/0.67 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.29/0.67
% 0.29/0.67 % Proof found!
% 0.29/0.67 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.29/0.67 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.29/0.67 % Parsed axioms : 273
% 0.29/0.67 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.29/0.67 % Initial clauses : 273
% 0.29/0.67 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.29/0.67 % Initial clauses in saturation : 273
% 0.29/0.67 % Processed clauses : 74
% 0.29/0.67 % ...of these trivial : 4
% 0.29/0.67 % ...subsumed : 8
% 0.29/0.67 % ...remaining for further processing : 61
% 0.29/0.67 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.29/0.67 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.29/0.67 % Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.29/0.67 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.29/0.67 % Generated clauses : 0
% 0.29/0.67 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 0
% 0.29/0.67 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.29/0.67 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.29/0.67 % Paramodulations : 0
% 0.29/0.67 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.29/0.67 % NegExts : 0
% 0.29/0.67 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.29/0.67 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.29/0.67 % Total rewrite steps : 4
% 0.29/0.67 % ...of those cached : 1
% 0.29/0.67 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.29/0.67 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.29/0.67 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.29/0.67 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.29/0.67 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.29/0.67 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.29/0.67 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.29/0.67 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.29/0.67 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.29/0.67 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.29/0.67 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.29/0.67 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.29/0.67 % Current number of processed clauses : 60
% 0.29/0.67 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 37
% 0.29/0.67 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.29/0.67 % Negative unit clauses : 10
% 0.29/0.67 % Non-unit-clauses : 13
% 0.29/0.67 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 199
% 0.29/0.67 % ...number of literals in the above : 469
% 0.29/0.67 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.29/0.67 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.29/0.67 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 30
% 0.29/0.67 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 29
% 0.29/0.67 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 1
% 0.29/0.67 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 58
% 0.29/0.67 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.29/0.67 % BW rewrite match attempts : 18
% 0.29/0.67 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.29/0.67 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.29/0.67 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.29/0.67 % Termbank termtop insertions : 11013
% 0.29/0.67 % Search garbage collected termcells : 549
% 0.29/0.67
% 0.29/0.67 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.29/0.67 % User time : 0.016 s
% 0.29/0.67 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.29/0.67 % Total time : 0.021 s
% 0.29/0.67 % Maximum resident set size: 4188 pages
% 0.29/0.67
% 0.29/0.67 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.29/0.67 % User time : 0.059 s
% 0.29/0.67 % System time : 0.028 s
% 0.29/0.67 % Total time : 0.087 s
% 0.29/0.67 % Maximum resident set size: 5120 pages
% 0.29/0.67 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------