%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : LCL813-1 : 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 : n007.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 01:16:30 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.20s 0.58s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.20s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 3
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 9 ( 9 unt; 0 nHn; 4 RR)
% Number of literals : 9 ( 2 equ; 3 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 11 ( 11 usr; 6 con; 0-5 aty)
% Number of variables : 16 ( 6 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
~ c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_e____,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),tc_Type_Otype),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_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(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_e____,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),tc_Type_Otype),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_4,axiom,
c_Type_Otyping(X1,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X2),hAPP(X1,X2)),
cls_typing_OVar_0 ).
cnf(c_0_5,axiom,
hAPP(c_Type_Oshift(X1,X2,X3,X4),X2) = X3,
cls_shift__eq_0 ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
~ c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_e____,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),tc_Type_Otype),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_3 ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(X1,X2,X3,X4),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X2),X3),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : LCL813-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.38 % Computer : n007.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.38 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.38 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.38 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.12/0.38 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.12/0.38 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.38 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.12/0.38 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 01:03:50 UTC 2026
% 0.12/0.38 % CPUTime :
% 0.12/0.38 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.42 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.12/0.42 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
% 0.20/0.58 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.20/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.20/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.20/0.58 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_AE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2S with 1200s (4) cores
% 0.20/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.20/0.58 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.20/0.58 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.20/0.58 % new_bool_1 with pid 4026178 completed with status 0
% 0.20/0.58 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.20/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.20/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.20/0.58 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_AE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2S with 1200s (4) cores
% 0.20/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.20/0.58 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.20/0.58 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.20/0.58 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.20/0.58 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-DFFFFFNN
% 0.20/0.58 % Scheduled 13 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.20/0.58 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.20/0.58 % SubtermCWHack with pid 4026184 completed with status 0
% 0.20/0.58 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.20/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.20/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.20/0.58 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_AE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2S with 1200s (4) cores
% 0.20/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.20/0.58 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.20/0.58 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.20/0.58 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.20/0.58 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-DFFFFFNN
% 0.20/0.58 % Scheduled 13 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.20/0.58 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.20/0.58 % Preprocessing time : 0.003 s
% 0.20/0.58
% 0.20/0.58 % Proof found!
% 0.20/0.58 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.20/0.58 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.20/0.58 % Parsed axioms : 936
% 0.20/0.58 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 577
% 0.20/0.58 % Initial clauses : 359
% 0.20/0.58 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.20/0.58 % Initial clauses in saturation : 359
% 0.20/0.58 % Processed clauses : 2816
% 0.20/0.58 % ...of these trivial : 364
% 0.20/0.58 % ...subsumed : 1896
% 0.20/0.58 % ...remaining for further processing : 555
% 0.20/0.58 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 45
% 0.20/0.58 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.20/0.58 % Backward-subsumed : 7
% 0.20/0.58 % Backward-rewritten : 18
% 0.20/0.58 % Generated clauses : 12857
% 0.20/0.58 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 10558
% 0.20/0.58 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.20/0.58 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 1
% 0.20/0.58 % Paramodulations : 12775
% 0.20/0.58 % Factorizations : 10
% 0.20/0.58 % NegExts : 0
% 0.20/0.58 % Equation resolutions : 72
% 0.20/0.58 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.20/0.58 % Total rewrite steps : 5557
% 0.20/0.58 % ...of those cached : 4638
% 0.20/0.58 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.20/0.58 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.20/0.58 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.20/0.58 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.20/0.58 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.20/0.58 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.20/0.58 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.20/0.58 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.20/0.58 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.20/0.58 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.20/0.58 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.20/0.58 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.20/0.58 % Current number of processed clauses : 530
% 0.20/0.58 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 144
% 0.20/0.58 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 5
% 0.20/0.58 % Negative unit clauses : 102
% 0.20/0.58 % Non-unit-clauses : 279
% 0.20/0.58 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 8031
% 0.20/0.58 % ...number of literals in the above : 16028
% 0.20/0.58 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.20/0.58 % Current number of archived clauses : 25
% 0.20/0.58 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 20983
% 0.20/0.58 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 18262
% 0.20/0.58 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 637
% 0.20/0.58 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2737
% 0.20/0.58 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.20/0.58 % BW rewrite match attempts : 405
% 0.20/0.58 % BW rewrite match successes : 28
% 0.20/0.58 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.20/0.58 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.20/0.58 % Termbank termtop insertions : 190771
% 0.20/0.58 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2662
% 0.20/0.58
% 0.20/0.58 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.58 % User time : 0.097 s
% 0.20/0.58 % System time : 0.008 s
% 0.20/0.58 % Total time : 0.105 s
% 0.20/0.58 % Maximum resident set size: 4796 pages
% 0.20/0.58
% 0.20/0.58 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.58 % User time : 0.119 s
% 0.20/0.58 % System time : 0.015 s
% 0.20/0.58 % Total time : 0.134 s
% 0.20/0.58 % Maximum resident set size: 5120 pages
% 0.20/0.58 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------