%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : NUM300+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.1.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n014.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 01:51:36 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.14s 0.64s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.14s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 13 ( 10 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 19 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 14 ( 8 ~; 4 |; 1 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 1 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 8 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 6 ( 6 usr; 3 con; 0-1 aty)
% Number of variables : 18 ( 5 sgn 9 !; 2 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(something_less_n0,conjecture,
? [X1] : less(X1,n0),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',something_less_n0) ).
fof(less_entry_point_neg_pos,axiom,
! [X1,X2,X10,X11] :
( ( rdn_translate(X2,rdn_pos(X11))
& rdn_translate(X1,rdn_neg(X10)) )
=> less(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/NUM005+1.ax',less_entry_point_neg_pos) ).
fof(rdn0,axiom,
rdn_translate(n0,rdn_pos(rdnn(n0))),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/NUM005+0.ax',rdn0) ).
fof(rdnn1,axiom,
rdn_translate(nn1,rdn_neg(rdnn(n1))),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/NUM005+0.ax',rdnn1) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ? [X1] : less(X1,n0),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[something_less_n0]) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X53,X54,X55,X56] :
( less(X53,X54)
| ~ rdn_translate(X54,rdn_pos(X56))
| ~ rdn_translate(X53,rdn_neg(X55)) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[less_entry_point_neg_pos])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
! [X154] : ~ less(X154,n0),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ rdn_translate(X3,rdn_pos(X4))
| ~ rdn_translate(X1,rdn_neg(X2))
| less(X1,X3) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
rdn_translate(n0,rdn_pos(rdnn(n0))),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[rdn0]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
~ less(X1,n0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
rdn_translate(nn1,rdn_neg(rdnn(n1))),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[rdnn1]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
~ rdn_translate(X1,rdn_neg(X2)),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]),c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : NUM300+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.55 % Computer : n014.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.55 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.55 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.55 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.55 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.55 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.55 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.55 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 02:21:04 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.55 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/0.55 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.14/0.60 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.14/0.60 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
% 0.14/0.64 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.14/0.64 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.64 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.64 % Starting G-E--_008_C45_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_S4SI with 900s (3) cores
% 0.14/0.64 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.14/0.64 % Starting new_bool_1 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.14/0.64 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.64 % G-E--_008_C45_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_S4SI with pid 2933625 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.64 % Result found by G-E--_008_C45_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_S4SI
% 0.14/0.64 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.64 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.64 % Starting G-E--_008_C45_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_S4SI with 900s (3) cores
% 0.14/0.64 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.14/0.64 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.14/0.64 % Search class: FGHSF-FSLM21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.64 % Scheduled 11 strats onto 3 cores with 900 seconds (900 total)
% 0.14/0.64 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 82s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.64 % Starting G-E--_008_C45_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_S4SI with 91s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.64 % Starting G-E--_008_C45_F1_PI_AE_Q4_CS_SP_S4d with 82s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.64 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2933629 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.64 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.14/0.64 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.64 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.64 % Starting G-E--_008_C45_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_S4SI with 900s (3) cores
% 0.14/0.64 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.14/0.64 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.14/0.64 % Search class: FGHSF-FSLM21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.64 % Scheduled 11 strats onto 3 cores with 900 seconds (900 total)
% 0.14/0.64 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 82s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.64 % Preprocessing time : 0.005 s
% 0.14/0.64
% 0.14/0.64 % Proof found!
% 0.14/0.64 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.14/0.64 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.14/0.64 % Parsed axioms : 402
% 0.14/0.64 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.14/0.64 % Initial clauses : 407
% 0.14/0.64 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.14/0.64 % Initial clauses in saturation : 407
% 0.14/0.64 % Processed clauses : 78
% 0.14/0.64 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.14/0.64 % ...subsumed : 2
% 0.14/0.64 % ...remaining for further processing : 76
% 0.14/0.64 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 2
% 0.14/0.64 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.14/0.64 % Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.14/0.64 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.14/0.64 % Generated clauses : 53
% 0.14/0.64 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 39
% 0.14/0.64 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.64 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.14/0.64 % Paramodulations : 40
% 0.14/0.64 % Factorizations : 2
% 0.14/0.64 % NegExts : 0
% 0.14/0.64 % Equation resolutions : 2
% 0.14/0.64 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.14/0.64 % Total rewrite steps : 0
% 0.14/0.64 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.14/0.64 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.14/0.64 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.14/0.64 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.14/0.64 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.14/0.64 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.14/0.64 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.14/0.64 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.64 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.64 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.64 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.64 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.64 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.64 % Current number of processed clauses : 64
% 0.14/0.64 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 53
% 0.14/0.64 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.14/0.64 % Negative unit clauses : 3
% 0.14/0.64 % Non-unit-clauses : 8
% 0.14/0.64 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 368
% 0.14/0.64 % ...number of literals in the above : 464
% 0.14/0.64 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.14/0.64 % Current number of archived clauses : 10
% 0.14/0.64 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 19
% 0.14/0.64 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 19
% 0.14/0.64 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 1
% 0.14/0.64 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% 0.14/0.64 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.14/0.64 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.14/0.64 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.14/0.64 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.14/0.64 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.14/0.64 % Termbank termtop insertions : 19380
% 0.14/0.64 % Search garbage collected termcells : 764
% 0.14/0.64
% 0.14/0.64 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.64 % User time : 0.008 s
% 0.14/0.64 % System time : 0.008 s
% 0.14/0.64 % Total time : 0.016 s
% 0.14/0.64 % Maximum resident set size: 4508 pages
% 0.14/0.64
% 0.14/0.64 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.64 % User time : 0.029 s
% 0.14/0.64 % System time : 0.019 s
% 0.14/0.64 % Total time : 0.048 s
% 0.14/0.64 % Maximum resident set size: 5120 pages
% 0.14/0.64 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------