%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : LCL851-1 : 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 : n008.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 01:16:36 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.33s 0.77s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.33s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 10 ( 7 unt; 0 nHn; 6 RR)
% Number of literals : 13 ( 0 equ; 6 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 10 ( 10 usr; 6 con; 0-4 aty)
% Number of variables : 17 ( 4 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_lift__type_0,axiom,
( ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,X4,X5)
| c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(X1,X2,X3,tc_Type_Otype),c_Lambda_Olift(X4,X2),X5) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_lift__type_0) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
~ c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_ea____,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat),c_Type_Otype_OFun(v_Ta____,v_U____),tc_Type_Otype),c_Lambda_Olift(v_ta____,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),v_Ta____),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_0) ).
cnf(cls_App_I3_J_0,axiom,
c_Type_Otyping(v_ea____,v_ta____,v_Ta____),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_App_I3_J_0) ).
cnf(c_0_3,plain,
( ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,X4,X5)
| c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(X1,X2,X3,tc_Type_Otype),c_Lambda_Olift(X4,X2),X5) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_lift__type_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_ea____,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat),c_Type_Otype_OFun(v_Ta____,v_U____),tc_Type_Otype),c_Lambda_Olift(v_ta____,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),v_Ta____),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,plain,
( ~ c_Type_Otyping(X1,X4,X5)
| c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(X1,X2,X3,tc_Type_Otype),c_Lambda_Olift(X4,X2),X5) ),
c_0_3 ).
cnf(c_0_6,axiom,
c_Type_Otyping(v_ea____,v_ta____,v_Ta____),
cls_App_I3_J_0 ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
~ c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_ea____,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat),c_Type_Otype_OFun(v_Ta____,v_U____),tc_Type_Otype),c_Lambda_Olift(v_ta____,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)),v_Ta____),
c_0_4 ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_ea____,X1,X2,tc_Type_Otype),c_Lambda_Olift(v_ta____,X1),v_Ta____),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : LCL851-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.21/0.46 % Computer : n008.cluster.edu
% 0.21/0.46 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.21/0.46 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.21/0.46 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.21/0.46 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.21/0.46 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.21/0.46 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.21/0.46 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 01:08:54 UTC 2026
% 0.21/0.46 % CPUTime :
% 0.21/0.46 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.24/0.53 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.24/0.53 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
% 0.33/0.77 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.33/0.77 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.33/0.77 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.33/0.77 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_AE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2S with 1200s (4) cores
% 0.33/0.77 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.33/0.77 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.33/0.77 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.33/0.77 % new_bool_3 with pid 4020082 completed with status 0
% 0.33/0.77 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.33/0.77 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.33/0.77 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.33/0.77 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_AE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2S with 1200s (4) cores
% 0.33/0.77 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.33/0.77 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.33/0.77 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.33/0.77 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-DFFFFFNN
% 0.33/0.77 % Scheduled 13 strats onto 2 cores with 600 seconds (600 total)
% 0.33/0.77 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 55s (1) cores
% 0.33/0.77 % Starting new_bool_3 with 61s (1) cores
% 0.33/0.77 % new_bool_3 with pid 4020087 completed with status 0
% 0.33/0.77 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.33/0.77 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.33/0.77 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.33/0.77 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_AE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2S with 1200s (4) cores
% 0.33/0.77 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.33/0.77 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.33/0.77 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.33/0.77 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-DFFFFFNN
% 0.33/0.77 % Scheduled 13 strats onto 2 cores with 600 seconds (600 total)
% 0.33/0.77 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 55s (1) cores
% 0.33/0.77 % Starting new_bool_3 with 61s (1) cores
% 0.33/0.77 % Preprocessing time : 0.008 s
% 0.33/0.77 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.33/0.77
% 0.33/0.77 % Proof found!
% 0.33/0.77 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.33/0.77 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.33/0.77 % Parsed axioms : 946
% 0.33/0.77 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 640
% 0.33/0.77 % Initial clauses : 306
% 0.33/0.77 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.33/0.77 % Initial clauses in saturation : 306
% 0.33/0.77 % Processed clauses : 1301
% 0.33/0.77 % ...of these trivial : 31
% 0.33/0.77 % ...subsumed : 668
% 0.33/0.77 % ...remaining for further processing : 602
% 0.33/0.77 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 37
% 0.33/0.77 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.33/0.77 % Backward-subsumed : 9
% 0.33/0.77 % Backward-rewritten : 12
% 0.33/0.77 % Generated clauses : 4044
% 0.33/0.77 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 2995
% 0.33/0.77 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.33/0.77 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 1
% 0.33/0.77 % Paramodulations : 3989
% 0.33/0.77 % Factorizations : 4
% 0.33/0.77 % NegExts : 0
% 0.33/0.77 % Equation resolutions : 51
% 0.33/0.77 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.33/0.77 % Total rewrite steps : 2052
% 0.33/0.77 % ...of those cached : 1658
% 0.33/0.77 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.33/0.77 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.33/0.77 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.33/0.77 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.33/0.77 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.33/0.77 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.33/0.77 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.33/0.77 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.33/0.77 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.33/0.77 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.33/0.77 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.33/0.77 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.33/0.77 % Current number of processed clauses : 351
% 0.33/0.77 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 87
% 0.33/0.77 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 3
% 0.33/0.77 % Negative unit clauses : 107
% 0.33/0.77 % Non-unit-clauses : 154
% 0.33/0.77 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 2225
% 0.33/0.77 % ...number of literals in the above : 4122
% 0.33/0.77 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.33/0.77 % Current number of archived clauses : 251
% 0.33/0.77 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 8416
% 0.33/0.77 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 7926
% 0.33/0.77 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 216
% 0.33/0.77 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2443
% 0.33/0.77 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.33/0.77 % BW rewrite match attempts : 131
% 0.33/0.77 % BW rewrite match successes : 90
% 0.33/0.77 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.33/0.77 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.33/0.77 % Termbank termtop insertions : 68090
% 0.33/0.77 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2824
% 0.33/0.77
% 0.33/0.77 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.33/0.77 % User time : 0.146 s
% 0.33/0.77 % System time : 0.019 s
% 0.33/0.77 % Total time : 0.166 s
% 0.33/0.77 % Maximum resident set size: 4552 pages
% 0.33/0.77
% 0.33/0.77 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.33/0.77 % User time : 0.338 s
% 0.33/0.77 % System time : 0.033 s
% 0.33/0.77 % Total time : 0.372 s
% 0.33/0.77 % Maximum resident set size: 5376 pages
% 0.33/0.77 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------