%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : MGT049-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.4.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n004.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 01:26:54 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.14s 0.46s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.14s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 14 ( 7 unt; 0 nHn; 9 RR)
% Number of literals : 24 ( 14 equ; 13 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 23 ( 10 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(assumption_6_31,axiom,
( external_ties(X1,X2) != external_ties(X1,X3)
| ~ organization(X1)
| position(X1,X2) = position(X1,X3) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',assumption_6_31) ).
cnf(assumption_11_32,axiom,
( ~ organization(X1)
| external_ties(X1,X2) = external_ties(X1,X3) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',assumption_11_32) ).
cnf(lemma_6_35,negated_conjecture,
position(sk1,sk3) != position(sk1,sk2),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',lemma_6_35) ).
cnf(lemma_6_33,negated_conjecture,
organization(sk1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',lemma_6_33) ).
cnf(c_0_4,plain,
( external_ties(X1,X2) != external_ties(X1,X3)
| ~ organization(X1)
| position(X1,X2) = position(X1,X3) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[assumption_6_31]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,plain,
( ~ organization(X1)
| external_ties(X1,X2) = external_ties(X1,X3) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[assumption_11_32]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( external_ties(X1,X2) != external_ties(X1,X3)
| ~ organization(X1)
| position(X1,X2) = position(X1,X3) ),
c_0_4 ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ organization(X1)
| external_ties(X1,X2) = external_ties(X1,X3) ),
c_0_5 ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
position(sk1,sk3) != position(sk1,sk2),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[lemma_6_35]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ organization(X1)
| position(X1,X2) = position(X1,X3) ),
inference(csr,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
organization(sk1),
lemma_6_33 ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
position(sk1,sk3) != position(sk1,sk2),
c_0_8 ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
position(sk1,X1) = position(sk1,X2),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : MGT049-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.4.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.14/0.40 % Computer : n004.cluster.edu
% 0.14/0.40 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.14/0.40 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.14/0.40 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.14/0.40 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.14/0.40 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.14/0.40 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.14/0.40 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 01:23:36 UTC 2026
% 0.14/0.40 % CPUTime :
% 0.14/0.40 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.14/0.44 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.14/0.44 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
% 0.14/0.46 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.14/0.46 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.46 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.46 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.46 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.46 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.46 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.46 % new_bool_3 with pid 1958209 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.46 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.14/0.46 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.46 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.46 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.46 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.46 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.14/0.46 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.14/0.46 % Search class: FHHSF-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.46 % partial match(1): FGHSF-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.46 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.14/0.46 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.46 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1958216 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.46 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.14/0.46 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.46 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.46 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.46 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.46 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.14/0.46 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.14/0.46 % Search class: FHHSF-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.46 % partial match(1): FGHSF-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.46 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.14/0.46 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.46 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.14/0.46
% 0.14/0.46 % Proof found!
% 0.14/0.46 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.14/0.46 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.14/0.46 % Parsed axioms : 17
% 0.14/0.46 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 9
% 0.14/0.46 % Initial clauses : 8
% 0.14/0.46 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.14/0.46 % Initial clauses in saturation : 8
% 0.14/0.46 % Processed clauses : 18
% 0.14/0.46 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.14/0.46 % ...subsumed : 5
% 0.14/0.46 % ...remaining for further processing : 13
% 0.14/0.46 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.14/0.46 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.14/0.46 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.46 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.14/0.46 % Generated clauses : 16
% 0.14/0.46 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 11
% 0.14/0.46 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.46 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 1
% 0.14/0.46 % Paramodulations : 15
% 0.14/0.46 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.14/0.46 % NegExts : 0
% 0.14/0.46 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.14/0.46 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.14/0.46 % Total rewrite steps : 0
% 0.14/0.46 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.14/0.46 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.14/0.46 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.14/0.46 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.14/0.46 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.14/0.46 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.14/0.46 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.14/0.46 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.46 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.46 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.46 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.46 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.46 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.46 % Current number of processed clauses : 12
% 0.14/0.46 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 2
% 0.14/0.46 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 2
% 0.14/0.46 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.14/0.46 % Non-unit-clauses : 7
% 0.14/0.46 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 1
% 0.14/0.46 % ...number of literals in the above : 3
% 0.14/0.46 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.14/0.46 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.14/0.46 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 12
% 0.14/0.46 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 11
% 0.14/0.46 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 1
% 0.14/0.46 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.14/0.46 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 24
% 0.14/0.46 % BW rewrite match attempts : 4
% 0.14/0.46 % BW rewrite match successes : 4
% 0.14/0.46 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.14/0.46 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.14/0.46 % Termbank termtop insertions : 410
% 0.14/0.46 % Search garbage collected termcells : 45
% 0.14/0.46
% 0.14/0.46 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.46 % User time : 0.003 s
% 0.14/0.46 % System time : 0.001 s
% 0.14/0.46 % Total time : 0.004 s
% 0.14/0.46 % Maximum resident set size: 3640 pages
% 0.14/0.46
% 0.14/0.46 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.46 % User time : 0.005 s
% 0.14/0.46 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.14/0.46 % Total time : 0.010 s
% 0.14/0.46 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.14/0.46 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------