%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : MGT093+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 : n002.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 0.61s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.25s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 13 ( 10 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 25 ( 14 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 5 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 24 ( 12 ~; 8 |; 3 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 1 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 8 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 3 ( 3 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 6 ( 0 sgn 4 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(odrl644,conjecture,
xone_verdict(compatible,conflict) = compatible,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',odrl644) ).
fof(xone_compat,axiom,
! [X6,X7] :
( ( X7 = conflict
& X6 = compatible
& is_verdict(X7)
& is_verdict(X6) )
=> xone_verdict(X6,X7) = compatible ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/MGT002+3.ax',xone_compat) ).
fof(conflict_is_verdict,axiom,
is_verdict(conflict),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/MGT002+2.ax',conflict_is_verdict) ).
fof(compatible_is_verdict,axiom,
is_verdict(compatible),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/MGT002+2.ax',compatible_is_verdict) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
xone_verdict(compatible,conflict) != compatible,
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[odrl644]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
xone_verdict(compatible,conflict) != compatible,
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X24,X25] :
( xone_verdict(X24,X25) = compatible
| X25 != conflict
| X24 != compatible
| ~ is_verdict(X25)
| ~ is_verdict(X24) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[xone_compat])])]) ).
fof(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
xone_verdict(compatible,conflict) != compatible,
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( X2 != conflict
| X1 != compatible
| ~ is_verdict(X2)
| ~ is_verdict(X1)
| xone_verdict(X1,X2) = compatible ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
is_verdict(conflict),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[conflict_is_verdict]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
is_verdict(compatible),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[compatible_is_verdict]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
xone_verdict(compatible,conflict) != compatible,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(er,[status(thm)],[inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_8])]),c_0_9]),c_0_10])]),c_0_11]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : MGT093+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v9.3.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.20/0.47 % Computer : n002.cluster.edu
% 0.20/0.47 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.20/0.47 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.20/0.47 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.20/0.47 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.20/0.47 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.20/0.47 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.20/0.47 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 01:28:48 UTC 2026
% 0.20/0.47 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.47 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.25/0.55 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.25/0.55 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
% 0.25/0.61 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.25/0.61 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.61 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.61 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.61 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.61 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.61 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.61 % new_bool_3 with pid 2158877 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.61 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.25/0.61 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.61 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.61 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.61 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.61 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.25/0.61 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.25/0.61 % Search class: FGUSF-FFSS22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.61 % partial match(1): FGUNF-FFSS22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.61 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.61 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.61 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2158881 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.61 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.25/0.61 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.61 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.61 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.61 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.61 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.25/0.61 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.25/0.61 % Search class: FGUSF-FFSS22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.61 % partial match(1): FGUNF-FFSS22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.61 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.61 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.61 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.25/0.61
% 0.25/0.61 % Proof found!
% 0.25/0.61 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.25/0.61 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.25/0.61 % Parsed axioms : 37
% 0.25/0.61 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 25
% 0.25/0.61 % Initial clauses : 15
% 0.25/0.61 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.25/0.61 % Initial clauses in saturation : 15
% 0.25/0.61 % Processed clauses : 13
% 0.25/0.61 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.25/0.61 % ...subsumed : 2
% 0.25/0.61 % ...remaining for further processing : 11
% 0.25/0.61 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 2
% 0.25/0.61 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.25/0.61 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.61 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.25/0.61 % Generated clauses : 1
% 0.25/0.61 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 0
% 0.25/0.61 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.61 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.25/0.61 % Paramodulations : 0
% 0.25/0.61 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.25/0.61 % NegExts : 0
% 0.25/0.61 % Equation resolutions : 2
% 0.25/0.61 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.25/0.61 % Total rewrite steps : 2
% 0.25/0.61 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.25/0.61 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.25/0.61 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.25/0.61 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.25/0.61 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.61 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.25/0.61 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.25/0.61 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.61 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.61 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.61 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.61 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.61 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.61 % Current number of processed clauses : 10
% 0.25/0.61 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 3
% 0.25/0.61 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.25/0.61 % Negative unit clauses : 4
% 0.25/0.61 % Non-unit-clauses : 3
% 0.25/0.61 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 2
% 0.25/0.61 % ...number of literals in the above : 10
% 0.25/0.61 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.25/0.61 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.61 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 7
% 0.25/0.61 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 7
% 0.25/0.61 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 2
% 0.25/0.61 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.25/0.61 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.25/0.61 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.25/0.61 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.25/0.61 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.25/0.61 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.25/0.61 % Termbank termtop insertions : 1236
% 0.25/0.61 % Search garbage collected termcells : 357
% 0.25/0.61
% 0.25/0.61 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.61 % User time : 0.007 s
% 0.25/0.61 % System time : 0.001 s
% 0.25/0.61 % Total time : 0.008 s
% 0.25/0.61 % Maximum resident set size: 3632 pages
% 0.25/0.61
% 0.25/0.61 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.61 % User time : 0.012 s
% 0.25/0.61 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.25/0.61 % Total time : 0.018 s
% 0.25/0.61 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.25/0.61 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------