%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---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 : n016.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 01:28:09 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.15s 0.60s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.15s
% 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,
! [X26,X27] :
( ( leq(X26,X27)
| X26 != X27 )
& ( leq(X26,X27)
| ~ less(X26,X27) )
& ( X26 = X27
| less(X26,X27)
| ~ leq(X26,X27) ) ),
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,
! [X32,X33,X34] :
( less(X32,X34)
| ~ less(X33,X34)
| ~ leq(X32,X33) ),
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
% 0.13/0.54 % Computer : n016.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.54 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.54 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.54 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.13/0.54 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.13/0.54 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.54 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.13/0.54 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 01:30:08 UTC 2026
% 0.13/0.54 % CPUTime :
% 0.13/0.54 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.58 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/0.58 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
% 0.15/0.60 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.15/0.60 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.60 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.60 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.60 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.60 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.60 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.60 % new_bool_3 with pid 1280795 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.60 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.15/0.60 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.60 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.60 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.60 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.60 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.15/0.60 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.15/0.60 % Search class: FGHSF-FFSM22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.60 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.15/0.60 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.60 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1280798 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.60 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.15/0.60 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.60 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.60 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.60 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.60 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.15/0.60 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.15/0.60 % Search class: FGHSF-FFSM22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.60 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.15/0.60 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.60 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.15/0.60
% 0.15/0.60 % Proof found!
% 0.15/0.60 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.15/0.60 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.15/0.60 % Parsed axioms : 40
% 0.15/0.60 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 17
% 0.15/0.60 % Initial clauses : 33
% 0.15/0.60 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.15/0.60 % Initial clauses in saturation : 33
% 0.15/0.60 % Processed clauses : 125
% 0.15/0.60 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.15/0.60 % ...subsumed : 44
% 0.15/0.60 % ...remaining for further processing : 81
% 0.15/0.60 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 1
% 0.15/0.60 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.15/0.60 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.15/0.60 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.15/0.60 % Generated clauses : 283
% 0.15/0.60 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 247
% 0.15/0.60 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.15/0.60 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 1
% 0.15/0.60 % Paramodulations : 280
% 0.15/0.60 % Factorizations : 2
% 0.15/0.60 % NegExts : 0
% 0.15/0.60 % Equation resolutions : 1
% 0.15/0.60 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.15/0.60 % Total rewrite steps : 24
% 0.15/0.60 % ...of those cached : 18
% 0.15/0.60 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.15/0.60 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.15/0.60 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.15/0.60 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.15/0.60 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.15/0.60 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.15/0.60 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.60 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.60 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.60 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.60 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.60 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.60 % Current number of processed clauses : 80
% 0.15/0.60 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 13
% 0.15/0.60 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.15/0.60 % Negative unit clauses : 15
% 0.15/0.60 % Non-unit-clauses : 52
% 0.15/0.60 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 153
% 0.15/0.60 % ...number of literals in the above : 515
% 0.15/0.60 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.15/0.60 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.15/0.60 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 212
% 0.15/0.60 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 198
% 0.15/0.60 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 24
% 0.15/0.60 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 5
% 0.15/0.60 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.15/0.60 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.15/0.60 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.15/0.60 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.15/0.60 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.15/0.60 % Termbank termtop insertions : 4189
% 0.15/0.60 % Search garbage collected termcells : 362
% 0.15/0.60
% 0.15/0.60 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.60 % User time : 0.009 s
% 0.15/0.60 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.15/0.60 % Total time : 0.011 s
% 0.15/0.60 % Maximum resident set size: 3672 pages
% 0.15/0.60
% 0.15/0.60 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.60 % User time : 0.010 s
% 0.15/0.60 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.15/0.60 % Total time : 0.015 s
% 0.15/0.60 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.15/0.60 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------