%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---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 : n017.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 01:23:31 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 17.96s 3.09s
% Output : CNFRefutation 17.96s
% 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
% 0.11/0.38 % Computer : n017.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.38 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.38 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.38 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.38 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.38 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.38 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/0.38 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 01:03:28 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.38 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/0.38 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.43 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.11/0.43 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
% 17.96/3.09 % Version: 3.5.1
% 17.96/3.09 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 17.96/3.09 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 17.96/3.09 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 17.96/3.09 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 17.96/3.09 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 17.96/3.09 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 17.96/3.09 % new_bool_3 with pid 1088888 completed with status 0
% 17.96/3.09 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 17.96/3.09 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 17.96/3.09 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 17.96/3.09 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 17.96/3.09 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 17.96/3.09 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 17.96/3.09 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 17.96/3.09 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 17.96/3.09 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 17.96/3.09 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 17.96/3.09 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1088898 completed with status 0
% 17.96/3.09 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 17.96/3.09 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 17.96/3.09 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 17.96/3.09 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 17.96/3.09 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 17.96/3.09 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 17.96/3.09 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 17.96/3.09 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 17.96/3.09 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 17.96/3.09 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 17.96/3.09 % Preprocessing time : 0.004 s
% 17.96/3.09
% 17.96/3.09 % Proof found!
% 17.96/3.09 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 17.96/3.09 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 17.96/3.09 % Parsed axioms : 607
% 17.96/3.09 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 356
% 17.96/3.09 % Initial clauses : 251
% 17.96/3.09 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 17.96/3.09 % Initial clauses in saturation : 251
% 17.96/3.09 % Processed clauses : 23749
% 17.96/3.09 % ...of these trivial : 443
% 17.96/3.09 % ...subsumed : 21059
% 17.96/3.09 % ...remaining for further processing : 2247
% 17.96/3.09 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 2246
% 17.96/3.09 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 17.96/3.09 % Backward-subsumed : 60
% 17.96/3.09 % Backward-rewritten : 15
% 17.96/3.09 % Generated clauses : 317270
% 17.96/3.09 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 274897
% 17.96/3.09 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 17.96/3.09 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 59
% 17.96/3.09 % Paramodulations : 314891
% 17.96/3.09 % Factorizations : 49
% 17.96/3.09 % NegExts : 0
% 17.96/3.09 % Equation resolutions : 2330
% 17.96/3.09 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 17.96/3.09 % Total rewrite steps : 254801
% 17.96/3.09 % ...of those cached : 244003
% 17.96/3.09 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 17.96/3.09 % Propositional check models : 0
% 17.96/3.09 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 17.96/3.09 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 17.96/3.09 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 17.96/3.09 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 17.96/3.09 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 17.96/3.09 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 17.96/3.09 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 17.96/3.09 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 17.96/3.09 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 17.96/3.09 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 17.96/3.09 % Current number of processed clauses : 2172
% 17.96/3.09 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 297
% 17.96/3.09 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 7
% 17.96/3.09 % Negative unit clauses : 247
% 17.96/3.09 % Non-unit-clauses : 1621
% 17.96/3.09 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 251275
% 17.96/3.09 % ...number of literals in the above : 655845
% 17.96/3.09 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 17.96/3.09 % Current number of archived clauses : 75
% 17.96/3.09 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 706450
% 17.96/3.09 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 538044
% 17.96/3.09 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 10432
% 17.96/3.09 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 39398
% 17.96/3.09 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 17.96/3.09 % BW rewrite match attempts : 1393
% 17.96/3.09 % BW rewrite match successes : 76
% 17.96/3.09 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 17.96/3.09 % Condensation successes : 0
% 17.96/3.09 % Termbank termtop insertions : 5566018
% 17.96/3.09 % Search garbage collected termcells : 1700
% 17.96/3.09
% 17.96/3.09 % -------------------------------------------------
% 17.96/3.09 % User time : 2.347 s
% 17.96/3.09 % System time : 0.122 s
% 17.96/3.09 % Total time : 2.469 s
% 17.96/3.09 % Maximum resident set size: 4264 pages
% 17.96/3.09
% 17.96/3.09 % -------------------------------------------------
% 17.96/3.09 % User time : 2.362 s
% 17.96/3.09 % System time : 0.128 s
% 17.96/3.09 % Total time : 2.489 s
% 17.96/3.09 % Maximum resident set size: 5376 pages
% 17.96/3.09 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------