%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : MGT089+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 : n015.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 0.25s 0.52s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.25s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 13 ( 7 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 27 ( 4 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 7 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 25 ( 11 ~; 9 |; 3 &)
% ( 2 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 7 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-4 aty)
% Number of functors : 2 ( 2 usr; 2 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 13 ( 0 sgn 8 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(odrl604,conjecture,
prec(v5,v5,o,o),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',odrl604) ).
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(prec_oo,axiom,
! [X14,X15] :
( prec(X14,X15,o,o)
<=> leq(X14,X15) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/MGT002+5.ax',prec_oo) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ prec(v5,v5,o,o),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[odrl604]) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ prec(v5,v5,o,o),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X38,X39] :
( ( leq(X38,X39)
| X38 != X39 )
& ( leq(X38,X39)
| ~ less(X38,X39) )
& ( X38 = X39
| less(X38,X39)
| ~ leq(X38,X39) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[leq_def])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
~ prec(v5,v5,o,o),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
fof(c_0_7,plain,
! [X30,X31] :
( ( prec(X30,X31,o,o)
| ~ leq(X30,X31) )
& ( leq(X30,X31)
| ~ prec(X30,X31,o,o) ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[prec_oo])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( X1 != X2
| leq(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
~ prec(v5,v5,o,o),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( ~ leq(X1,X2)
| prec(X1,X2,o,o) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
leq(X1,X1),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_11])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : MGT089+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v9.3.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.18/0.44 % Computer : n015.cluster.edu
% 0.18/0.44 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.18/0.44 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.18/0.44 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.18/0.44 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.18/0.44 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.18/0.44 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.18/0.44 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 01:28:36 UTC 2026
% 0.18/0.44 % CPUTime :
% 0.18/0.44 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.18/0.50 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.18/0.50 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
% 0.25/0.52 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.25/0.52 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.52 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.52 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.52 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.52 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.52 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.52 % new_bool_3 with pid 263127 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.25/0.52 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.52 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.52 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.52 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.52 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.25/0.52 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.25/0.52 % Search class: FGUSF-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.52 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.52 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.52 % SubtermCWHack with pid 263130 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.25/0.52 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.52 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.52 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.52 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.52 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.25/0.52 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.25/0.52 % Search class: FGUSF-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.52 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.52 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.52 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.25/0.52
% 0.25/0.52 % Proof found!
% 0.25/0.52 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.25/0.52 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.25/0.52 % Parsed axioms : 48
% 0.25/0.52 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 33
% 0.25/0.52 % Initial clauses : 21
% 0.25/0.52 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Initial clauses in saturation : 21
% 0.25/0.52 % Processed clauses : 12
% 0.25/0.52 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % ...subsumed : 1
% 0.25/0.52 % ...remaining for further processing : 11
% 0.25/0.52 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 1
% 0.25/0.52 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Generated clauses : 6
% 0.25/0.52 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 3
% 0.25/0.52 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Paramodulations : 3
% 0.25/0.52 % Factorizations : 2
% 0.25/0.52 % NegExts : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Equation resolutions : 1
% 0.25/0.52 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Total rewrite steps : 1
% 0.25/0.52 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.52 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.52 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.52 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.52 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.52 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.52 % Current number of processed clauses : 10
% 0.25/0.52 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 1
% 0.25/0.52 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Negative unit clauses : 3
% 0.25/0.52 % Non-unit-clauses : 6
% 0.25/0.52 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 12
% 0.25/0.52 % ...number of literals in the above : 32
% 0.25/0.52 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 3
% 0.25/0.52 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3
% 0.25/0.52 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 1
% 0.25/0.52 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.25/0.52 % Termbank termtop insertions : 1540
% 0.25/0.52 % Search garbage collected termcells : 402
% 0.25/0.52
% 0.25/0.52 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.52 % User time : 0.004 s
% 0.25/0.52 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.25/0.52 % Total time : 0.005 s
% 0.25/0.52 % Maximum resident set size: 3688 pages
% 0.25/0.52
% 0.25/0.52 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.52 % User time : 0.006 s
% 0.25/0.52 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.25/0.52 % Total time : 0.011 s
% 0.25/0.52 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.25/0.52 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------