%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : NUM514+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 : n007.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 01:49:23 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.23s 0.58s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.23s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 9 ( 3 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 27 ( 12 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 5 ( 3 avg)
% Number of connectives : 26 ( 8 ~; 5 |; 11 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 2 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 7 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 7 ( 7 usr; 5 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 5 ( 0 sgn 1 !; 2 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(m__,conjecture,
( ( xn = sdtasdt0(xr,sdtsldt0(xn,xr))
& aNaturalNumber0(sdtsldt0(xn,xr)) )
=> ( doDivides0(xp,sdtasdt0(sdtsldt0(xn,xr),xm))
| ? [X1] :
( sdtasdt0(sdtsldt0(xn,xr),xm) = sdtasdt0(xp,X1)
& aNaturalNumber0(X1) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__) ).
fof(m__2613,hypothesis,
( sdtasdt0(xp,sdtsldt0(xk,xr)) = sdtasdt0(sdtsldt0(xn,xr),xm)
& xn = sdtasdt0(xr,sdtsldt0(xn,xr))
& aNaturalNumber0(sdtsldt0(xn,xr))
& xk = sdtasdt0(xr,sdtsldt0(xk,xr))
& aNaturalNumber0(sdtsldt0(xk,xr)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__2613) ).
fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ ( ( xn = sdtasdt0(xr,sdtsldt0(xn,xr))
& aNaturalNumber0(sdtsldt0(xn,xr)) )
=> ( doDivides0(xp,sdtasdt0(sdtsldt0(xn,xr),xm))
| ? [X1] :
( sdtasdt0(sdtsldt0(xn,xr),xm) = sdtasdt0(xp,X1)
& aNaturalNumber0(X1) ) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[m__]) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
! [X6] :
( ~ doDivides0(xp,sdtasdt0(sdtsldt0(xn,xr),xm))
& ( sdtasdt0(sdtsldt0(xn,xr),xm) != sdtasdt0(xp,X6)
| ~ aNaturalNumber0(X6) )
& xn = sdtasdt0(xr,sdtsldt0(xn,xr))
& aNaturalNumber0(sdtsldt0(xn,xr)) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
( sdtasdt0(sdtsldt0(xn,xr),xm) != sdtasdt0(xp,X1)
| ~ aNaturalNumber0(X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,hypothesis,
sdtasdt0(xp,sdtsldt0(xk,xr)) = sdtasdt0(sdtsldt0(xn,xr),xm),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[m__2613]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( ~ aNaturalNumber0(X1)
| sdtasdt0(xp,sdtsldt0(xk,xr)) != sdtasdt0(xp,X1) ),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,hypothesis,
aNaturalNumber0(sdtsldt0(xk,xr)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[m__2613]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]),c_0_7])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : NUM514+3 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.07/0.35 % Computer : n007.cluster.edu
% 0.07/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.07/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.07/0.35 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.07/0.35 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.07/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.07/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.07/0.36 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 02:35:05 UTC 2026
% 0.07/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.07/0.36 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.13/0.44 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.13/0.44 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
% 0.23/0.58 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.23/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.23/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/0.58 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.23/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.58 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.58 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.58 % sh5l with pid 4178748 completed with status 0
% 0.23/0.58 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.23/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.23/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/0.58 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.23/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.58 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.58 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.58 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.23/0.58 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.23/0.58 % Search class: FGHSF-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.23/0.58 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.23/0.58 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.58 % SubtermCWHack with pid 4178749 completed with status 0
% 0.23/0.58 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.23/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.23/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/0.58 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.23/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.58 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.58 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.58 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.23/0.58 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.23/0.58 % Search class: FGHSF-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.23/0.58 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.23/0.58 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.58 % Preprocessing time : 0.007 s
% 0.23/0.58
% 0.23/0.58 % Proof found!
% 0.23/0.58 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.23/0.58 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.23/0.58 % Parsed axioms : 56
% 0.23/0.58 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 1
% 0.23/0.58 % Initial clauses : 276
% 0.23/0.58 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 3
% 0.23/0.58 % Initial clauses in saturation : 273
% 0.23/0.58 % Processed clauses : 440
% 0.23/0.58 % ...of these trivial : 14
% 0.23/0.58 % ...subsumed : 127
% 0.23/0.58 % ...remaining for further processing : 299
% 0.23/0.58 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 15
% 0.23/0.58 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.23/0.58 % Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.23/0.58 % Backward-rewritten : 3
% 0.23/0.58 % Generated clauses : 979
% 0.23/0.58 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 816
% 0.23/0.58 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.23/0.58 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.23/0.58 % Paramodulations : 959
% 0.23/0.58 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.23/0.58 % NegExts : 0
% 0.23/0.58 % Equation resolutions : 20
% 0.23/0.58 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.23/0.58 % Total rewrite steps : 922
% 0.23/0.58 % ...of those cached : 891
% 0.23/0.58 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.23/0.58 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.23/0.58 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.23/0.58 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.23/0.58 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.23/0.58 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.23/0.58 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.58 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.58 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.58 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.58 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.58 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.58 % Current number of processed clauses : 288
% 0.23/0.58 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 66
% 0.23/0.58 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.23/0.58 % Negative unit clauses : 21
% 0.23/0.58 % Non-unit-clauses : 201
% 0.23/0.58 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 647
% 0.23/0.58 % ...number of literals in the above : 3111
% 0.23/0.58 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.23/0.58 % Current number of archived clauses : 4
% 0.23/0.58 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 8336
% 0.23/0.58 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 7034
% 0.23/0.58 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 105
% 0.23/0.58 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 742
% 0.23/0.58 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.23/0.58 % BW rewrite match attempts : 3
% 0.23/0.58 % BW rewrite match successes : 2
% 0.23/0.58 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.23/0.58 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.23/0.58 % Termbank termtop insertions : 30250
% 0.23/0.58 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2452
% 0.23/0.58
% 0.23/0.58 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.23/0.58 % User time : 0.053 s
% 0.23/0.58 % System time : 0.007 s
% 0.23/0.58 % Total time : 0.060 s
% 0.23/0.58 % Maximum resident set size: 4224 pages
% 0.23/0.58
% 0.23/0.58 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.23/0.58 % User time : 0.059 s
% 0.23/0.58 % System time : 0.013 s
% 0.23/0.58 % Total time : 0.072 s
% 0.23/0.58 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.23/0.58 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------