%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : NUM490+3 : 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 : n002.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 01:49:17 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.13s 0.44s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.13s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 7 ( 4 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 10 ( 9 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 7 ( 4 ~; 2 |; 1 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 3 ( 2 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 0 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 7 ( 7 usr; 4 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 0 ( 0 sgn 0 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(m__,conjecture,
( sdtasdt0(xr,xm) = sdtmndt0(sdtasdt0(xn,xm),sdtasdt0(xp,xm))
| sdtpldt0(sdtasdt0(xp,xm),sdtasdt0(xr,xm)) = sdtasdt0(xn,xm) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__) ).
fof(m__1951,hypothesis,
sdtasdt0(xn,xm) = sdtpldt0(sdtasdt0(xp,xm),sdtasdt0(xr,xm)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__1951) ).
fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ ( sdtasdt0(xr,xm) = sdtmndt0(sdtasdt0(xn,xm),sdtasdt0(xp,xm))
| sdtpldt0(sdtasdt0(xp,xm),sdtasdt0(xr,xm)) = sdtasdt0(xn,xm) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[m__]) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
( sdtasdt0(xr,xm) != sdtmndt0(sdtasdt0(xn,xm),sdtasdt0(xp,xm))
& sdtpldt0(sdtasdt0(xp,xm),sdtasdt0(xr,xm)) != sdtasdt0(xn,xm) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])]) ).
cnf(c_0_4,hypothesis,
sdtasdt0(xn,xm) = sdtpldt0(sdtasdt0(xp,xm),sdtasdt0(xr,xm)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[m__1951]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
sdtpldt0(sdtasdt0(xp,xm),sdtasdt0(xr,xm)) != sdtasdt0(xn,xm),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,hypothesis,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_5]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : NUM490+3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.36 % Computer : n002.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.36 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/0.36 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.09/0.36 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 02:37:03 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.09/0.36 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.13/0.41 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.13/0.41 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
% 0.13/0.44 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.13/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.44 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.44 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.44 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.44 % G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with pid 2242404 completed with status 0
% 0.13/0.44 % Result found by G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S
% 0.13/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.44 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.44 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.13/0.44 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.13/0.44 % Search class: FGHSF-FSLM32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.13/0.44 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.13/0.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.44 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 151s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.44 % Starting G-E--_107_C41_F1_PI_AE_Q4_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.44 % Starting U----_116_C05_02_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.44 % U----_116_C05_02_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN1 with pid 2242415 completed with status 0
% 0.13/0.44 % Result found by U----_116_C05_02_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN1
% 0.13/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.44 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.44 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.13/0.44 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.13/0.44 % Search class: FGHSF-FSLM32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.13/0.44 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.13/0.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.44 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 151s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.44 % Starting G-E--_107_C41_F1_PI_AE_Q4_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.44 % Starting U----_116_C05_02_F1_SE_PI_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.44 % Preprocessing time : 0.003 s
% 0.13/0.44 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.13/0.44
% 0.13/0.44 % Proof found!
% 0.13/0.44 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.13/0.44 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.13/0.44 % Parsed axioms : 47
% 0.13/0.44 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.13/0.44 % Initial clauses : 221
% 0.13/0.44 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 3
% 0.13/0.44 % Initial clauses in saturation : 218
% 0.13/0.44 % Processed clauses : 42
% 0.13/0.44 % ...of these trivial : 1
% 0.13/0.44 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.13/0.44 % ...remaining for further processing : 40
% 0.13/0.44 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 3
% 0.13/0.44 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.13/0.44 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.13/0.44 % Backward-rewritten : 2
% 0.13/0.44 % Generated clauses : 3
% 0.13/0.44 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 5
% 0.13/0.44 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.13/0.44 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.13/0.44 % Paramodulations : 0
% 0.13/0.44 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.13/0.44 % NegExts : 0
% 0.13/0.44 % Equation resolutions : 3
% 0.13/0.44 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.13/0.44 % Total rewrite steps : 3
% 0.13/0.44 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.13/0.44 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.13/0.44 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.13/0.44 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.13/0.44 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.13/0.44 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.13/0.44 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.13/0.44 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.44 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.44 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.44 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.44 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.44 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.44 % Current number of processed clauses : 35
% 0.13/0.44 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 18
% 0.13/0.44 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.13/0.44 % Negative unit clauses : 8
% 0.13/0.44 % Non-unit-clauses : 9
% 0.13/0.44 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 181
% 0.13/0.44 % ...number of literals in the above : 1563
% 0.13/0.44 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.13/0.44 % Current number of archived clauses : 2
% 0.13/0.44 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 13
% 0.13/0.44 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 11
% 0.13/0.44 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.13/0.44 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 9
% 0.13/0.44 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.13/0.44 % BW rewrite match attempts : 2
% 0.13/0.44 % BW rewrite match successes : 2
% 0.13/0.44 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.13/0.44 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.13/0.44 % Termbank termtop insertions : 15411
% 0.13/0.44 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2238
% 0.13/0.44
% 0.13/0.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.13/0.44 % User time : 0.008 s
% 0.13/0.44 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.13/0.44 % Total time : 0.011 s
% 0.13/0.44 % Maximum resident set size: 4204 pages
% 0.13/0.44
% 0.13/0.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.13/0.44 % User time : 0.024 s
% 0.13/0.44 % System time : 0.016 s
% 0.13/0.44 % Total time : 0.040 s
% 0.13/0.44 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.13/0.44 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------