%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : NUM303+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 : 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 01:44:39 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.28s 0.49s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.28s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 7
% Number of leaves : 7
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 25 ( 13 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 52 ( 9 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 7 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 53 ( 26 ~; 17 |; 6 &)
% ( 2 <=>; 2 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 9 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 8 ( 8 usr; 5 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 38 ( 3 sgn 22 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(n31_not_n12,conjecture,
n31 != n21,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',n31_not_n12) ).
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/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/NUM005+1.ax',less_entry_point_pos_pos) ).
fof(rdn31,axiom,
rdn_translate(n31,rdn_pos(rdn(rdnn(n1),rdnn(n3)))),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/NUM005+0.ax',rdn31) ).
fof(less_property,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( less(X1,X2)
<=> ( X2 != X1
& ~ less(X2,X1) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/NUM005+1.ax',less_property) ).
fof(rdn_positive_less_multi_digit_high,axiom,
! [X4,X5,X6,X7] :
( rdn_positive_less(X5,X7)
=> rdn_positive_less(rdn(rdnn(X4),X5),rdn(rdnn(X6),X7)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/NUM005+1.ax',rdn_positive_less_multi_digit_high) ).
fof(rdn21,axiom,
rdn_translate(n21,rdn_pos(rdn(rdnn(n1),rdnn(n2)))),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/NUM005+0.ax',rdn21) ).
fof(rdn_positive_less23,axiom,
rdn_positive_less(rdnn(n2),rdnn(n3)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/NUM005+1.ax',rdn_positive_less23) ).
fof(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
~ ( n31 != n21 ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[n31_not_n12]) ).
fof(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
n31 = n21,
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
fof(c_0_9,plain,
! [X46,X47,X48,X49] :
( less(X46,X47)
| ~ rdn_positive_less(X48,X49)
| ~ rdn_translate(X47,rdn_pos(X49))
| ~ rdn_translate(X46,rdn_pos(X48)) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[less_entry_point_pos_pos])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
rdn_translate(n31,rdn_pos(rdn(rdnn(n1),rdnn(n3)))),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[rdn31]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
n31 = n21,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
fof(c_0_12,plain,
! [X1,X2] :
( less(X1,X2)
<=> ( X2 != X1
& ~ less(X2,X1) ) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[less_property]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,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_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
rdn_translate(n21,rdn_pos(rdn(rdnn(n1),rdnn(n3)))),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).
fof(c_0_15,plain,
! [X36,X37,X38,X39] :
( rdn_positive_less(rdn(rdnn(X36),X37),rdn(rdnn(X38),X39))
| ~ rdn_positive_less(X37,X39) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[rdn_positive_less_multi_digit_high])])]) ).
fof(c_0_16,plain,
! [X94,X95] :
( ( less(X94,X95)
| X95 = X94
| less(X95,X94) )
& ( ~ less(X94,X95)
| X95 != X94 )
& ( ~ less(X94,X95)
| ~ less(X95,X94) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_12])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,plain,
( ~ rdn_translate(X1,rdn_pos(X2))
| ~ rdn_positive_less(X2,rdn(rdnn(n1),rdnn(n3)))
| less(X1,n21) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,plain,
( ~ rdn_positive_less(X1,X2)
| rdn_positive_less(rdn(rdnn(X3),X1),rdn(rdnn(X4),X2)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,plain,
( ~ less(X2,X1)
| X1 != X2 ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_16]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,plain,
( ~ rdn_translate(X1,rdn_pos(rdn(rdnn(X3),X2)))
| ~ rdn_positive_less(X2,rdnn(n3))
| less(X1,n21) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_18]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,plain,
rdn_translate(n21,rdn_pos(rdn(rdnn(n1),rdnn(n2)))),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[rdn21]) ).
cnf(c_0_22,plain,
rdn_positive_less(rdnn(n2),rdnn(n3)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[rdn_positive_less23]) ).
cnf(c_0_23,plain,
~ less(X1,X1),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_19]) ).
