%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : LCL855-1 : 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 : n011.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 0.10s 0.45s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.10s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 3
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 12 ( 12 unt; 0 nHn; 6 RR)
% Number of literals : 12 ( 6 equ; 3 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 5 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 8 ( 8 usr; 3 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 18 ( 2 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
~ c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp(v_s____,v_ta____)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_0) ).
cnf(cls_CHAINED_0,axiom,
c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_Osubst(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_s____,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat))),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_CHAINED_0) ).
cnf(cls_subst__App_0,axiom,
c_Lambda_Osubst(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp(X1,X2),X3,X4) = c_Lambda_OdB_OApp(c_Lambda_Osubst(X1,X3,X4),c_Lambda_Osubst(X2,X3,X4)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_subst__App_0) ).
cnf(cls_subst__eq_0,axiom,
c_Lambda_Osubst(c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X1),X2,X1) = X2,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_subst__eq_0) ).
cnf(cls_subst__lift_0,axiom,
c_Lambda_Osubst(c_Lambda_Olift(X1,X2),X3,X2) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_subst__lift_0) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp(v_s____,v_ta____)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,axiom,
c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_Osubst(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_s____,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat))),
cls_CHAINED_0 ).
cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
c_Lambda_Osubst(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp(X1,X2),X3,X4) = c_Lambda_OdB_OApp(c_Lambda_Osubst(X1,X3,X4),c_Lambda_Osubst(X2,X3,X4)),
cls_subst__App_0 ).
cnf(c_0_8,axiom,
c_Lambda_Osubst(c_Lambda_OdB_OVar(X1),X2,X1) = X2,
cls_subst__eq_0 ).
cnf(c_0_9,axiom,
c_Lambda_Osubst(c_Lambda_Olift(X1,X2),X3,X2) = X1,
cls_subst__lift_0 ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
~ c_InductTermi_OIT(c_Lambda_OdB_OApp(v_s____,v_ta____)),
c_0_5 ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]),c_0_8]),c_0_9]),c_0_10]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : LCL855-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.35 % Computer : n011.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.35 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.35 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.35 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 01:08:42 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/0.36 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.40 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.10/0.40 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
% 0.10/0.45 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.10/0.45 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.10/0.45 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.10/0.45 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.10/0.45 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.45 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.45 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.45 % G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with pid 639917 completed with status 0
% 0.10/0.45 % Result found by G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S
% 0.10/0.45 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.10/0.45 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.10/0.45 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.10/0.45 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.10/0.45 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.10/0.45 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.10/0.45 % Scheduled 8 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.10/0.45 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.45 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 151s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.45 % Starting G-E--_208_C12_11_nc_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S04BN with 136s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.45 % Starting G-E--_207_B07_F1_AE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.45 % Starting U----_116Y_C05_02_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 136s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.45 % G-E--_207_B07_F1_AE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S0Y with pid 639927 completed with status 0
% 0.10/0.45 % Result found by G-E--_207_B07_F1_AE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S0Y
% 0.10/0.45 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.10/0.45 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.10/0.45 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.10/0.45 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.10/0.45 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.10/0.45 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.10/0.45 % Scheduled 8 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.10/0.45 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.45 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 151s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.45 % Starting G-E--_208_C12_11_nc_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S04BN with 136s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.45 % Starting G-E--_207_B07_F1_AE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.45 % Preprocessing time : 0.005 s
% 0.10/0.45 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.10/0.45
% 0.10/0.45 % Proof found!
% 0.10/0.45 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.10/0.45 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.10/0.45 % Parsed axioms : 384
% 0.10/0.45 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.10/0.45 % Initial clauses : 384
% 0.10/0.45 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 1
% 0.10/0.45 % Initial clauses in saturation : 383
% 0.10/0.45 % Processed clauses : 249
% 0.10/0.45 % ...of these trivial : 14
% 0.10/0.45 % ...subsumed : 38
% 0.10/0.45 % ...remaining for further processing : 197
% 0.10/0.45 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.10/0.45 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.10/0.45 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.10/0.45 % Backward-rewritten : 2
% 0.10/0.45 % Generated clauses : 0
% 0.10/0.45 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1
% 0.10/0.45 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.10/0.45 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.10/0.45 % Paramodulations : 0
% 0.10/0.45 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.10/0.45 % NegExts : 0
% 0.10/0.45 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.10/0.45 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.10/0.45 % Total rewrite steps : 23
% 0.10/0.45 % ...of those cached : 5
% 0.10/0.45 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.10/0.45 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.10/0.45 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.10/0.45 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.10/0.45 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.10/0.45 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.10/0.45 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.10/0.45 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.10/0.45 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.10/0.45 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.10/0.45 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.10/0.45 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.10/0.45 % Current number of processed clauses : 195
% 0.10/0.45 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 50
% 0.10/0.45 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 3
% 0.10/0.45 % Negative unit clauses : 11
% 0.10/0.45 % Non-unit-clauses : 131
% 0.10/0.45 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 135
% 0.10/0.45 % ...number of literals in the above : 368
% 0.10/0.45 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.10/0.45 % Current number of archived clauses : 3
% 0.10/0.45 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 2149
% 0.10/0.45 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1913
% 0.10/0.45 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 27
% 0.10/0.45 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 19
% 0.10/0.45 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.10/0.45 % BW rewrite match attempts : 42
% 0.10/0.45 % BW rewrite match successes : 27
% 0.10/0.45 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.10/0.45 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.10/0.45 % Termbank termtop insertions : 11816
% 0.10/0.45 % Search garbage collected termcells : 651
% 0.10/0.45
% 0.10/0.45 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.10/0.45 % User time : 0.020 s
% 0.10/0.45 % System time : 0.007 s
% 0.10/0.45 % Total time : 0.027 s
% 0.10/0.45 % Maximum resident set size: 4140 pages
% 0.10/0.45
% 0.10/0.45 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.10/0.45 % User time : 0.089 s
% 0.10/0.45 % System time : 0.026 s
% 0.10/0.45 % Total time : 0.115 s
% 0.10/0.45 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.10/0.45 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------