%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : MGT073+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v9.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n007.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 0.10s 0.43s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.10s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 6
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 27 ( 9 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 62 ( 4 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 7 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 62 ( 27 ~; 24 |; 8 &)
% ( 2 <=>; 1 =>; 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 : 3 ( 3 usr; 3 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 37 ( 1 sgn 17 !; 2 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(no_false_compatible,conjecture,
? [X1] :
( in_closed(X1,n5,n10)
& in_closed(X1,n0,n10) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',no_false_compatible) ).
fof(transitive,axiom,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( ( less(X2,X3)
& less(X1,X2) )
=> less(X1,X3) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/MGT002+0.ax',transitive) ).
fof(in_closed,axiom,
! [X1,X4,X5] :
( in_closed(X1,X4,X5)
<=> ( leq(X1,X5)
& leq(X4,X1) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/MGT002+2.ax',in_closed) ).
fof(order_5_10,hypothesis,
less(n5,n10),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',order_5_10) ).
fof(leq_def,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( leq(X1,X2)
<=> ( X1 = X2
| less(X1,X2) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/MGT002+0.ax',leq_def) ).
fof(order_0_5,hypothesis,
less(n0,n5),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',order_0_5) ).
fof(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
~ ? [X1] :
( in_closed(X1,n5,n10)
& in_closed(X1,n0,n10) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[no_false_compatible]) ).
fof(c_0_7,plain,
! [X28,X29,X30] :
( less(X28,X30)
| ~ less(X29,X30)
| ~ less(X28,X29) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[transitive])])]) ).
fof(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
! [X26] :
( ~ in_closed(X26,n5,n10)
| ~ in_closed(X26,n0,n10) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_6])])]) ).
fof(c_0_9,plain,
! [X53,X54,X55] :
( ( in_closed(X53,X54,X55)
| ~ leq(X53,X55)
| ~ leq(X54,X53) )
& ( ~ in_closed(X53,X54,X55)
| leq(X53,X55) )
& ( ~ in_closed(X53,X54,X55)
| leq(X54,X53) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[in_closed])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( ~ less(X2,X3)
| ~ less(X1,X2)
| less(X1,X3) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,hypothesis,
less(n5,n10),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[order_5_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
( ~ in_closed(X1,n5,n10)
| ~ in_closed(X1,n0,n10) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
( ~ leq(X2,X3)
| ~ leq(X1,X2)
| in_closed(X2,X1,X3) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
( ~ in_closed(X1,X3,X2)
| leq(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
fof(c_0_15,plain,
! [X33,X34] :
( ( leq(X33,X34)
| X33 != X34 )
& ( leq(X33,X34)
| ~ less(X33,X34) )
& ( X33 = X34
| less(X33,X34)
| ~ leq(X33,X34) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[leq_def])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,hypothesis,
( ~ less(X1,n5)
| less(X1,n10) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,hypothesis,
less(n0,n5),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[order_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
( ~ leq(n0,X1)
| ~ in_closed(X1,n5,n10) ),
inference(csr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]),c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,plain,
( ~ less(X1,X2)
| leq(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,hypothesis,
less(n0,n10),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,plain,
( X1 != X2
| leq(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_22,negated_conjecture,
( ~ leq(n5,X1)
| ~ leq(X1,n10)
| ~ leq(n0,X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_18,c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_23,hypothesis,
leq(n0,n10),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_19,c_0_20]) ).
cnf(c_0_24,plain,
leq(X1,X1),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_21]) ).
cnf(c_0_25,hypothesis,
leq(n5,n10),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_19,c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_26,hypothesis,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_22,c_0_23]),c_0_24]),c_0_25])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : MGT073+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v9.3.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.37 % Computer : n007.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.37 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 01:22:50 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.41 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.10/0.41 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
% 0.10/0.43 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.10/0.43 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.10/0.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.10/0.43 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.10/0.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.43 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.43 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.43 % new_bool_3 with pid 4063598 completed with status 0
% 0.10/0.43 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.10/0.43 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.10/0.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.10/0.43 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.10/0.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.43 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.10/0.43 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.10/0.43 % Search class: FGHSF-FFMS33-SFFFFFNN
% 0.10/0.43 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.10/0.43 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.43 % SubtermCWHack with pid 4063602 completed with status 0
% 0.10/0.43 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.10/0.43 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.10/0.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.10/0.43 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.10/0.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.43 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.10/0.43 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.10/0.43 % Search class: FGHSF-FFMS33-SFFFFFNN
% 0.10/0.43 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.10/0.43 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.43 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.10/0.43
% 0.10/0.43 % Proof found!
% 0.10/0.43 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.10/0.43 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.10/0.43 % Parsed axioms : 40
% 0.10/0.43 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 23
% 0.10/0.43 % Initial clauses : 26
% 0.10/0.43 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.10/0.43 % Initial clauses in saturation : 26
% 0.10/0.43 % Processed clauses : 153
% 0.10/0.43 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.10/0.43 % ...subsumed : 69
% 0.10/0.43 % ...remaining for further processing : 84
% 0.10/0.43 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 2
% 0.10/0.43 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.10/0.43 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.10/0.43 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.10/0.43 % Generated clauses : 409
% 0.10/0.43 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 296
% 0.10/0.43 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.10/0.43 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 1
% 0.10/0.43 % Paramodulations : 403
% 0.10/0.43 % Factorizations : 4
% 0.10/0.43 % NegExts : 0
% 0.10/0.43 % Equation resolutions : 2
% 0.10/0.43 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.10/0.43 % Total rewrite steps : 123
% 0.10/0.43 % ...of those cached : 112
% 0.10/0.43 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.10/0.43 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.10/0.43 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.10/0.43 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.10/0.43 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.10/0.43 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.10/0.43 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.10/0.43 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.10/0.43 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.10/0.43 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.10/0.43 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.10/0.43 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.10/0.43 % Current number of processed clauses : 82
% 0.10/0.43 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 9
% 0.10/0.43 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.10/0.43 % Negative unit clauses : 4
% 0.10/0.43 % Non-unit-clauses : 69
% 0.10/0.43 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 164
% 0.10/0.43 % ...number of literals in the above : 655
% 0.10/0.43 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.10/0.43 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.10/0.43 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 382
% 0.10/0.43 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 362
% 0.10/0.43 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 60
% 0.10/0.43 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.10/0.43 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.10/0.43 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.10/0.43 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.10/0.43 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.10/0.43 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.10/0.43 % Termbank termtop insertions : 5489
% 0.10/0.43 % Search garbage collected termcells : 482
% 0.10/0.43
% 0.10/0.43 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.10/0.43 % User time : 0.007 s
% 0.10/0.43 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.10/0.43 % Total time : 0.010 s
% 0.10/0.43 % Maximum resident set size: 3940 pages
% 0.10/0.43
% 0.10/0.43 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.10/0.43 % User time : 0.008 s
% 0.10/0.43 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.10/0.43 % Total time : 0.015 s
% 0.10/0.43 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.10/0.43 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------