%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : MGT088+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v9.3.1.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n006.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 01:27:02 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.12s 0.42s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.12s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 8
% Number of leaves : 7
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 28 ( 7 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 69 ( 4 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 7 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 71 ( 30 ~; 28 |; 9 &)
% ( 2 <=>; 2 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 9 ( 4 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 : 46 ( 0 sgn 23 !; 2 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(leq_trans,axiom,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( ( leq(X2,X3)
& leq(X1,X2) )
=> leq(X1,X3) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/MGT002+0.ax',leq_trans) ).
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(ord_v0_v200,axiom,
less(v0,v200),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',ord_v0_v200) ).
fof(odrl509,conjecture,
? [X1] :
( in_lopen(X1,v0,v400)
& less(v200,X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',odrl509) ).
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(in_lopen,axiom,
! [X1,X4,X5] :
( in_lopen(X1,X4,X5)
<=> ( leq(X1,X5)
& less(X4,X1) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/MGT002+2.ax',in_lopen) ).
fof(ord_v200_v400,axiom,
less(v200,v400),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',ord_v200_v400) ).
fof(c_0_7,plain,
! [X38,X39,X40] :
( leq(X38,X40)
| ~ leq(X39,X40)
| ~ leq(X38,X39) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[leq_trans])])]) ).
fof(c_0_8,plain,
! [X23,X24] :
( ( leq(X23,X24)
| X23 != X24 )
& ( leq(X23,X24)
| ~ less(X23,X24) )
& ( X23 = X24
| less(X23,X24)
| ~ leq(X23,X24) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[leq_def])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ leq(X2,X3)
| ~ leq(X1,X2)
| leq(X1,X3) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( ~ less(X1,X2)
| leq(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( ~ less(X3,X2)
| ~ leq(X1,X3)
| leq(X1,X2) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
less(v0,v200),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[ord_v0_v200]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
( X1 != X2
| leq(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
fof(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
~ ? [X1] :
( in_lopen(X1,v0,v400)
& less(v200,X1) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[odrl509]) ).
fof(c_0_15,plain,
! [X27,X28,X29] :
( less(X27,X29)
| ~ less(X28,X29)
| ~ leq(X27,X28) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[leq_less_trans])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
( ~ leq(X1,v0)
| leq(X1,v200) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,plain,
leq(X1,X1),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_13]) ).
fof(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
! [X13] :
( ~ in_lopen(X13,v0,v400)
| ~ less(v200,X13) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_14])])]) ).
fof(c_0_19,plain,
! [X14,X15,X16] :
( ( in_lopen(X14,X15,X16)
| ~ leq(X14,X16)
| ~ less(X15,X14) )
& ( ~ in_lopen(X14,X15,X16)
| leq(X14,X16) )
& ( ~ in_lopen(X14,X15,X16)
| less(X15,X14) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[in_lopen])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,plain,
( ~ less(X2,X3)
| ~ leq(X1,X2)
| less(X1,X3) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,plain,
leq(v0,v200),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]) ).
cnf(c_0_22,negated_conjecture,
( ~ in_lopen(X1,v0,v400)
| ~ less(v200,X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_18]) ).
cnf(c_0_23,plain,
( ~ leq(X2,X3)
| ~ less(X1,X2)
| in_lopen(X2,X1,X3) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_19]) ).
cnf(c_0_24,plain,
( ~ less(v200,X1)
| less(v0,X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_20,c_0_21]) ).
cnf(c_0_25,negated_conjecture,
( ~ less(v200,X1)
| ~ leq(X1,v400) ),
inference(csr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_22,c_0_23]),c_0_24]) ).
cnf(c_0_26,plain,
less(v200,v400),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[ord_v200_v400]) ).
cnf(c_0_27,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_25,c_0_17]),c_0_26])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : MGT088+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v9.3.1.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/0.35 % Computer : n006.cluster.edu
% 0.08/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.08/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.08/0.35 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.08/0.35 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.08/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.08/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.08/0.35 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 01:25:13 UTC 2026
% 0.08/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.08/0.36 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.39 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.12/0.39 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
% 0.12/0.42 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.12/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % sh5l with pid 1717046 completed with status 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.12/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.12/0.42 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.12/0.42 % Search class: FGHSF-FFMM33-SFFFFFNN
% 0.12/0.42 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1717049 completed with status 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.12/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.12/0.42 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.12/0.42 % Search class: FGHSF-FFMM33-SFFFFFNN
% 0.12/0.42 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.12/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.42 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.12/0.42
% 0.12/0.42 % Proof found!
% 0.12/0.42 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.12/0.42 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.12/0.42 % Parsed axioms : 40
% 0.12/0.42 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 13
% 0.12/0.42 % Initial clauses : 45
% 0.12/0.42 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Initial clauses in saturation : 45
% 0.12/0.42 % Processed clauses : 107
% 0.12/0.42 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % ...subsumed : 30
% 0.12/0.42 % ...remaining for further processing : 77
% 0.12/0.42 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 1
% 0.12/0.42 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Generated clauses : 207
% 0.12/0.42 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 174
% 0.12/0.42 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 1
% 0.12/0.42 % Paramodulations : 204
% 0.12/0.42 % Factorizations : 2
% 0.12/0.42 % NegExts : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Equation resolutions : 1
% 0.12/0.42 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Total rewrite steps : 20
% 0.12/0.42 % ...of those cached : 14
% 0.12/0.42 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.42 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.42 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.42 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.42 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.42 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.42 % Current number of processed clauses : 76
% 0.12/0.42 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 13
% 0.12/0.42 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Negative unit clauses : 15
% 0.12/0.42 % Non-unit-clauses : 48
% 0.12/0.42 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 110
% 0.12/0.42 % ...number of literals in the above : 350
% 0.12/0.42 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 119
% 0.12/0.42 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 119
% 0.12/0.42 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 20
% 0.12/0.42 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 5
% 0.12/0.42 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.12/0.42 % Termbank termtop insertions : 4261
% 0.12/0.42 % Search garbage collected termcells : 642
% 0.12/0.42
% 0.12/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.12/0.42 % User time : 0.007 s
% 0.12/0.42 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.12/0.42 % Total time : 0.009 s
% 0.12/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 3672 pages
% 0.12/0.42
% 0.12/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.12/0.42 % User time : 0.011 s
% 0.12/0.42 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.12/0.42 % Total time : 0.016 s
% 0.12/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.12/0.42 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------