%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : NUM435+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n018.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 01:49:04 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.23s 5.61s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.23s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 22 ( 11 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 56 ( 21 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 6 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 58 ( 24 ~; 13 |; 19 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 2 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 8 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 9 ( 9 usr; 6 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 18 ( 0 sgn 10 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(m__,conjecture,
sdtpldt0(xa,smndt0(xb)) = sdtasdt0(xq,sdtasdt0(xp,xm)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__) ).
fof(mMulAsso,axiom,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( ( aInteger0(X3)
& aInteger0(X2)
& aInteger0(X1) )
=> sdtasdt0(X1,sdtasdt0(X2,X3)) = sdtasdt0(sdtasdt0(X1,X2),X3) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',mMulAsso) ).
fof(mMulComm,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( ( aInteger0(X2)
& aInteger0(X1) )
=> sdtasdt0(X1,X2) = sdtasdt0(X2,X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',mMulComm) ).
fof(m__979,hypothesis,
( xq != sz00
& aInteger0(xq)
& xp != sz00
& aInteger0(xp)
& aInteger0(xb)
& aInteger0(xa) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__979) ).
fof(m__1032,hypothesis,
( sdtasdt0(sdtasdt0(xp,xq),xm) = sdtpldt0(xa,smndt0(xb))
& aInteger0(xm) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__1032) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
sdtpldt0(xa,smndt0(xb)) != sdtasdt0(xq,sdtasdt0(xp,xm)),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[m__]) ).
fof(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
sdtpldt0(xa,smndt0(xb)) != sdtasdt0(xq,sdtasdt0(xp,xm)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
fof(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
sdtpldt0(xa,smndt0(xb)) != sdtasdt0(xq,sdtasdt0(xp,xm)),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
fof(c_0_8,plain,
! [X21,X22,X23] :
( sdtasdt0(X21,sdtasdt0(X22,X23)) = sdtasdt0(sdtasdt0(X21,X22),X23)
| ~ aInteger0(X23)
| ~ aInteger0(X22)
| ~ aInteger0(X21) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[mMulAsso])])]) ).
fof(c_0_9,plain,
! [X24,X25] :
( sdtasdt0(X24,X25) = sdtasdt0(X25,X24)
| ~ aInteger0(X25)
| ~ aInteger0(X24) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[mMulComm])])]) ).
fof(c_0_10,hypothesis,
( xq != sz00
& aInteger0(xq)
& xp != sz00
& aInteger0(xp)
& aInteger0(xb)
& aInteger0(xa) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[m__979]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
sdtpldt0(xa,smndt0(xb)) != sdtasdt0(xq,sdtasdt0(xp,xm)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,hypothesis,
sdtasdt0(sdtasdt0(xp,xq),xm) = sdtpldt0(xa,smndt0(xb)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[m__1032]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
( ~ aInteger0(X3)
| ~ aInteger0(X2)
| ~ aInteger0(X1)
| sdtasdt0(X1,sdtasdt0(X2,X3)) = sdtasdt0(sdtasdt0(X1,X2),X3) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
( ~ aInteger0(X2)
| ~ aInteger0(X1)
| sdtasdt0(X1,X2) = sdtasdt0(X2,X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
fof(c_0_15,hypothesis,
( xq != sz00
& aInteger0(xq)
& xp != sz00
& aInteger0(xp)
& aInteger0(xb)
& aInteger0(xa) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
sdtasdt0(sdtasdt0(xp,xq),xm) != sdtasdt0(xq,sdtasdt0(xp,xm)),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,plain,
( ~ aInteger0(X2)
| ~ aInteger0(X1)
| ~ aInteger0(X3)
| sdtasdt0(sdtasdt0(X1,X2),X3) = sdtasdt0(X2,sdtasdt0(X1,X3)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,hypothesis,
aInteger0(xm),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[m__1032]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,hypothesis,
aInteger0(xp),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,hypothesis,
aInteger0(xq),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]),c_0_18]),c_0_19]),c_0_20])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : NUM435+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.18/5.46 % Computer : n018.cluster.edu
% 0.18/5.46 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.18/5.46 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.18/5.46 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.18/5.46 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.18/5.46 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.18/5.46 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.18/5.46 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 02:31:19 UTC 2026
% 0.18/5.47 % CPUTime :
% 0.18/5.47 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.23/5.52 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.23/5.52 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
% 0.23/5.61 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.23/5.61 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.23/5.61 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/5.61 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.23/5.61 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/5.61 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/5.61 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/5.61 % new_bool_3 with pid 772215 completed with status 0
