%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : LCL825-1 : 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 01:16:32 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.24s 0.58s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.24s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 3
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 8 ( 8 unt; 0 nHn; 4 RR)
% Number of literals : 8 ( 2 equ; 3 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 7 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 11 ( 11 usr; 6 con; 0-4 aty)
% Number of variables : 10 ( 4 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
~ c_List_Olistsp(c_InductTermi_OIT,c_List_Omap(hAPP(c_COMBC(hAPP(c_COMBC(c_Lambda_Osubst,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_fun(tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB)),v_u____),tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB),v_i____),c_List_Olist_ONil(tc_Lambda_OdB),tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB),tc_Lambda_OdB),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_0) ).
cnf(cls_Nil__is__map__conv_1,axiom,
c_List_Olist_ONil(X1) = c_List_Omap(X2,c_List_Olist_ONil(X3),X3,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_Nil__is__map__conv_1) ).
cnf(cls_listsp_ONil_0,axiom,
c_List_Olistsp(X1,c_List_Olist_ONil(X2),X2),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_listsp_ONil_0) ).
cnf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ c_List_Olistsp(c_InductTermi_OIT,c_List_Omap(hAPP(c_COMBC(hAPP(c_COMBC(c_Lambda_Osubst,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_fun(tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB)),v_u____),tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB),v_i____),c_List_Olist_ONil(tc_Lambda_OdB),tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB),tc_Lambda_OdB),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ c_List_Olistsp(c_InductTermi_OIT,c_List_Omap(hAPP(c_COMBC(hAPP(c_COMBC(c_Lambda_Osubst,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_fun(tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB)),v_u____),tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_nat,tc_Lambda_OdB),v_i____),c_List_Olist_ONil(tc_Lambda_OdB),tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB),tc_Lambda_OdB),
c_0_3 ).
cnf(c_0_5,axiom,
c_List_Olist_ONil(X1) = c_List_Omap(X2,c_List_Olist_ONil(X3),X3,X1),
cls_Nil__is__map__conv_1 ).
cnf(c_0_6,axiom,
c_List_Olistsp(X1,c_List_Olist_ONil(X2),X2),
cls_listsp_ONil_0 ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_5]),c_0_6])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.04 % Problem : LCL825-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.19/0.45 % Computer : n016.cluster.edu
% 0.19/0.45 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.19/0.45 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.19/0.45 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.19/0.45 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.19/0.45 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.19/0.45 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.19/0.45 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 01:11:07 UTC 2026
% 0.19/0.45 % CPUTime :
% 0.19/0.45 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.24/0.52 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.24/0.52 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
% 0.24/0.58 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.24/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_AE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2S with 1200s (4) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % new_bool_3 with pid 1246046 completed with status 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.24/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_AE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2S with 1200s (4) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.24/0.58 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.24/0.58 % Search class: FGUSM-FSLS32-DFFFFFNN
% 0.24/0.58 % partial match(1): FGUSM-FSLM32-DFFFFFNN
% 0.24/0.58 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 2 cores with 600 seconds (600 total)
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 61s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting G-E--_208_C18C--_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 361s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % G-E--_208_C18C--_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with pid 1246050 completed with status 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Result found by G-E--_208_C18C--_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
% 0.24/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_AE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2S with 1200s (4) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.24/0.58 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.24/0.58 % Search class: FGUSM-FSLS32-DFFFFFNN
% 0.24/0.58 % partial match(1): FGUSM-FSLM32-DFFFFFNN
% 0.24/0.58 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 2 cores with 600 seconds (600 total)
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 61s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % Starting G-E--_208_C18C--_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 361s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.58 % Preprocessing time : 0.007 s
% 0.24/0.58 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.24/0.58
% 0.24/0.58 % Proof found!
% 0.24/0.58 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.24/0.58 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.24/0.58 % Parsed axioms : 484
% 0.24/0.58 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 235
% 0.24/0.58 % Initial clauses : 249
% 0.24/0.58 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Initial clauses in saturation : 249
% 0.24/0.58 % Processed clauses : 81
% 0.24/0.58 % ...of these trivial : 11
% 0.24/0.58 % ...subsumed : 13
% 0.24/0.58 % ...remaining for further processing : 57
% 0.24/0.58 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.24/0.58 % Generated clauses : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Paramodulations : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % NegExts : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Total rewrite steps : 13
% 0.24/0.58 % ...of those cached : 2
% 0.24/0.58 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.58 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.58 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.58 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.58 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.58 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.58 % Current number of processed clauses : 56
% 0.24/0.58 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 23
% 0.24/0.58 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Negative unit clauses : 6
% 0.24/0.58 % Non-unit-clauses : 27
% 0.24/0.58 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 168
% 0.24/0.58 % ...number of literals in the above : 301
% 0.24/0.58 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.24/0.58 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 271
% 0.24/0.58 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 180
% 0.24/0.58 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 7
% 0.24/0.58 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 8
% 0.24/0.58 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.24/0.58 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.24/0.58 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.24/0.58 % Termbank termtop insertions : 7529
% 0.24/0.58 % Search garbage collected termcells : 1370
% 0.24/0.58
% 0.24/0.58 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/0.58 % User time : 0.012 s
% 0.24/0.58 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.24/0.58 % Total time : 0.018 s
% 0.24/0.58 % Maximum resident set size: 4268 pages
% 0.24/0.58
% 0.24/0.58 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/0.58 % User time : 0.041 s
% 0.24/0.58 % System time : 0.017 s
% 0.24/0.58 % Total time : 0.058 s
% 0.24/0.58 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.24/0.58 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------