%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : NUM322+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 : n003.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 0.13s 0.51s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.13s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 13 ( 9 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 20 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 15 ( 8 ~; 5 |; 1 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 1 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 7 ( 3 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 : 14 ( 1 sgn 7 !; 2 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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(sum_n5_nn5_what,conjecture,
? [X1] : sum(n5,nn5,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',sum_n5_nn5_what) ).
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,plain,
! [X58,X59,X60] :
( sum(X58,X59,n0)
| ~ rdn_translate(X59,rdn_neg(X60))
| ~ rdn_translate(X58,rdn_pos(X60)) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[sum_entry_point_posx_negx])])]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ ? [X1] : sum(n5,nn5,X1),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[sum_n5_nn5_what]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ rdn_translate(X3,rdn_neg(X2))
| ~ rdn_translate(X1,rdn_pos(X2))
| sum(X1,X3,n0) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
rdn_translate(nn5,rdn_neg(rdnn(n5))),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[rdnn5]) ).
fof(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
! [X33] : ~ sum(n5,nn5,X33),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_5])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ rdn_translate(X1,rdn_pos(rdnn(n5)))
| sum(X1,nn5,n0) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
rdn_translate(n5,rdn_pos(rdnn(n5))),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[rdn5]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
~ sum(n5,nn5,X1),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_11]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : NUM322+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/0.35 % Computer : n003.cluster.edu
% 0.08/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.08/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.08/0.35 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.08/0.35 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.08/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.08/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.08/0.36 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 02:24:01 UTC 2026
% 0.08/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.08/0.36 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.13/0.43 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.13/0.43 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
% 0.13/0.51 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.13/0.51 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.51 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.51 % Starting G-E--_008_C45_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_S4SI with 900s (3) cores
% 0.13/0.51 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.13/0.51 % Starting new_bool_1 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.13/0.51 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.51 % new_bool_3 with pid 3201188 completed with status 0
% 0.13/0.51 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.13/0.51 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.51 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.51 % Starting G-E--_008_C45_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_S4SI with 900s (3) cores
% 0.13/0.51 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.13/0.51 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.13/0.51 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.13/0.51 % Search class: FHUSF-FFMM21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.13/0.51 % partial match(1): FHUNF-FFMM21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.13/0.51 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 2 cores with 600 seconds (600 total)
% 0.13/0.51 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 61s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.51 % Starting SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with 361s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.51 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3201191 completed with status 0
% 0.13/0.51 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.13/0.51 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.51 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.51 % Starting G-E--_008_C45_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_S4SI with 900s (3) cores
% 0.13/0.51 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.13/0.51 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.13/0.51 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.13/0.51 % Search class: FHUSF-FFMM21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.13/0.51 % partial match(1): FHUNF-FFMM21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.13/0.51 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 2 cores with 600 seconds (600 total)
% 0.13/0.51 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 61s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.51 % Preprocessing time : 0.004 s
% 0.13/0.51
% 0.13/0.51 % Proof found!
% 0.13/0.51 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.13/0.51 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.13/0.51 % Parsed axioms : 402
% 0.13/0.51 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 261
% 0.13/0.51 % Initial clauses : 141
% 0.13/0.51 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.13/0.51 % Initial clauses in saturation : 141
% 0.13/0.51 % Processed clauses : 133
% 0.13/0.51 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.13/0.51 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.13/0.51 % ...remaining for further processing : 133
% 0.13/0.51 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.13/0.51 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.13/0.51 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.13/0.51 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.13/0.51 % Generated clauses : 21
% 0.13/0.51 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 20
% 0.13/0.51 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.13/0.51 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.13/0.51 % Paramodulations : 21
% 0.13/0.51 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.13/0.51 % NegExts : 0
% 0.13/0.51 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.13/0.51 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.13/0.51 % Total rewrite steps : 0
% 0.13/0.51 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.13/0.51 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.13/0.51 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.13/0.51 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.13/0.51 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.13/0.51 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.13/0.51 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.13/0.51 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.51 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.51 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.51 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.51 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.51 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.51 % Current number of processed clauses : 133
% 0.13/0.51 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 120
% 0.13/0.51 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.13/0.51 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.13/0.51 % Non-unit-clauses : 12
% 0.13/0.51 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 28
% 0.13/0.51 % ...number of literals in the above : 94
% 0.13/0.51 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.13/0.51 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.13/0.51 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 42
% 0.13/0.51 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 30
% 0.13/0.51 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.13/0.51 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.13/0.51 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.13/0.51 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.13/0.51 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.13/0.51 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.13/0.51 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.13/0.51 % Termbank termtop insertions : 10932
% 0.13/0.51 % Search garbage collected termcells : 1762
% 0.13/0.51
% 0.13/0.51 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.13/0.51 % User time : 0.017 s
% 0.13/0.51 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.13/0.51 % Total time : 0.022 s
% 0.13/0.51 % Maximum resident set size: 4764 pages
% 0.13/0.51
% 0.13/0.51 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.13/0.51 % User time : 0.037 s
% 0.13/0.51 % System time : 0.016 s
% 0.13/0.51 % Total time : 0.053 s
% 0.13/0.51 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.13/0.51 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------