% 0.23/5.61 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.23/5.61 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.23/5.61 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/5.61 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.23/5.61 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/5.61 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.23/5.61 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.23/5.61 % Search class: FGUSF-FFMM21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.23/5.61 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.23/5.61 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.23/5.61 % SubtermCWHack with pid 772223 completed with status 0
% 0.23/5.61 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.23/5.61 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.23/5.61 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/5.61 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.23/5.61 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/5.61 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.23/5.61 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.23/5.61 % Search class: FGUSF-FFMM21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.23/5.61 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.23/5.61 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.23/5.61 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.23/5.61
% 0.23/5.61 % Proof found!
% 0.23/5.61 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.23/5.61 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.23/5.61 % Parsed axioms : 26
% 0.23/5.61 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 5
% 0.23/5.61 % Initial clauses : 31
% 0.23/5.61 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 1
% 0.23/5.61 % Initial clauses in saturation : 30
% 0.23/5.61 % Processed clauses : 473
% 0.23/5.61 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.23/5.61 % ...subsumed : 377
% 0.23/5.61 % ...remaining for further processing : 96
% 0.23/5.61 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.23/5.61 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.23/5.61 % Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.23/5.61 % Backward-rewritten : 2
% 0.23/5.61 % Generated clauses : 2003
% 0.23/5.61 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1709
% 0.23/5.61 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.23/5.61 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 14
% 0.23/5.61 % Paramodulations : 2003
% 0.23/5.61 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.23/5.61 % NegExts : 0
% 0.23/5.61 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.23/5.61 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.23/5.61 % Total rewrite steps : 1640
% 0.23/5.61 % ...of those cached : 1630
% 0.23/5.61 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.23/5.61 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.23/5.61 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.23/5.61 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.23/5.61 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.23/5.61 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.23/5.61 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.23/5.61 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.23/5.61 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.23/5.61 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.23/5.61 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.23/5.61 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.23/5.61 % Current number of processed clauses : 93
% 0.23/5.61 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 11
% 0.23/5.61 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.23/5.61 % Negative unit clauses : 4
% 0.23/5.61 % Non-unit-clauses : 78
% 0.23/5.61 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 1204
% 0.23/5.61 % ...number of literals in the above : 5432
% 0.23/5.61 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.23/5.61 % Current number of archived clauses : 3
% 0.23/5.61 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 2361
% 0.23/5.61 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2019
% 0.23/5.61 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 392
% 0.23/5.61 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% 0.23/5.61 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.23/5.61 % BW rewrite match attempts : 2
% 0.23/5.61 % BW rewrite match successes : 2
% 0.23/5.61 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.23/5.61 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.23/5.61 % Termbank termtop insertions : 31919
% 0.23/5.61 % Search garbage collected termcells : 370
% 0.23/5.61
% 0.23/5.61 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.23/5.61 % User time : 0.032 s
% 0.23/5.61 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.23/5.61 % Total time : 0.036 s
% 0.23/5.61 % Maximum resident set size: 3660 pages
% 0.23/5.61
% 0.23/5.61 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.23/5.61 % User time : 0.034 s
% 0.23/5.61 % System time : 0.011 s
% 0.23/5.61 % Total time : 0.045 s
% 0.23/5.61 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.23/5.61 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------