%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : LCL839-1 : 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 : n019.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 01:16:34 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.15s 0.72s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.15s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 13 ( 7 unt; 0 nHn; 13 RR)
% Number of literals : 19 ( 0 equ; 10 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 2 usr; 2 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 12 ( 12 usr; 8 con; 0-4 aty)
% Number of variables : 16 ( 4 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_that_0,axiom,
( ~ c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_e____,v_i____,v_T____,tc_Type_Otype),v_a____,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_typing__elims_I2_J_1,axiom,
( ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,X4),X2),X3)
| c_Type_Otyping(X1,X2,c_Type_Osko__Type__Xtyping__elims__2__1(X3,X1,X4,X2)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_typing__elims_I2_J_1) ).
cnf(cls_CHAINED_0,axiom,
c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_e____,v_i____,v_T____,tc_Type_Otype),hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(v_r____)),v_a____),v_Ua____),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_CHAINED_0) ).
cnf(c_0_4,plain,
( ~ c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_e____,v_i____,v_T____,tc_Type_Otype),v_a____,X1)
| v_thesis____ ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_that_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ v_thesis____,
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,X4),X2),X3)
| c_Type_Otyping(X1,X2,c_Type_Osko__Type__Xtyping__elims__2__1(X3,X1,X4,X2)) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_typing__elims_I2_J_1]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_e____,v_i____,v_T____,tc_Type_Otype),v_a____,X1)
| v_thesis____ ),
c_0_4 ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
~ v_thesis____,
c_0_5 ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,X4),X2),X3)
| c_Type_Otyping(X1,X2,c_Type_Osko__Type__Xtyping__elims__2__1(X3,X1,X4,X2)) ),
c_0_6 ).
cnf(c_0_10,axiom,
c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_e____,v_i____,v_T____,tc_Type_Otype),hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,c_Lambda_OdB_OAbs(v_r____)),v_a____),v_Ua____),
cls_CHAINED_0 ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
~ c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_e____,v_i____,v_T____,tc_Type_Otype),v_a____,X1),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_11]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : LCL839-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.59 % Computer : n019.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.59 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.59 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.59 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.59 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.59 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.59 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/0.59 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 01:08:06 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.59 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/0.59 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.64 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/0.64 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
% 0.15/0.72 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.15/0.72 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.72 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.72 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.72 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.72 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.72 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.72 % C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with pid 1369455 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.72 % Result found by C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr
% 0.15/0.72 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.72 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.72 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.72 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.15/0.72 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.15/0.72 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-DFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.72 % Scheduled 13 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.15/0.72 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.72 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.72 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 113s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.72 % Starting G-E--_300_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with 113s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.72 % Starting U----_206c_05_B11_00_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 113s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.72 % G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with pid 1369461 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.72 % Result found by G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S
% 0.15/0.72 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.72 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.72 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.72 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.15/0.72 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.15/0.72 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-DFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.72 % Scheduled 13 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.15/0.72 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.72 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.72 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 113s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.72 % Preprocessing time : 0.007 s
% 0.15/0.72 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.15/0.72
% 0.15/0.72 % Proof found!
% 0.15/0.72 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.15/0.72 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.15/0.72 % Parsed axioms : 389
% 0.15/0.72 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.15/0.72 % Initial clauses : 389
% 0.15/0.72 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 1
% 0.15/0.72 % Initial clauses in saturation : 388
% 0.15/0.72 % Processed clauses : 553
% 0.15/0.72 % ...of these trivial : 23
% 0.15/0.72 % ...subsumed : 57
% 0.15/0.72 % ...remaining for further processing : 473
% 0.15/0.72 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 32
% 0.15/0.72 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.15/0.72 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.15/0.72 % Backward-rewritten : 2
% 0.15/0.72 % Generated clauses : 558
% 0.15/0.72 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 331
% 0.15/0.72 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.15/0.72 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.15/0.72 % Paramodulations : 506
% 0.15/0.72 % Factorizations : 2
% 0.15/0.72 % NegExts : 0
% 0.15/0.72 % Equation resolutions : 50
% 0.15/0.72 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.15/0.72 % Total rewrite steps : 370
% 0.15/0.72 % ...of those cached : 298
% 0.15/0.72 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.15/0.72 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.15/0.72 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.15/0.72 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.15/0.72 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.15/0.72 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.15/0.72 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.72 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.72 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.72 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.72 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.72 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.72 % Current number of processed clauses : 163
% 0.15/0.72 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 54
% 0.15/0.72 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.15/0.72 % Negative unit clauses : 16
% 0.15/0.72 % Non-unit-clauses : 92
% 0.15/0.72 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 474
% 0.15/0.72 % ...number of literals in the above : 1065
% 0.15/0.72 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.15/0.72 % Current number of archived clauses : 311
% 0.15/0.72 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 5200
% 0.15/0.72 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 4034
% 0.15/0.72 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 41
% 0.15/0.72 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 80
% 0.15/0.72 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.15/0.72 % BW rewrite match attempts : 117
% 0.15/0.72 % BW rewrite match successes : 48
% 0.15/0.72 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.15/0.72 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.15/0.72 % Termbank termtop insertions : 23064
% 0.15/0.72 % Search garbage collected termcells : 699
% 0.15/0.72
% 0.15/0.72 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.72 % User time : 0.051 s
% 0.15/0.72 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.15/0.72 % Total time : 0.054 s
% 0.15/0.72 % Maximum resident set size: 3932 pages
% 0.15/0.72
% 0.15/0.72 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.72 % User time : 0.240 s
% 0.15/0.72 % System time : 0.029 s
% 0.15/0.72 % Total time : 0.269 s
% 0.15/0.72 % Maximum resident set size: 5120 pages
% 0.15/0.72 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------