%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : LDA007-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v2.6.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/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 01:24:45 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.12s 1.25s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.12s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 7
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 19 ( 19 unt; 0 nHn; 15 RR)
% Number of literals : 19 ( 18 equ; 3 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 0 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 9 ( 9 usr; 8 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 8 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(a1,axiom,
f(X1,f(X2,X3)) = f(f(X1,X2),f(X1,X3)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/LDA001-0.ax',a1) ).
cnf(clause_1,axiom,
tt = f(t,t),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',clause_1) ).
cnf(clause_7,axiom,
tk = f(t,k),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',clause_7) ).
cnf(clause_3,axiom,
ts = f(t,s),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',clause_3) ).
cnf(clause_4,axiom,
tt_ts = f(tt,ts),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',clause_4) ).
cnf(prove_equation,negated_conjecture,
f(t,tsk) != f(tt_ts,tk),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_equation) ).
cnf(clause_9,axiom,
tsk = f(ts,k),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',clause_9) ).
cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
f(X1,f(X2,X3)) = f(f(X1,X2),f(X1,X3)),
a1 ).
cnf(c_0_8,axiom,
tt = f(t,t),
clause_1 ).
cnf(c_0_9,axiom,
tk = f(t,k),
clause_7 ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
f(tt,f(t,X1)) = f(t,f(t,X1)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,axiom,
ts = f(t,s),
clause_3 ).
cnf(c_0_12,axiom,
tt_ts = f(tt,ts),
clause_4 ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
f(t,tsk) != f(tt_ts,tk),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_equation]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
f(f(t,X1),tk) = f(t,f(X1,k)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
f(t,ts) = tt_ts,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]),c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,axiom,
tsk = f(ts,k),
clause_9 ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
f(t,tsk) != f(tt_ts,tk),
c_0_13 ).
cnf(c_0_18,plain,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]),c_0_16]),c_0_17]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : LDA007-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v2.6.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/1.18 % Computer : n014.cluster.edu
% 0.08/1.18 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.08/1.18 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.08/1.18 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.08/1.18 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.08/1.18 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.08/1.18 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.08/1.18 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 01:16:21 UTC 2026
% 0.08/1.18 % CPUTime :
% 0.08/1.18 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/1.23 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.12/1.23 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
% 0.12/1.25 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.12/1.25 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/1.25 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/1.25 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/1.25 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/1.25 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/1.25 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/1.25 % G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with pid 2843690 completed with status 0
% 0.12/1.25 % Result found by G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI
% 0.12/1.25 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/1.25 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/1.25 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/1.25 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.12/1.25 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.12/1.25 % Search class: FGUSS-FFSM21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.12/1.25 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.12/1.25 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.12/1.25 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with 151s (1) cores
% 0.12/1.25 % Starting new_bool_3 with 286s (1) cores
% 0.12/1.25 % Starting new_bool_1 with 286s (1) cores
% 0.12/1.25 % Starting sh5l with 286s (1) cores
% 0.12/1.25 % G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with pid 2843695 completed with status 0
% 0.12/1.25 % Result found by G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI
% 0.12/1.25 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/1.25 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/1.25 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/1.25 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.12/1.25 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.12/1.25 % Search class: FGUSS-FFSM21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.12/1.25 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.12/1.25 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.12/1.25 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with 151s (1) cores
% 0.12/1.25 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.12/1.25 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.12/1.25
% 0.12/1.25 % Proof found!
% 0.12/1.25 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.12/1.25 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.12/1.25 % Parsed axioms : 20
% 0.12/1.25 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.12/1.25 % Initial clauses : 20
% 0.12/1.25 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.12/1.25 % Initial clauses in saturation : 20
% 0.12/1.25 % Processed clauses : 70
% 0.12/1.25 % ...of these trivial : 1
% 0.12/1.25 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.12/1.25 % ...remaining for further processing : 69
% 0.12/1.25 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.12/1.25 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.12/1.25 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.12/1.25 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.12/1.25 % Generated clauses : 294
% 0.12/1.25 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 266
% 0.12/1.25 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.12/1.25 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.12/1.25 % Paramodulations : 292
% 0.12/1.25 % Factorizations : 2
% 0.12/1.25 % NegExts : 0
% 0.12/1.25 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.12/1.25 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.12/1.25 % Total rewrite steps : 95
% 0.12/1.25 % ...of those cached : 36
% 0.12/1.25 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.12/1.25 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.12/1.25 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.12/1.25 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.12/1.25 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.12/1.25 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.12/1.25 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.12/1.25 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.12/1.25 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.12/1.25 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.12/1.25 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.12/1.25 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.12/1.25 % Current number of processed clauses : 48
% 0.12/1.25 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 34
% 0.12/1.25 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.12/1.25 % Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.12/1.25 % Non-unit-clauses : 12
% 0.12/1.25 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 229
% 0.12/1.25 % ...number of literals in the above : 285
% 0.12/1.25 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.12/1.25 % Current number of archived clauses : 21
% 0.12/1.25 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 20
% 0.12/1.25 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 19
% 0.12/1.25 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.12/1.25 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.12/1.25 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.12/1.25 % BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.12/1.25 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.12/1.25 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.12/1.25 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.12/1.25 % Termbank termtop insertions : 4287
% 0.12/1.25 % Search garbage collected termcells : 12
% 0.12/1.25
% 0.12/1.25 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.12/1.25 % User time : 0.005 s
% 0.12/1.25 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.12/1.25 % Total time : 0.008 s
% 0.12/1.25 % Maximum resident set size: 3644 pages
% 0.12/1.25
% 0.12/1.25 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.12/1.25 % User time : 0.017 s
% 0.12/1.25 % System time : 0.018 s
% 0.12/1.25 % Total time : 0.036 s
% 0.12/1.25 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.12/1.25 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------