%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : NUM326+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 : n019.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 01:44:41 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.14s 0.66s
% 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 : 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 ( 2 sgn 7 !; 2 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(sum_what_nn5_n0,conjecture,
? [X1] : sum(X1,nn5,n0),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',sum_what_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/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/NUM005+2.ax',sum_entry_point_posx_negx) ).
fof(rdnn5,axiom,
rdn_translate(nn5,rdn_neg(rdnn(n5))),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/NUM005+0.ax',rdnn5) ).
fof(rdn5,axiom,
rdn_translate(n5,rdn_pos(rdnn(n5))),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/NUM005+0.ax',rdn5) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ? [X1] : sum(X1,nn5,n0),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[sum_what_nn5_n0]) ).
fof(c_0_5,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_6,negated_conjecture,
! [X33] : ~ sum(X33,nn5,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_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]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
~ sum(X1,nn5,n0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
rdn_translate(n5,rdn_pos(rdnn(n5))),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[rdn5]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
~ rdn_translate(X1,rdn_pos(rdnn(n5))),
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
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : NUM326+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.58 % Computer : n019.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.58 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.58 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.58 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.58 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.58 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.58 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.58 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 02:22:21 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.59 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/0.59 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.62 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.10/0.62 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
% 0.14/0.66 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.14/0.66 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.66 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.66 % Starting G-E--_008_C45_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_S4SI with 900s (3) cores
% 0.14/0.66 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.14/0.66 % Starting new_bool_1 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.14/0.66 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.66 % new_bool_1 with pid 1480881 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.66 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.14/0.66 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.66 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.66 % Starting G-E--_008_C45_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_S4SI with 900s (3) cores
% 0.14/0.66 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.14/0.66 % Starting new_bool_1 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.14/0.66 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.14/0.66 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.14/0.66 % Search class: FHUSF-FFMM21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.66 % partial match(1): FHUNF-FFMM21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.66 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 2 cores with 600 seconds (600 total)
% 0.14/0.66 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 61s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.66 % Starting SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with 361s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.66 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1480885 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.66 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.14/0.66 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSLSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.66 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.66 % Starting G-E--_008_C45_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_S4SI with 900s (3) cores
% 0.14/0.66 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.14/0.66 % Starting new_bool_1 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.14/0.66 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.14/0.66 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.14/0.66 % Search class: FHUSF-FFMM21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.66 % partial match(1): FHUNF-FFMM21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.66 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 2 cores with 600 seconds (600 total)
% 0.14/0.66 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 61s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.66 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.14/0.66
% 0.14/0.66 % Proof found!
% 0.14/0.66 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.14/0.66 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.14/0.66 % Parsed axioms : 402
% 0.14/0.66 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 261
% 0.14/0.66 % Initial clauses : 141
% 0.14/0.66 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.14/0.66 % Initial clauses in saturation : 141
% 0.14/0.66 % Processed clauses : 56
% 0.14/0.66 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.14/0.66 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.66 % ...remaining for further processing : 56
% 0.14/0.66 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.14/0.66 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.14/0.66 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.66 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.14/0.66 % Generated clauses : 11
% 0.14/0.66 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 10
% 0.14/0.66 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.66 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.14/0.66 % Paramodulations : 10
% 0.14/0.66 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.14/0.66 % NegExts : 0
% 0.14/0.66 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.14/0.66 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.14/0.66 % Total rewrite steps : 0
% 0.14/0.66 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.14/0.66 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.14/0.66 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.14/0.66 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.14/0.66 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.14/0.66 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.14/0.66 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.14/0.66 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.66 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.66 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.66 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.66 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.66 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.66 % Current number of processed clauses : 55
% 0.14/0.66 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 47
% 0.14/0.66 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.14/0.66 % Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.14/0.66 % Non-unit-clauses : 6
% 0.14/0.66 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 95
% 0.14/0.66 % ...number of literals in the above : 152
% 0.14/0.66 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.14/0.66 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.14/0.66 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.14/0.66 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.14/0.66 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.14/0.66 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.14/0.66 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.14/0.66 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.14/0.66 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.14/0.66 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.14/0.66 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.14/0.66 % Termbank termtop insertions : 10755
% 0.14/0.66 % Search garbage collected termcells : 1762
% 0.14/0.66
% 0.14/0.66 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.66 % User time : 0.008 s
% 0.14/0.66 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.14/0.66 % Total time : 0.012 s
% 0.14/0.66 % Maximum resident set size: 4764 pages
% 0.14/0.66
% 0.14/0.66 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.66 % User time : 0.018 s
% 0.14/0.66 % System time : 0.011 s
% 0.14/0.66 % Total time : 0.028 s
% 0.14/0.66 % Maximum resident set size: 5120 pages
% 0.14/0.66 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------