%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : NUM290+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.1.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n017.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 01:44:37 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.19s 10.50s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.19s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 17 ( 12 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 29 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 25 ( 13 ~; 9 |; 2 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 1 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 9 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 2 con; 0-1 aty)
% Number of variables : 15 ( 0 sgn 8 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(less_entry_point_pos_pos,axiom,
! [X1,X2,X10,X11] :
( ( rdn_positive_less(X10,X11)
& rdn_translate(X2,rdn_pos(X11))
& rdn_translate(X1,rdn_pos(X10)) )
=> less(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/NUM005+1.ax',less_entry_point_pos_pos) ).
fof(n2_less_n3,conjecture,
less(n2,n3),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',n2_less_n3) ).
fof(rdn_positive_less23,axiom,
rdn_positive_less(rdnn(n2),rdnn(n3)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/NUM005+1.ax',rdn_positive_less23) ).
fof(rdn3,axiom,
rdn_translate(n3,rdn_pos(rdnn(n3))),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/NUM005+0.ax',rdn3) ).
fof(rdn2,axiom,
rdn_translate(n2,rdn_pos(rdnn(n2))),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/NUM005+0.ax',rdn2) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X33,X34,X35,X36] :
( less(X33,X34)
| ~ rdn_positive_less(X35,X36)
| ~ rdn_translate(X34,rdn_pos(X36))
| ~ rdn_translate(X33,rdn_pos(X35)) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[less_entry_point_pos_pos])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
~ less(n2,n3),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[n2_less_n3]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ rdn_positive_less(X2,X4)
| ~ rdn_translate(X3,rdn_pos(X4))
| ~ rdn_translate(X1,rdn_pos(X2))
| less(X1,X3) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
rdn_positive_less(rdnn(n2),rdnn(n3)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[rdn_positive_less23]) ).
fof(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
~ less(n2,n3),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( ~ rdn_translate(X1,rdn_pos(rdnn(n2)))
| ~ rdn_translate(X2,rdn_pos(rdnn(n3)))
| less(X1,X2) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
rdn_translate(n3,rdn_pos(rdnn(n3))),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[rdn3]) ).
fof(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
~ less(n2,n3),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
( ~ rdn_translate(X1,rdn_pos(rdnn(n2)))
| less(X1,n3) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
rdn_translate(n2,rdn_pos(rdnn(n2))),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[rdn2]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
~ less(n2,n3),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]),c_0_15]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.04 % Problem : NUM290+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.13/10.41 % Computer : n017.cluster.edu
% 0.13/10.41 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/10.41 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/10.41 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.13/10.41 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.13/10.41 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/10.41 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.13/10.41 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 02:16:08 UTC 2026
% 0.13/10.42 % CPUTime :
% 0.13/10.42 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.13/10.46 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.13/10.46 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
% 0.19/10.50 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.19/10.50 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.19/10.50 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.19/10.50 % Starting G-E--_008_C45_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_S4SI with 900s (3) cores
% 0.19/10.50 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.19/10.50 % Starting new_bool_1 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.19/10.50 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.19/10.50 % new_bool_3 with pid 1207738 completed with status 0
% 0.19/10.50 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.19/10.50 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.19/10.50 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.19/10.50 % Starting G-E--_008_C45_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_S4SI with 900s (3) cores
% 0.19/10.50 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.19/10.50 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.19/10.50 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.19/10.50 % Search class: FGHSF-FFMM21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.19/10.50 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 2 cores with 600 seconds (600 total)
% 0.19/10.50 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 55s (1) cores
% 0.19/10.50 % Starting new_bool_3 with 61s (1) cores
% 0.19/10.50 % new_bool_3 with pid 1207744 completed with status 0
% 0.19/10.50 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.19/10.50 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.19/10.50 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.19/10.50 % Starting G-E--_008_C45_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_S4SI with 900s (3) cores
% 0.19/10.50 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.19/10.50 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.19/10.50 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.19/10.50 % Search class: FGHSF-FFMM21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.19/10.50 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 2 cores with 600 seconds (600 total)
% 0.19/10.50 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 55s (1) cores
% 0.19/10.50 % Starting new_bool_3 with 61s (1) cores
% 0.19/10.50 % Preprocessing time : 0.003 s
% 0.19/10.50 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.19/10.50
% 0.19/10.50 % Proof found!
% 0.19/10.50 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.19/10.50 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.19/10.50 % Parsed axioms : 402
% 0.19/10.50 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 276
% 0.19/10.50 % Initial clauses : 128
% 0.19/10.50 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.19/10.50 % Initial clauses in saturation : 128
% 0.19/10.50 % Processed clauses : 183
% 0.19/10.50 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.19/10.50 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.19/10.50 % ...remaining for further processing : 183
% 0.19/10.50 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 1
% 0.19/10.50 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.19/10.50 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.19/10.50 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.19/10.50 % Generated clauses : 58
% 0.19/10.50 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 53
% 0.19/10.50 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.19/10.50 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.19/10.50 % Paramodulations : 55
% 0.19/10.50 % Factorizations : 2
% 0.19/10.50 % NegExts : 0
% 0.19/10.50 % Equation resolutions : 1
% 0.19/10.50 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.19/10.50 % Total rewrite steps : 0
% 0.19/10.50 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.19/10.50 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.19/10.50 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.19/10.50 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.19/10.50 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.19/10.50 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.19/10.50 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.19/10.50 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.19/10.50 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.19/10.50 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.19/10.50 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.19/10.50 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.19/10.50 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.19/10.50 % Current number of processed clauses : 54
% 0.19/10.50 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 31
% 0.19/10.50 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.19/10.50 % Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.19/10.50 % Non-unit-clauses : 21
% 0.19/10.50 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 126
% 0.19/10.50 % ...number of literals in the above : 171
% 0.19/10.50 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.19/10.50 % Current number of archived clauses : 128
% 0.19/10.50 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 74
% 0.19/10.50 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 60
% 0.19/10.50 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.19/10.50 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% 0.19/10.50 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.19/10.50 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.19/10.50 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.19/10.50 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.19/10.50 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.19/10.50 % Termbank termtop insertions : 9275
% 0.19/10.50 % Search garbage collected termcells : 1546
% 0.19/10.50
% 0.19/10.50 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.19/10.50 % User time : 0.014 s
% 0.19/10.50 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.19/10.50 % Total time : 0.019 s
% 0.19/10.50 % Maximum resident set size: 4456 pages
% 0.19/10.50
% 0.19/10.50 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.19/10.50 % User time : 0.031 s
% 0.19/10.50 % System time : 0.015 s
% 0.19/10.50 % Total time : 0.045 s
% 0.19/10.50 % Maximum resident set size: 5120 pages
% 0.19/10.50 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------