%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : MGT052+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.4.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n005.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 01:26:55 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.14s 0.42s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.14s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 11 ( 7 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 33 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 16 ( 3 avg)
% Number of connectives : 41 ( 19 ~; 15 |; 5 &)
% ( 2 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 12 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 2 ( 2 usr; 2 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 18 ( 0 sgn 12 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(background_assumption_1,conjecture,
! [X1,X5] : ~ dissimilar(X1,X5,X5),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',background_assumption_1) ).
fof(definition_2,axiom,
! [X1,X4,X5] :
( dissimilar(X1,X4,X5)
<=> ( ~ ( is_aligned(X1,X4)
<=> is_aligned(X1,X5) )
& organization(X1) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',definition_2) ).
fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X5] : ~ dissimilar(X1,X5,X5),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[background_assumption_1]) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X5] : ~ dissimilar(X1,X5,X5),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
fof(c_0_4,plain,
! [X8,X9,X10] :
( ( dissimilar(X8,X9,X10)
| ~ organization(X8)
| is_aligned(X8,X9)
| ~ is_aligned(X8,X10) )
& ( dissimilar(X8,X9,X10)
| ~ organization(X8)
| is_aligned(X8,X10)
| ~ is_aligned(X8,X9) )
& ( ~ dissimilar(X8,X9,X10)
| is_aligned(X8,X10)
| is_aligned(X8,X9) )
& ( ~ dissimilar(X8,X9,X10)
| ~ is_aligned(X8,X10)
| ~ is_aligned(X8,X9) )
& ( ~ dissimilar(X8,X9,X10)
| organization(X8) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[definition_2])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
dissimilar(esk1_0,esk2_0,esk2_0),
inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ dissimilar(X1,X2,X3)
| is_aligned(X1,X3)
| is_aligned(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
dissimilar(esk1_0,esk2_0,esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ dissimilar(X1,X2,X3)
| ~ is_aligned(X1,X3)
| ~ is_aligned(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
is_aligned(esk1_0,esk2_0),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_7]),c_0_9])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : MGT052+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.4.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.35 % Computer : n005.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.35 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.35 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/0.35 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 01:24:03 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/0.36 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.40 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.11/0.40 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
% 0.14/0.42 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.14/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % sh5l with pid 2243069 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.14/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.14/0.42 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.14/0.42 % Search class: FGHNF-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.42 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2243072 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.14/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.14/0.42 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.14/0.42 % Search class: FGHNF-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.42 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.14/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.42 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.14/0.42
% 0.14/0.42 % Proof found!
% 0.14/0.42 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.14/0.42 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.14/0.42 % Parsed axioms : 8
% 0.14/0.42 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 6
% 0.14/0.42 % Initial clauses : 6
% 0.14/0.42 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Initial clauses in saturation : 6
% 0.14/0.42 % Processed clauses : 6
% 0.14/0.42 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % ...remaining for further processing : 6
% 0.14/0.42 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Generated clauses : 3
% 0.14/0.42 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 2
% 0.14/0.42 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Paramodulations : 3
% 0.14/0.42 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % NegExts : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Total rewrite steps : 1
% 0.14/0.42 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.42 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.42 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.42 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.42 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.42 % Current number of processed clauses : 6
% 0.14/0.42 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 3
% 0.14/0.42 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Non-unit-clauses : 3
% 0.14/0.42 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 2
% 0.14/0.42 % ...number of literals in the above : 8
% 0.14/0.42 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.14/0.42 % Termbank termtop insertions : 461
% 0.14/0.42 % Search garbage collected termcells : 127
% 0.14/0.42
% 0.14/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.42 % User time : 0.004 s
% 0.14/0.42 % System time : 0.001 s
% 0.14/0.42 % Total time : 0.005 s
% 0.14/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 3636 pages
% 0.14/0.42
% 0.14/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.42 % User time : 0.006 s
% 0.14/0.42 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.14/0.42 % Total time : 0.010 s
% 0.14/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.14/0.42 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------