%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : LCL856-1 : 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 : n014.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 0.14s 0.43s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.14s
% 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; 9 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 8 ( 8 usr; 6 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 12 ( 6 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_type__implies__IT_0,axiom,
( ~ c_Type_Otyping(X2,X1,X3)
| hBOOL(hAPP(c_InductTermi_OIT,X1)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_type__implies__IT_0) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_1,negated_conjecture,
~ c_Wellfounded_Oaccp(c_Predicate_Oconversep(c_Lambda_Obeta,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB),v_t,tc_Lambda_OdB),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_1) ).
cnf(cls_IT__implies__termi_0,axiom,
( ~ hBOOL(hAPP(c_InductTermi_OIT,X1))
| c_Wellfounded_Oaccp(c_Predicate_Oconversep(c_Lambda_Obeta,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB),X1,tc_Lambda_OdB) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_IT__implies__termi_0) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
c_Type_Otyping(v_e,v_t,v_T),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_0) ).
cnf(c_0_4,plain,
( ~ c_Type_Otyping(X2,X1,X3)
| hBOOL(hAPP(c_InductTermi_OIT,X1)) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_type__implies__IT_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ c_Wellfounded_Oaccp(c_Predicate_Oconversep(c_Lambda_Obeta,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB),v_t,tc_Lambda_OdB),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_1]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ hBOOL(hAPP(c_InductTermi_OIT,X1))
| c_Wellfounded_Oaccp(c_Predicate_Oconversep(c_Lambda_Obeta,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB),X1,tc_Lambda_OdB) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_IT__implies__termi_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ c_Type_Otyping(X2,X1,X3)
| hBOOL(hAPP(c_InductTermi_OIT,X1)) ),
c_0_4 ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
c_Type_Otyping(v_e,v_t,v_T),
cls_conjecture_0 ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
~ c_Wellfounded_Oaccp(c_Predicate_Oconversep(c_Lambda_Obeta,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB),v_t,tc_Lambda_OdB),
c_0_5 ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( ~ hBOOL(hAPP(c_InductTermi_OIT,X1))
| c_Wellfounded_Oaccp(c_Predicate_Oconversep(c_Lambda_Obeta,tc_Lambda_OdB,tc_Lambda_OdB),X1,tc_Lambda_OdB) ),
c_0_6 ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
hBOOL(hAPP(c_InductTermi_OIT,v_t)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_11])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : LCL856-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.35 % Computer : n014.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.35 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/0.35 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.09/0.35 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 01:08:35 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.09/0.36 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.14/0.40 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.14/0.40 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
% 0.14/0.43 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.14/0.43 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % new_bool_3 with pid 2831410 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.14/0.43 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.14/0.43 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.14/0.43 % Search class: FGUSM-FFLF32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.43 % partial match(2): FGHSM-FFMF32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.43 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2831414 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.14/0.43 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.14/0.43 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.14/0.43 % Search class: FGUSM-FFLF32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.43 % partial match(2): FGHSM-FFMF32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.43 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.14/0.43 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.43 % Preprocessing time : 0.003 s
% 0.14/0.43
% 0.14/0.43 % Proof found!
% 0.14/0.43 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.14/0.43 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.14/0.43 % Parsed axioms : 187
% 0.14/0.43 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 84
% 0.14/0.43 % Initial clauses : 103
% 0.14/0.43 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Initial clauses in saturation : 103
% 0.14/0.43 % Processed clauses : 46
% 0.14/0.43 % ...of these trivial : 5
% 0.14/0.43 % ...subsumed : 6
% 0.14/0.43 % ...remaining for further processing : 35
% 0.14/0.43 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Generated clauses : 39
% 0.14/0.43 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 21
% 0.14/0.43 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Paramodulations : 35
% 0.14/0.43 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % NegExts : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Equation resolutions : 4
% 0.14/0.43 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Total rewrite steps : 29
% 0.14/0.43 % ...of those cached : 20
% 0.14/0.43 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.43 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.43 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.43 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.43 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.43 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.43 % Current number of processed clauses : 35
% 0.14/0.43 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 13
% 0.14/0.43 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.14/0.43 % Negative unit clauses : 5
% 0.14/0.43 % Non-unit-clauses : 16
% 0.14/0.43 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 78
% 0.14/0.43 % ...number of literals in the above : 171
% 0.14/0.43 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 51
% 0.14/0.43 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 51
% 0.14/0.43 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 3
% 0.14/0.43 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 14
% 0.14/0.43 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % BW rewrite match attempts : 18
% 0.14/0.43 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.14/0.43 % Termbank termtop insertions : 4283
% 0.14/0.43 % Search garbage collected termcells : 595
% 0.14/0.43
% 0.14/0.43 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.43 % User time : 0.003 s
% 0.14/0.43 % System time : 0.007 s
% 0.14/0.43 % Total time : 0.010 s
% 0.14/0.43 % Maximum resident set size: 3792 pages
% 0.14/0.43
% 0.14/0.43 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.43 % User time : 0.009 s
% 0.14/0.43 % System time : 0.011 s
% 0.14/0.43 % Total time : 0.020 s
% 0.14/0.43 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.14/0.43 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------