%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : LDA001-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n020.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 01:24:48 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.36s 0.54s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.36s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 21 ( 21 unt; 0 nHn; 14 RR)
% Number of literals : 21 ( 20 equ; 3 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 0 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 4 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 11 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(a1,axiom,
f(X1,f(X2,X3)) = f(f(X1,X2),f(X1,X3)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',a1) ).
cnf(clause_3,axiom,
n3 = f(n2,n1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',clause_3) ).
cnf(clause_2,axiom,
n2 = f(n1,n1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',clause_2) ).
cnf(clause_4,axiom,
u = f(n2,n2),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',clause_4) ).
cnf(prove_equation,negated_conjecture,
f(f(n3,n2),u) != f(f(u,u),u),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_equation) ).
cnf(c_0_5,axiom,
f(X1,f(X2,X3)) = f(f(X1,X2),f(X1,X3)),
a1 ).
cnf(c_0_6,axiom,
n3 = f(n2,n1),
clause_3 ).
cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
n2 = f(n1,n1),
clause_2 ).
cnf(c_0_8,axiom,
u = f(n2,n2),
clause_4 ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
f(f(n2,X1),n3) = f(n2,f(X1,n1)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
f(f(n1,X1),n2) = f(n1,f(X1,n1)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
f(f(n3,n2),u) != f(f(u,u),u),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_equation]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
f(f(n2,X1),u) = f(n2,f(X1,n2)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
f(n3,n3) = u,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_6]),c_0_7]),c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
f(n1,n2) = u,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_7]),c_0_8]),c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
f(f(n3,n2),u) != f(f(u,u),u),
c_0_11 ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
f(u,u) = f(n2,u),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_8]),c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,plain,
f(f(n3,X1),u) = f(n3,f(X1,n3)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,plain,
f(n3,f(n2,X1)) = f(n2,f(n1,X1)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,plain,
f(n1,n3) = f(u,n2),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_14]),c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16]),c_0_12]),c_0_17]),c_0_18]),c_0_19])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : LDA001-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.17/0.41 % Computer : n020.cluster.edu
% 0.17/0.41 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.17/0.41 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.17/0.41 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.17/0.41 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.17/0.41 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.17/0.41 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.17/0.41 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 01:17:33 UTC 2026
% 0.21/0.42 % CPUTime :
% 0.21/0.42 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.21/0.49 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.21/0.49 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
% 0.36/0.54 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.36/0.54 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.36/0.54 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.36/0.54 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.36/0.54 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.36/0.54 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.36/0.54 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.36/0.54 % new_bool_3 with pid 1680743 completed with status 0
% 0.36/0.54 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.36/0.54 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.36/0.54 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.36/0.54 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.36/0.54 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.36/0.54 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.36/0.54 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.36/0.54 % Search class: FUUPF-FFSS22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.36/0.54 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.36/0.54 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.36/0.54 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1680746 completed with status 0
% 0.36/0.54 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.36/0.54 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.36/0.54 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.36/0.54 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.36/0.54 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.36/0.54 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.36/0.54 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.36/0.54 % Search class: FUUPF-FFSS22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.36/0.54 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.36/0.54 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.36/0.54 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.36/0.54
% 0.36/0.54 % Proof found!
% 0.36/0.54 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.36/0.54 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.36/0.54 % Parsed axioms : 5
% 0.36/0.54 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.36/0.54 % Initial clauses : 5
% 0.36/0.54 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.36/0.54 % Initial clauses in saturation : 5
% 0.36/0.54 % Processed clauses : 26
% 0.36/0.54 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.36/0.54 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.36/0.54 % ...remaining for further processing : 25
% 0.36/0.54 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.36/0.54 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.36/0.54 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.36/0.54 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.36/0.54 % Generated clauses : 214
% 0.36/0.54 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 174
% 0.36/0.54 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.36/0.54 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.36/0.54 % Paramodulations : 214
% 0.36/0.54 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.36/0.54 % NegExts : 0
% 0.36/0.54 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.36/0.54 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.36/0.54 % Total rewrite steps : 146
% 0.36/0.54 % ...of those cached : 64
% 0.36/0.54 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.36/0.54 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.36/0.54 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.36/0.54 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.36/0.54 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.36/0.54 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.36/0.54 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.36/0.54 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.36/0.54 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.36/0.54 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.36/0.54 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.36/0.54 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.36/0.54 % Current number of processed clauses : 24
% 0.36/0.54 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 24
% 0.36/0.54 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.36/0.54 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.36/0.54 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.36/0.54 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 153
% 0.36/0.54 % ...number of literals in the above : 153
% 0.36/0.54 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.36/0.54 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.36/0.54 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.36/0.54 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.36/0.54 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.36/0.54 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.36/0.54 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.36/0.54 % BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.36/0.54 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.36/0.54 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.36/0.54 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.36/0.54 % Termbank termtop insertions : 3407
% 0.36/0.54 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2
% 0.36/0.54
% 0.36/0.54 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.36/0.54 % User time : 0.008 s
% 0.36/0.54 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.36/0.54 % Total time : 0.012 s
% 0.36/0.54 % Maximum resident set size: 3372 pages
% 0.36/0.54
% 0.36/0.54 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.36/0.54 % User time : 0.009 s
% 0.36/0.54 % System time : 0.011 s
% 0.36/0.54 % Total time : 0.020 s
% 0.36/0.54 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.36/0.54 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------