%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : NUM430+3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n005.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 01:49:03 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.23s 0.62s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.23s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 10 ( 3 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 29 ( 10 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 8 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 26 ( 7 ~; 3 |; 16 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 8 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 9 ( 9 usr; 6 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 7 ( 0 sgn 1 !; 4 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(m__,conjecture,
? [X1] :
( sdtasdt0(xq,X1) = sdtpldt0(xb,smndt0(xc))
& aInteger0(X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__) ).
fof(m__853,hypothesis,
( sdteqdtlpzmzozddtrp0(xb,xc,xq)
& aDivisorOf0(xq,sdtpldt0(xb,smndt0(xc)))
& ? [X1] :
( sdtasdt0(xq,X1) = sdtpldt0(xb,smndt0(xc))
& aInteger0(X1) )
& sdteqdtlpzmzozddtrp0(xa,xb,xq)
& aDivisorOf0(xq,sdtpldt0(xa,smndt0(xb)))
& ? [X1] :
( sdtasdt0(xq,X1) = sdtpldt0(xa,smndt0(xb))
& aInteger0(X1) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__853) ).
fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ ? [X1] :
( sdtasdt0(xq,X1) = sdtpldt0(xb,smndt0(xc))
& aInteger0(X1) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[m__]) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
! [X4] :
( sdtasdt0(xq,X4) != sdtpldt0(xb,smndt0(xc))
| ~ aInteger0(X4) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])])]) ).
fof(c_0_4,hypothesis,
( sdteqdtlpzmzozddtrp0(xb,xc,xq)
& aDivisorOf0(xq,sdtpldt0(xb,smndt0(xc)))
& sdtasdt0(xq,esk2_0) = sdtpldt0(xb,smndt0(xc))
& aInteger0(esk2_0)
& sdteqdtlpzmzozddtrp0(xa,xb,xq)
& aDivisorOf0(xq,sdtpldt0(xa,smndt0(xb)))
& sdtasdt0(xq,esk1_0) = sdtpldt0(xa,smndt0(xb))
& aInteger0(esk1_0) ),
inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[m__853])]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
( sdtasdt0(xq,X1) != sdtpldt0(xb,smndt0(xc))
| ~ aInteger0(X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,hypothesis,
sdtasdt0(xq,esk2_0) = sdtpldt0(xb,smndt0(xc)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
( ~ aInteger0(X1)
| sdtasdt0(xq,X1) != sdtasdt0(xq,esk2_0) ),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,hypothesis,
aInteger0(esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]),c_0_8])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.04 % Problem : NUM430+3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.19/0.46 % Computer : n005.cluster.edu
% 0.19/0.46 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.19/0.46 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.19/0.46 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.19/0.46 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.19/0.46 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.19/0.46 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.19/0.46 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 02:28:17 UTC 2026
% 0.19/0.47 % CPUTime :
% 0.19/0.47 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.23/0.55 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.23/0.56 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
% 0.23/0.62 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.23/0.62 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.23/0.62 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/0.62 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.23/0.62 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.62 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.62 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.62 % sh5l with pid 2352186 completed with status 0
% 0.23/0.62 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.23/0.62 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.23/0.62 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/0.62 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.23/0.62 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.62 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.62 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.62 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.23/0.62 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.23/0.62 % Search class: FGHSF-FFMM21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.23/0.62 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.23/0.62 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.62 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2352194 completed with status 0
% 0.23/0.62 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.23/0.62 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.23/0.62 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/0.62 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.23/0.62 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.62 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.62 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.62 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.23/0.62 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.23/0.62 % Search class: FGHSF-FFMM21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.23/0.62 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.23/0.62 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.62 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.23/0.62
% 0.23/0.62 % Proof found!
% 0.23/0.62 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.23/0.62 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.23/0.62 % Parsed axioms : 25
% 0.23/0.62 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.23/0.62 % Initial clauses : 48
% 0.23/0.62 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 1
% 0.23/0.62 % Initial clauses in saturation : 47
% 0.23/0.62 % Processed clauses : 48
% 0.23/0.62 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.23/0.62 % ...subsumed : 2
% 0.23/0.62 % ...remaining for further processing : 46
% 0.23/0.62 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 1
% 0.23/0.62 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.23/0.62 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.23/0.62 % Backward-rewritten : 5
% 0.23/0.62 % Generated clauses : 35
% 0.23/0.62 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 15
% 0.23/0.62 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.23/0.62 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.23/0.62 % Paramodulations : 33
% 0.23/0.62 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.23/0.62 % NegExts : 0
% 0.23/0.62 % Equation resolutions : 2
% 0.23/0.62 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.23/0.62 % Total rewrite steps : 51
% 0.23/0.62 % ...of those cached : 37
% 0.23/0.62 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.23/0.62 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.23/0.62 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.23/0.62 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.23/0.62 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.23/0.62 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.23/0.62 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.62 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.62 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.62 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.62 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.62 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.62 % Current number of processed clauses : 40
% 0.23/0.62 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 20
% 0.23/0.62 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.23/0.62 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.23/0.62 % Non-unit-clauses : 19
% 0.23/0.62 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 14
% 0.23/0.62 % ...number of literals in the above : 63
% 0.23/0.62 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.23/0.62 % Current number of archived clauses : 5
% 0.23/0.62 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 40
% 0.23/0.62 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 31
% 0.23/0.62 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 2
% 0.23/0.62 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.23/0.62 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.23/0.62 % BW rewrite match attempts : 5
% 0.23/0.62 % BW rewrite match successes : 5
% 0.23/0.62 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.23/0.62 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.23/0.62 % Termbank termtop insertions : 3419
% 0.23/0.62 % Search garbage collected termcells : 501
% 0.23/0.62
% 0.23/0.62 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.23/0.62 % User time : 0.011 s
% 0.23/0.62 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.23/0.62 % Total time : 0.015 s
% 0.23/0.62 % Maximum resident set size: 3660 pages
% 0.23/0.62
% 0.23/0.62 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.23/0.62 % User time : 0.013 s
% 0.23/0.62 % System time : 0.011 s
% 0.23/0.62 % Total time : 0.024 s
% 0.23/0.62 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.23/0.62 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------