%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : LCL852-1 : 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 : n006.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 23.80s 9.69s
% Output : CNFRefutation 23.80s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 15 ( 11 unt; 0 nHn; 10 RR)
% Number of literals : 22 ( 2 equ; 10 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 5 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 13 ( 13 usr; 8 con; 0-4 aty)
% Number of variables : 37 ( 6 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_typing_OApp_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/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_typing_OApp_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(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
~ c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_ea____,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat),hAPP(hAPP(c_Type_Otype_OFun,v_Ta____),v_U____),tc_Type_Otype),hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat))),c_Lambda_Olift(v_ta____,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat))),v_U____),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_0) ).
cnf(cls_CHAINED_0,axiom,
c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_ea____,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat),hAPP(hAPP(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_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_typing_OApp_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,axiom,
c_Type_Otyping(X1,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X2),hAPP(X1,X2)),
cls_typing_OVar_0 ).
cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
hAPP(c_Type_Oshift(X1,X2,X3,X4),X2) = X3,
cls_shift__eq_0 ).
cnf(c_0_8,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_9,plain,
c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(X1,X2,X3,X4),c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X2),X3),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
~ c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_ea____,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat),hAPP(hAPP(c_Type_Otype_OFun,v_Ta____),v_U____),tc_Type_Otype),hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat))),c_Lambda_Olift(v_ta____,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat))),v_U____),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( ~ c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(X1,X2,hAPP(hAPP(c_Type_Otype_OFun,X3),X4),X5),X6,X3)
| c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(X1,X2,hAPP(hAPP(c_Type_Otype_OFun,X3),X4),X5),hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X2)),X6),X4) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,axiom,
c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_ea____,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat),hAPP(hAPP(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____),
cls_CHAINED_0 ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
~ c_Type_Otyping(c_Type_Oshift(v_ea____,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat),hAPP(hAPP(c_Type_Otype_OFun,v_Ta____),v_U____),tc_Type_Otype),hAPP(hAPP(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp,c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat))),c_Lambda_Olift(v_ta____,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat))),v_U____),
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
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : LCL852-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/5.55 % Computer : n006.cluster.edu
% 0.11/5.55 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/5.55 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/5.55 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/5.55 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/5.55 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/5.55 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/5.55 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 01:08:03 UTC 2026
% 0.11/5.56 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/5.56 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/5.60 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/5.60 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
% 23.80/9.69 % Version: 3.5.1
% 23.80/9.69 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 23.80/9.69 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 23.80/9.69 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 23.80/9.69 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 23.80/9.69 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 23.80/9.69 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 23.80/9.69 % new_bool_3 with pid 1685403 completed with status 0
% 23.80/9.69 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 23.80/9.69 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 23.80/9.69 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 23.80/9.69 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 23.80/9.69 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 23.80/9.69 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 23.80/9.69 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 23.80/9.69 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 23.80/9.69 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 23.80/9.69 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 23.80/9.69 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1685408 completed with status 0
% 23.80/9.69 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 23.80/9.69 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 23.80/9.69 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 23.80/9.69 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 23.80/9.69 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 23.80/9.69 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 23.80/9.69 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 23.80/9.69 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 23.80/9.69 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 23.80/9.69 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 23.80/9.69 % Preprocessing time : 0.004 s
% 23.80/9.69
% 23.80/9.69 % Proof found!
% 23.80/9.69 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 23.80/9.69 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 23.80/9.69 % Parsed axioms : 607
% 23.80/9.69 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 356
% 23.80/9.69 % Initial clauses : 251
% 23.80/9.69 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 23.80/9.69 % Initial clauses in saturation : 251
% 23.80/9.69 % Processed clauses : 23782
% 23.80/9.69 % ...of these trivial : 449
% 23.80/9.69 % ...subsumed : 21085
% 23.80/9.69 % ...remaining for further processing : 2248
% 23.80/9.69 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 2246
% 23.80/9.69 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 23.80/9.69 % Backward-subsumed : 59
% 23.80/9.69 % Backward-rewritten : 15
% 23.80/9.69 % Generated clauses : 317584
% 23.80/9.69 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 275222
% 23.80/9.69 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 23.80/9.69 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 59
% 23.80/9.69 % Paramodulations : 315205
% 23.80/9.69 % Factorizations : 49
% 23.80/9.69 % NegExts : 0
% 23.80/9.69 % Equation resolutions : 2330
% 23.80/9.69 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 23.80/9.69 % Total rewrite steps : 254706
% 23.80/9.69 % ...of those cached : 243906
% 23.80/9.69 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 23.80/9.69 % Propositional check models : 0
% 23.80/9.69 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 23.80/9.69 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 23.80/9.69 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 23.80/9.69 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 23.80/9.69 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 23.80/9.69 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 23.80/9.69 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 23.80/9.69 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 23.80/9.69 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 23.80/9.69 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 23.80/9.69 % Current number of processed clauses : 2174
% 23.80/9.69 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 297
% 23.80/9.69 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 7
% 23.80/9.69 % Negative unit clauses : 247
% 23.80/9.69 % Non-unit-clauses : 1623
% 23.80/9.69 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 251570
% 23.80/9.69 % ...number of literals in the above : 656791
% 23.80/9.69 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 23.80/9.69 % Current number of archived clauses : 74
% 23.80/9.69 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 708358
% 23.80/9.69 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 539628
% 23.80/9.69 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 10450
% 23.80/9.69 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 39399
% 23.80/9.69 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 23.80/9.69 % BW rewrite match attempts : 1392
% 23.80/9.69 % BW rewrite match successes : 76
% 23.80/9.69 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 23.80/9.69 % Condensation successes : 0
% 23.80/9.69 % Termbank termtop insertions : 5569968
% 23.80/9.69 % Search garbage collected termcells : 1700
% 23.80/9.69
% 23.80/9.69 % -------------------------------------------------
% 23.80/9.69 % User time : 3.809 s
% 23.80/9.69 % System time : 0.165 s
% 23.80/9.69 % Total time : 3.974 s
% 23.80/9.69 % Maximum resident set size: 4296 pages
% 23.80/9.69
% 23.80/9.69 % -------------------------------------------------
% 23.80/9.69 % User time : 3.824 s
% 23.80/9.69 % System time : 0.170 s
% 23.80/9.69 % Total time : 3.994 s
% 23.80/9.69 % Maximum resident set size: 5120 pages
% 23.80/9.69 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------