%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : LCL818-1 : 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 : n011.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 01:16:31 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.31s 0.84s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.31s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 15 ( 10 unt; 0 nHn; 15 RR)
% Number of literals : 24 ( 2 equ; 12 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 14 ( 14 usr; 11 con; 0-5 aty)
% Number of variables : 19 ( 0 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/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_App_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/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_T_0) ).
cnf(cls_uT_0,axiom,
c_Type_Otyping(v_e____,v_u____,v_T____),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_uT_0) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
~ c_Type_Otyping(v_e____,hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,v_u____),c_Lambda_Osubst(v_a____,v_u____,v_i____)),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_CHAINED_0,axiom,
c_Type_Otyping(v_e____,c_Lambda_Osubst(v_a____,v_u____,v_i____),v_T_H_H____),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_CHAINED_0) ).
cnf(c_0_5,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_6,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_5 ).
cnf(c_0_7,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_8,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_6,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,axiom,
c_Type_Otyping(v_e____,v_u____,v_T____),
cls_uT_0 ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
~ c_Type_Otyping(v_e____,hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,v_u____),c_Lambda_Osubst(v_a____,v_u____,v_i____)),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_11,plain,
( ~ c_Type_Otyping(v_e____,X1,v_T_H_H____)
| c_Type_Otyping(v_e____,hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,v_u____),X1),c_List_Ofoldr(c_Type_Otype_OFun,v_Ts____,v_T_H____,tc_Type_Otype,tc_Type_Otype)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,axiom,
c_Type_Otyping(v_e____,c_Lambda_Osubst(v_a____,v_u____,v_i____),v_T_H_H____),
cls_CHAINED_0 ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
~ c_Type_Otyping(v_e____,hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,v_u____),c_Lambda_Osubst(v_a____,v_u____,v_i____)),c_List_Ofoldr(c_Type_Otype_OFun,v_Ts____,v_T_H____,tc_Type_Otype,tc_Type_Otype)),
c_0_10 ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]),c_0_13]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : LCL818-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.20/0.46 % Computer : n011.cluster.edu
% 0.20/0.46 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.20/0.46 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.20/0.46 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.20/0.46 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.20/0.46 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.20/0.46 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.20/0.46 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 01:06:10 UTC 2026
% 0.20/0.47 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.47 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.23/0.55 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.23/0.55 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
% 0.31/0.84 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.31/0.84 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.31/0.84 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.31/0.84 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.31/0.84 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.31/0.84 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.31/0.84 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.31/0.84 % C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with pid 634019 completed with status 0
% 0.31/0.84 % Result found by C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr
% 0.31/0.84 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.31/0.84 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.31/0.84 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.31/0.84 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.31/0.84 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.31/0.84 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-DFFFFFNN
% 0.31/0.84 % Scheduled 13 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.31/0.84 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.31/0.84 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 0.31/0.84 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 113s (1) cores
% 0.31/0.84 % Starting G-E--_300_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with 113s (1) cores
% 0.31/0.84 % Starting U----_206c_05_B11_00_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 113s (1) cores
% 0.31/0.84 % G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with pid 634028 completed with status 0
% 0.31/0.84 % Result found by G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S
% 0.31/0.84 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.31/0.84 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.31/0.84 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.31/0.84 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.31/0.84 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.31/0.84 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-DFFFFFNN
% 0.31/0.84 % Scheduled 13 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.31/0.84 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.31/0.84 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 0.31/0.84 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 113s (1) cores
% 0.31/0.84 % Preprocessing time : 0.010 s
% 0.31/0.84 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.31/0.84
% 0.31/0.84 % Proof found!
% 0.31/0.84 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.31/0.84 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.31/0.84 % Parsed axioms : 398
% 0.31/0.84 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.31/0.84 % Initial clauses : 398
% 0.31/0.84 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 1
% 0.31/0.84 % Initial clauses in saturation : 397
% 0.31/0.84 % Processed clauses : 1158
% 0.31/0.84 % ...of these trivial : 49
% 0.31/0.84 % ...subsumed : 277
% 0.31/0.84 % ...remaining for further processing : 832
% 0.31/0.84 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 33
% 0.31/0.84 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.31/0.84 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.31/0.84 % Backward-rewritten : 4
% 0.31/0.84 % Generated clauses : 5799
% 0.31/0.84 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 5375
% 0.31/0.84 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.31/0.84 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.31/0.84 % Paramodulations : 5732
% 0.31/0.84 % Factorizations : 6
% 0.31/0.84 % NegExts : 0
% 0.31/0.84 % Equation resolutions : 61
% 0.31/0.84 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.31/0.84 % Total rewrite steps : 1944
% 0.31/0.84 % ...of those cached : 1692
% 0.31/0.84 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.31/0.84 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.31/0.84 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.31/0.84 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.31/0.84 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.31/0.84 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.31/0.84 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.31/0.84 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.31/0.84 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.31/0.84 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.31/0.84 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.31/0.84 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.31/0.84 % Current number of processed clauses : 512
% 0.31/0.84 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 131
% 0.31/0.84 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 6
% 0.31/0.84 % Negative unit clauses : 116
% 0.31/0.84 % Non-unit-clauses : 259
% 0.31/0.84 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 4928
% 0.31/0.84 % ...number of literals in the above : 11962
% 0.31/0.84 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.31/0.84 % Current number of archived clauses : 321
% 0.31/0.84 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 12524
% 0.31/0.84 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 10531
% 0.31/0.84 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 119
% 0.31/0.84 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 4467
% 0.31/0.84 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.31/0.84 % BW rewrite match attempts : 496
% 0.31/0.84 % BW rewrite match successes : 51
% 0.31/0.84 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.31/0.84 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.31/0.84 % Termbank termtop insertions : 109797
% 0.31/0.84 % Search garbage collected termcells : 705
% 0.31/0.84
% 0.31/0.84 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.31/0.84 % User time : 0.158 s
% 0.31/0.84 % System time : 0.010 s
% 0.31/0.84 % Total time : 0.168 s
% 0.31/0.84 % Maximum resident set size: 3956 pages
% 0.31/0.84
% 0.31/0.84 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.31/0.84 % User time : 0.625 s
% 0.31/0.84 % System time : 0.044 s
% 0.31/0.84 % Total time : 0.669 s
% 0.31/0.84 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.31/0.84 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------