%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : NUM318+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 : n011.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 01:51:38 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.35s 20.53s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.35s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 14 ( 10 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 21 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 16 ( 9 ~; 5 |; 1 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 1 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 7 ( 2 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 6 ( 6 usr; 3 con; 0-1 aty)
% Number of variables : 10 ( 0 sgn 6 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(sum_n5_nn5_n0,conjecture,
sum(n5,nn5,n0),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',sum_n5_nn5_n0) ).
fof(sum_entry_point_posx_negx,axiom,
! [X13,X14,X10] :
( ( rdn_translate(X14,rdn_neg(X10))
& rdn_translate(X13,rdn_pos(X10)) )
=> sum(X13,X14,n0) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/NUM005+2.ax',sum_entry_point_posx_negx) ).
fof(rdnn5,axiom,
rdn_translate(nn5,rdn_neg(rdnn(n5))),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/NUM005+0.ax',rdnn5) ).
fof(rdn5,axiom,
rdn_translate(n5,rdn_pos(rdnn(n5))),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/NUM005+0.ax',rdn5) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ sum(n5,nn5,n0),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[sum_n5_nn5_n0]) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X57,X58,X59] :
( sum(X57,X58,n0)
| ~ rdn_translate(X58,rdn_neg(X59))
| ~ rdn_translate(X57,rdn_pos(X59)) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[sum_entry_point_posx_negx])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
~ sum(n5,nn5,n0),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ rdn_translate(X3,rdn_neg(X2))
| ~ rdn_translate(X1,rdn_pos(X2))
| sum(X1,X3,n0) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
rdn_translate(nn5,rdn_neg(rdnn(n5))),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[rdnn5]) ).
fof(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
~ sum(n5,nn5,n0),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( ~ rdn_translate(X1,rdn_pos(rdnn(n5)))
| sum(X1,nn5,n0) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
rdn_translate(n5,rdn_pos(rdnn(n5))),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[rdn5]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
~ sum(n5,nn5,n0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]),c_0_12]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : NUM318+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/0.34 % Computer : n011.cluster.edu
% 0.08/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.08/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.08/0.34 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.08/0.34 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/20.44 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/20.44 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.09/20.44 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 02:21:43 UTC 2026
% 0.09/20.44 % CPUTime :
% 0.09/20.44 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/20.49 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.09/20.49 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
% 0.35/20.53 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.35/20.53 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.35/20.53 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.35/20.53 % Starting G-E--_008_C45_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_S4SI with 900s (3) cores
% 0.35/20.53 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.35/20.53 % Starting new_bool_1 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.35/20.53 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.35/20.53 % sh5l with pid 3939067 completed with status 0
% 0.35/20.53 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.35/20.53 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.35/20.53 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.35/20.53 % Starting G-E--_008_C45_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_S4SI with 900s (3) cores
% 0.35/20.53 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.35/20.53 % Starting new_bool_1 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.35/20.53 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.35/20.53 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.35/20.53 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.35/20.53 % Search class: FGHSF-FFLM21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.35/20.53 % partial match(1): FGHSF-FFMM21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.35/20.53 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.35/20.53 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.35/20.53 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3939068 completed with status 0
% 0.35/20.53 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.35/20.53 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.35/20.53 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.35/20.53 % Starting G-E--_008_C45_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_S4SI with 900s (3) cores
% 0.35/20.53 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.35/20.53 % Starting new_bool_1 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.35/20.53 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.35/20.53 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.35/20.53 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.35/20.53 % Search class: FGHSF-FFLM21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.35/20.53 % partial match(1): FGHSF-FFMM21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.35/20.53 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.35/20.53 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.35/20.53 % Preprocessing time : 0.003 s
% 0.35/20.53
% 0.35/20.53 % Proof found!
% 0.35/20.53 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.35/20.53 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.35/20.53 % Parsed axioms : 402
% 0.35/20.53 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 246
% 0.35/20.53 % Initial clauses : 160
% 0.35/20.53 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.35/20.53 % Initial clauses in saturation : 160
% 0.35/20.53 % Processed clauses : 184
% 0.35/20.53 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.35/20.53 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.35/20.53 % ...remaining for further processing : 184
% 0.35/20.53 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 2
% 0.35/20.53 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.35/20.53 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.35/20.53 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.35/20.53 % Generated clauses : 69
% 0.35/20.53 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 63
% 0.35/20.53 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.35/20.53 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.35/20.53 % Paramodulations : 65
% 0.35/20.53 % Factorizations : 2
% 0.35/20.53 % NegExts : 0
% 0.35/20.53 % Equation resolutions : 2
% 0.35/20.53 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.35/20.53 % Total rewrite steps : 0
% 0.35/20.53 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.35/20.53 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.35/20.53 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.35/20.53 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.35/20.53 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.35/20.53 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.35/20.53 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.35/20.53 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.35/20.53 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.35/20.53 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.35/20.53 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.35/20.53 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.35/20.53 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.35/20.53 % Current number of processed clauses : 182
% 0.35/20.53 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 140
% 0.35/20.53 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.35/20.53 % Negative unit clauses : 12
% 0.35/20.53 % Non-unit-clauses : 30
% 0.35/20.53 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 39
% 0.35/20.53 % ...number of literals in the above : 127
% 0.35/20.53 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.35/20.53 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.35/20.53 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 211
% 0.35/20.53 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 183
% 0.35/20.53 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.35/20.53 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 59
% 0.35/20.53 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.35/20.53 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.35/20.53 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.35/20.53 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.35/20.53 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.35/20.53 % Termbank termtop insertions : 12245
% 0.35/20.53 % Search garbage collected termcells : 1841
% 0.35/20.53
% 0.35/20.53 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.35/20.53 % User time : 0.012 s
% 0.35/20.53 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.35/20.53 % Total time : 0.017 s
% 0.35/20.53 % Maximum resident set size: 4508 pages
% 0.35/20.53
% 0.35/20.53 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.35/20.53 % User time : 0.021 s
% 0.35/20.53 % System time : 0.009 s
% 0.35/20.53 % Total time : 0.030 s
% 0.35/20.53 % Maximum resident set size: 5120 pages
% 0.35/20.53 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------