%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : MGT071+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v9.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n010.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 01:27:00 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.08s 0.44s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.08s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 9
% Number of leaves : 9
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 42 ( 16 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 92 ( 12 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 7 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 85 ( 35 ~; 34 |; 11 &)
% ( 2 <=>; 3 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 9 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 5 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 57 ( 2 sgn 33 !; 2 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(no_false_conflict,conjecture,
~ ? [X1] :
( in_closed(X1,n10,n15)
& in_closed(X1,n0,n5) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',no_false_conflict) ).
fof(in_closed,axiom,
! [X1,X4,X5] :
( in_closed(X1,X4,X5)
<=> ( leq(X1,X5)
& leq(X4,X1) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/MGT002+2.ax',in_closed) ).
fof(leq_less_trans,axiom,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( ( less(X2,X3)
& leq(X1,X2) )
=> less(X1,X3) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/MGT002+0.ax',leq_less_trans) ).
fof(transitive,axiom,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( ( less(X2,X3)
& less(X1,X2) )
=> less(X1,X3) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/MGT002+0.ax',transitive) ).
fof(irreflexive,axiom,
! [X1] : ~ less(X1,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/MGT002+0.ax',irreflexive) ).
fof(order_5_10,hypothesis,
less(n5,n10),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',order_5_10) ).
fof(leq_antisym,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( ( leq(X2,X1)
& leq(X1,X2) )
=> X1 = X2 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/MGT002+0.ax',leq_antisym) ).
fof(trichotomy,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( less(X2,X1)
| X1 = X2
| less(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/MGT002+0.ax',trichotomy) ).
fof(leq_def,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( leq(X1,X2)
<=> ( X1 = X2
| less(X1,X2) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/MGT002+0.ax',leq_def) ).
fof(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
~ ~ ? [X1] :
( in_closed(X1,n10,n15)
& in_closed(X1,n0,n5) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[no_false_conflict]) ).
fof(c_0_10,plain,
! [X27,X28,X29] :
( ( in_closed(X27,X28,X29)
| ~ leq(X27,X29)
| ~ leq(X28,X27) )
& ( ~ in_closed(X27,X28,X29)
| leq(X27,X29) )
& ( ~ in_closed(X27,X28,X29)
| leq(X28,X27) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[in_closed])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
( in_closed(esk1_0,n10,n15)
& in_closed(esk1_0,n0,n5) ),
inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_9])])]) ).
fof(c_0_12,plain,
! [X61,X62,X63] :
( less(X61,X63)
| ~ less(X62,X63)
| ~ leq(X61,X62) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[leq_less_trans])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
( ~ in_closed(X2,X1,X3)
| leq(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
in_closed(esk1_0,n10,n15),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_11]) ).
fof(c_0_15,plain,
! [X87,X88,X89] :
( less(X87,X89)
| ~ less(X88,X89)
| ~ less(X87,X88) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[transitive])])]) ).
fof(c_0_16,plain,
! [X1] : ~ less(X1,X1),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[irreflexive]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,plain,
( ~ in_closed(X1,X3,X2)
| leq(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
in_closed(esk1_0,n0,n5),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,plain,
( ~ less(X2,X3)
| ~ leq(X1,X2)
| less(X1,X3) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,negated_conjecture,
leq(n10,esk1_0),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,plain,
( ~ less(X2,X3)
| ~ less(X1,X2)
| less(X1,X3) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_22,hypothesis,
less(n5,n10),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[order_5_10]) ).
fof(c_0_23,plain,
! [X86] : ~ less(X86,X86),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[c_0_16])]) ).
cnf(c_0_24,negated_conjecture,
leq(esk1_0,n5),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_18]) ).
fof(c_0_25,plain,
! [X57,X58] :
( X57 = X58
| ~ leq(X58,X57)
| ~ leq(X57,X58) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[leq_antisym])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_26,negated_conjecture,
( ~ less(esk1_0,X1)
| less(n10,X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_19,c_0_20]) ).
cnf(c_0_27,hypothesis,
( ~ less(X1,n5)
| less(X1,n10) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_21,c_0_22]) ).
cnf(c_0_28,plain,
~ less(X1,X1),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_23]) ).
fof(c_0_29,plain,
! [X90,X91] :
( less(X91,X90)
| X90 = X91
| less(X90,X91) ),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[trichotomy]) ).
cnf(c_0_30,negated_conjecture,
( ~ less(n5,X1)
| less(esk1_0,X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_19,c_0_24]) ).
fof(c_0_31,plain,
! [X55,X56] :
( ( leq(X55,X56)
| X55 != X56 )
& ( leq(X55,X56)
| ~ less(X55,X56) )
& ( X55 = X56
| less(X55,X56)
| ~ leq(X55,X56) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[leq_def])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_32,plain,
( ~ leq(X2,X1)
| ~ leq(X1,X2)
| X1 = X2 ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_25]) ).
