%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : NUM228-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v2.1.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n010.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 01:44:31 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.27s 0.58s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.27s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 13 ( 7 unt; 3 nHn; 10 RR)
% Number of literals : 19 ( 6 equ; 9 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 2 con; 0-1 aty)
% Number of variables : 9 ( 3 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(recursion_equation_functions1,axiom,
( ~ member(X1,recursion_equation_functions(X2))
| function(X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/NUM004-0.ax',recursion_equation_functions1) ).
cnf(prove_corollary_2,negated_conjecture,
recursion_equation_functions(z) != null_class,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_corollary_2) ).
cnf(regularity1,axiom,
( member(regular(X1),X1)
| X1 = null_class ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SET004-0.ax',regularity1) ).
cnf(prove_corollary_1,negated_conjecture,
~ function(z),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_corollary_1) ).
cnf(c_0_4,plain,
( ~ member(X1,recursion_equation_functions(X2))
| function(X2) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[recursion_equation_functions1]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
recursion_equation_functions(z) != null_class,
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_corollary_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ member(X1,recursion_equation_functions(X2))
| function(X2) ),
c_0_4 ).
cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
( member(regular(X1),X1)
| X1 = null_class ),
regularity1 ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
~ function(z),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_corollary_1]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
recursion_equation_functions(z) != null_class,
c_0_5 ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( function(X1)
| recursion_equation_functions(X1) = null_class ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
~ function(z),
c_0_8 ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_11]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : NUM228-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v2.1.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.17/0.42 % Computer : n010.cluster.edu
% 0.17/0.42 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.17/0.42 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.17/0.42 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.17/0.42 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.17/0.42 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.17/0.42 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.17/0.42 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 02:14:10 UTC 2026
% 0.17/0.42 % CPUTime :
% 0.17/0.42 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.17/0.50 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.17/0.50 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
% 0.27/0.58 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.27/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.27/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.27/0.58 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.27/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.58 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.58 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.58 % C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with pid 4023207 completed with status 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Result found by C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr
% 0.27/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.27/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.27/0.58 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.27/0.58 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.27/0.58 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.27/0.58 % Search class: FGHSM-FFLM31-DFFFFFNN
% 0.27/0.58 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.27/0.58 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.58 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 311s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.58 % Starting new_bool_1 with 308s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.58 % Starting sh5l with 304s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.58 % SubtermCWHack with pid 4023214 completed with status 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.27/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.27/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.27/0.58 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.27/0.58 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.27/0.58 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.27/0.58 % Search class: FGHSM-FFLM31-DFFFFFNN
% 0.27/0.58 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.27/0.58 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.58 % Preprocessing time : 0.005 s
% 0.27/0.58
% 0.27/0.58 % Proof found!
% 0.27/0.58 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.27/0.58 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.27/0.58 % Parsed axioms : 160
% 0.27/0.58 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Initial clauses : 160
% 0.27/0.58 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 19
% 0.27/0.58 % Initial clauses in saturation : 141
% 0.27/0.58 % Processed clauses : 36
% 0.27/0.58 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % ...remaining for further processing : 36
% 0.27/0.58 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 2
% 0.27/0.58 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.27/0.58 % Generated clauses : 9
% 0.27/0.58 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 5
% 0.27/0.58 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Paramodulations : 7
% 0.27/0.58 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % NegExts : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Equation resolutions : 2
% 0.27/0.58 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Total rewrite steps : 2
% 0.27/0.58 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.58 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.58 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.58 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.58 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.58 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.58 % Current number of processed clauses : 33
% 0.27/0.58 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 15
% 0.27/0.58 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.27/0.58 % Non-unit-clauses : 16
% 0.27/0.58 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 110
% 0.27/0.58 % ...number of literals in the above : 258
% 0.27/0.58 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Current number of archived clauses : 20
% 0.27/0.58 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 25
% 0.27/0.58 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 20
% 0.27/0.58 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3
% 0.27/0.58 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % BW rewrite match attempts : 8
% 0.27/0.58 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.27/0.58 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.27/0.58 % Termbank termtop insertions : 6399
% 0.27/0.58 % Search garbage collected termcells : 289
% 0.27/0.58
% 0.27/0.58 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.27/0.58 % User time : 0.017 s
% 0.27/0.58 % System time : 0.007 s
% 0.27/0.58 % Total time : 0.024 s
% 0.27/0.58 % Maximum resident set size: 4036 pages
% 0.27/0.58
% 0.27/0.58 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.27/0.58 % User time : 0.051 s
% 0.27/0.58 % System time : 0.025 s
% 0.27/0.58 % Total time : 0.076 s
% 0.27/0.58 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.27/0.58 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------