cnf(c_0_24,plain,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_20,c_0_21]),c_0_22])]),c_0_23]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : NUM303+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.37 % Computer : n017.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.37 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 02:16:42 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.42 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/0.42 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
% 0.28/0.49 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.28/0.49 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.28/0.49 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.28/0.49 % Starting G-E--_008_C45_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_S4SI with 900s (3) cores
% 0.28/0.49 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.28/0.49 % Starting new_bool_1 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.28/0.49 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.49 % sh5l with pid 1210140 completed with status 0
% 0.28/0.49 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.28/0.49 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.28/0.49 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.28/0.49 % Starting G-E--_008_C45_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_S4SI with 900s (3) cores
% 0.28/0.49 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.28/0.49 % Starting new_bool_1 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.28/0.49 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.49 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.28/0.49 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.28/0.49 % Search class: FGHSF-FFLM21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.28/0.49 % partial match(1): FGHSF-FSLM21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.28/0.49 % Scheduled 11 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.28/0.49 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.49 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1210147 completed with status 0
% 0.28/0.49 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.28/0.49 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.28/0.49 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.28/0.49 % Starting G-E--_008_C45_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_S4SI with 900s (3) cores
% 0.28/0.49 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.28/0.49 % Starting new_bool_1 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.28/0.49 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.49 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.28/0.49 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.28/0.49 % Search class: FGHSF-FFLM21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.28/0.49 % partial match(1): FGHSF-FSLM21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.28/0.49 % Scheduled 11 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.28/0.49 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.28/0.49 % Preprocessing time : 0.003 s
% 0.28/0.49
% 0.28/0.49 % Proof found!
% 0.28/0.49 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.28/0.49 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.28/0.49 % Parsed axioms : 402
% 0.28/0.49 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 254
% 0.28/0.49 % Initial clauses : 152
% 0.28/0.49 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.28/0.49 % Initial clauses in saturation : 152
% 0.28/0.49 % Processed clauses : 559
% 0.28/0.49 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.28/0.49 % ...subsumed : 157
% 0.28/0.49 % ...remaining for further processing : 402
% 0.28/0.49 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 2
% 0.28/0.49 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.28/0.49 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.28/0.49 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.28/0.49 % Generated clauses : 625
% 0.28/0.49 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 600
% 0.28/0.49 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.28/0.49 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.28/0.49 % Paramodulations : 621
% 0.28/0.49 % Factorizations : 2
% 0.28/0.49 % NegExts : 0
% 0.28/0.49 % Equation resolutions : 2
% 0.28/0.49 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.28/0.49 % Total rewrite steps : 29
% 0.28/0.49 % ...of those cached : 10
% 0.28/0.49 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.28/0.49 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.28/0.49 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.28/0.49 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.28/0.49 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.28/0.49 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.28/0.49 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.28/0.49 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.28/0.49 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.28/0.49 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.28/0.49 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.28/0.49 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.28/0.49 % Current number of processed clauses : 400
% 0.28/0.49 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 132
% 0.28/0.49 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.28/0.49 % Negative unit clauses : 65
% 0.28/0.49 % Non-unit-clauses : 203
% 0.28/0.49 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 193
% 0.28/0.49 % ...number of literals in the above : 911
% 0.28/0.49 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.28/0.49 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.28/0.49 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 5886
% 0.28/0.49 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 4820
% 0.28/0.49 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 74
% 0.28/0.49 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 4271
% 0.28/0.49 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.28/0.49 % BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.28/0.49 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.28/0.49 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.28/0.49 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.28/0.49 % Termbank termtop insertions : 21655
% 0.28/0.49 % Search garbage collected termcells : 1855
% 0.28/0.49
% 0.28/0.49 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.28/0.49 % User time : 0.033 s
% 0.28/0.49 % System time : 0.010 s
% 0.28/0.49 % Total time : 0.043 s
% 0.28/0.49 % Maximum resident set size: 4456 pages
% 0.28/0.49
% 0.28/0.49 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.28/0.49 % User time : 0.041 s
% 0.28/0.49 % System time : 0.015 s
% 0.28/0.49 % Total time : 0.056 s
% 0.28/0.49 % Maximum resident set size: 5120 pages
% 0.28/0.49 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------