cnf(c_0_33,hypothesis,
~ less(esk1_0,n5),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_26,c_0_27]),c_0_28]) ).
cnf(c_0_34,plain,
( less(X2,X1)
| X1 = X2
| less(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_29]) ).
cnf(c_0_35,negated_conjecture,
~ less(n5,esk1_0),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_28,c_0_30]) ).
cnf(c_0_36,plain,
( ~ less(X1,X2)
| leq(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_31]) ).
cnf(c_0_37,negated_conjecture,
( ~ leq(esk1_0,n10)
| esk1_0 = n10 ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_32,c_0_20]) ).
cnf(c_0_38,hypothesis,
esk1_0 = n5,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_33,c_0_34]),c_0_35]) ).
cnf(c_0_39,hypothesis,
leq(n5,n10),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_36,c_0_22]) ).
cnf(c_0_40,negated_conjecture,
n10 = n5,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_37,c_0_38]),c_0_38]),c_0_39])]) ).
cnf(c_0_41,hypothesis,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_22,c_0_40]),c_0_28]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : MGT071+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v9.3.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/0.37 % Computer : n010.cluster.edu
% 0.08/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.08/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.08/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.08/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.08/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.08/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.08/0.37 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 01:25:09 UTC 2026
% 0.08/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.08/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/0.42 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.08/0.42 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
% 0.08/0.44 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.08/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.08/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.08/0.44 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.08/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.08/0.44 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.08/0.44 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.08/0.44 % sh5l with pid 3955809 completed with status 0
% 0.08/0.44 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.08/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.08/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.08/0.44 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.08/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.08/0.44 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.08/0.44 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.08/0.44 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.08/0.44 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.08/0.44 % Search class: FGHSF-FFMM33-SFFFFFNN
% 0.08/0.44 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.08/0.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.08/0.44 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3955811 completed with status 0
% 0.08/0.44 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.08/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.08/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.08/0.44 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.08/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.08/0.44 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.08/0.44 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.08/0.44 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.08/0.44 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.08/0.44 % Search class: FGHSF-FFMM33-SFFFFFNN
% 0.08/0.44 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.08/0.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.08/0.44 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.08/0.44
% 0.08/0.44 % Proof found!
% 0.08/0.44 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.08/0.44 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.08/0.45 % Parsed axioms : 41
% 0.08/0.45 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 20
% 0.08/0.45 % Initial clauses : 37
% 0.08/0.45 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.08/0.45 % Initial clauses in saturation : 37
% 0.08/0.45 % Processed clauses : 67
% 0.08/0.45 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.08/0.45 % ...subsumed : 9
% 0.08/0.45 % ...remaining for further processing : 58
% 0.08/0.45 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 2
% 0.08/0.45 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.08/0.45 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.08/0.45 % Backward-rewritten : 30
% 0.08/0.45 % Generated clauses : 123
% 0.08/0.45 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 124
% 0.08/0.45 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.08/0.45 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.08/0.45 % Paramodulations : 119
% 0.08/0.45 % Factorizations : 2
% 0.08/0.45 % NegExts : 0
% 0.08/0.45 % Equation resolutions : 2
% 0.08/0.45 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.08/0.45 % Total rewrite steps : 59
% 0.08/0.45 % ...of those cached : 48
% 0.08/0.45 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.08/0.45 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.08/0.45 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.08/0.45 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.08/0.45 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.08/0.45 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.08/0.45 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.08/0.45 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.08/0.45 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.08/0.45 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.08/0.45 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.08/0.45 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.08/0.45 % Current number of processed clauses : 26
% 0.08/0.45 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 8
% 0.08/0.45 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.08/0.45 % Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.08/0.45 % Non-unit-clauses : 16
% 0.08/0.45 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 82
% 0.08/0.45 % ...number of literals in the above : 195
% 0.08/0.45 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.08/0.45 % Current number of archived clauses : 30
% 0.08/0.45 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 39
% 0.08/0.45 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 39
% 0.08/0.45 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 6
% 0.08/0.45 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 35
% 0.08/0.45 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.08/0.45 % BW rewrite match attempts : 4
% 0.08/0.45 % BW rewrite match successes : 2
% 0.08/0.45 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.08/0.45 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.08/0.45 % Termbank termtop insertions : 3266
% 0.08/0.45 % Search garbage collected termcells : 641
% 0.08/0.45
% 0.08/0.45 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.08/0.45 % User time : 0.005 s
% 0.08/0.45 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.08/0.45 % Total time : 0.009 s
% 0.08/0.45 % Maximum resident set size: 3684 pages
% 0.08/0.45
% 0.08/0.45 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.08/0.45 % User time : 0.009 s
% 0.08/0.45 % System time : 0.007 s
% 0.08/0.45 % Total time : 0.016 s
% 0.08/0.45 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.08/0.45 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------