%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : NUM576+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 : n004.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 01:55:33 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.15s 10.47s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.15s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 19 ( 8 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 49 ( 8 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 5 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 53 ( 23 ~; 18 |; 6 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 6 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 8 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 3 con; 0-1 aty)
% Number of variables : 12 ( 0 sgn 8 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(m__,conjecture,
( xi != xj
=> ( sdtlseqdt0(szszuzczcdt0(xi),xj)
| sdtlseqdt0(szszuzczcdt0(xj),xi) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__) ).
fof(mLessTotal,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( ( aElementOf0(X2,szNzAzT0)
& aElementOf0(X1,szNzAzT0) )
=> ( sdtlseqdt0(szszuzczcdt0(X2),X1)
| sdtlseqdt0(X1,X2) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',mLessTotal) ).
fof(mLessASymm,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( ( aElementOf0(X2,szNzAzT0)
& aElementOf0(X1,szNzAzT0) )
=> ( ( sdtlseqdt0(X2,X1)
& sdtlseqdt0(X1,X2) )
=> X1 = X2 ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',mLessASymm) ).
fof(m__3856,hypothesis,
( aElementOf0(xj,szNzAzT0)
& aElementOf0(xi,szNzAzT0) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__3856) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ( xi != xj
=> ( sdtlseqdt0(szszuzczcdt0(xi),xj)
| sdtlseqdt0(szszuzczcdt0(xj),xi) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[m__]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ ( xi != xj
=> ( sdtlseqdt0(szszuzczcdt0(xi),xj)
| sdtlseqdt0(szszuzczcdt0(xj),xi) ) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
fof(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( ~ sdtlseqdt0(szszuzczcdt0(xi),xj)
& ~ sdtlseqdt0(szszuzczcdt0(xj),xi)
& xi != xj ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_5])]) ).
fof(c_0_7,plain,
! [X77,X78] :
( sdtlseqdt0(szszuzczcdt0(X78),X77)
| sdtlseqdt0(X77,X78)
| ~ aElementOf0(X78,szNzAzT0)
| ~ aElementOf0(X77,szNzAzT0) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[mLessTotal])])]) ).
fof(c_0_8,plain,
! [X72,X73] :
( X72 = X73
| ~ sdtlseqdt0(X73,X72)
| ~ sdtlseqdt0(X72,X73)
| ~ aElementOf0(X73,szNzAzT0)
| ~ aElementOf0(X72,szNzAzT0) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[mLessASymm])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
~ sdtlseqdt0(szszuzczcdt0(xi),xj),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( ~ aElementOf0(X2,szNzAzT0)
| ~ aElementOf0(X1,szNzAzT0)
| sdtlseqdt0(szszuzczcdt0(X2),X1)
| sdtlseqdt0(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,hypothesis,
aElementOf0(xi,szNzAzT0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[m__3856]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,hypothesis,
aElementOf0(xj,szNzAzT0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[m__3856]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
~ sdtlseqdt0(szszuzczcdt0(xj),xi),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
( ~ sdtlseqdt0(X2,X1)
| ~ sdtlseqdt0(X1,X2)
| ~ aElementOf0(X2,szNzAzT0)
| ~ aElementOf0(X1,szNzAzT0)
| X1 = X2 ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
sdtlseqdt0(xj,xi),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_11]),c_0_12])]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
sdtlseqdt0(xi,xj),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_10]),c_0_12]),c_0_11])]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
xi != xj,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]),c_0_16]),c_0_12]),c_0_11])]),c_0_17]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : NUM576+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/10.39 % Computer : n004.cluster.edu
% 0.11/10.39 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/10.39 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/10.39 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/10.39 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/10.39 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/10.39 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/10.39 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 02:41:45 UTC 2026
% 0.11/10.39 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/10.39 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/10.43 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/10.43 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
% 0.15/10.47 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.15/10.47 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/10.47 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/10.47 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/10.47 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/10.47 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/10.47 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/10.47 % C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with pid 2078125 completed with status 0
% 0.15/10.47 % Result found by C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr
% 0.15/10.47 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/10.47 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/10.47 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/10.47 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.15/10.47 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.15/10.47 % Search class: FGHSF-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.15/10.47 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.15/10.47 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 151s (1) cores
% 0.15/10.47 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 901s (1) cores
% 0.15/10.47 % Starting G-E--_300_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_S0Y with 151s (1) cores
% 0.15/10.47 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_S0Y with 151s (1) cores
% 0.15/10.47 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0U with 146s (1) cores
% 0.15/10.47 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2078131 completed with status 0
% 0.15/10.47 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.15/10.47 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/10.47 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/10.47 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/10.47 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.15/10.47 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.15/10.47 % Search class: FGHSF-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.15/10.47 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.15/10.47 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 151s (1) cores
% 0.15/10.47 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.15/10.47
% 0.15/10.47 % Proof found!
% 0.15/10.47 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.15/10.47 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.15/10.47 % Parsed axioms : 85
% 0.15/10.47 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.15/10.47 % Initial clauses : 173
% 0.15/10.47 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 7
% 0.15/10.47 % Initial clauses in saturation : 166
% 0.15/10.47 % Processed clauses : 341
% 0.15/10.47 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.15/10.47 % ...subsumed : 77
% 0.15/10.47 % ...remaining for further processing : 264
% 0.15/10.47 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 36
% 0.15/10.47 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.15/10.47 % Backward-subsumed : 6
% 0.15/10.47 % Backward-rewritten : 9
% 0.15/10.47 % Generated clauses : 515
% 0.15/10.47 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 397
% 0.15/10.47 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.15/10.47 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 14
% 0.15/10.47 % Paramodulations : 480
% 0.15/10.47 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.15/10.47 % NegExts : 0
% 0.15/10.47 % Equation resolutions : 37
% 0.15/10.47 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.15/10.47 % Total rewrite steps : 329
% 0.15/10.47 % ...of those cached : 290
% 0.15/10.47 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.15/10.47 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.15/10.47 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.15/10.47 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.15/10.47 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.15/10.47 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.15/10.47 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.15/10.47 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/10.47 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/10.47 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.15/10.47 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/10.47 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/10.47 % Current number of processed clauses : 219
% 0.15/10.47 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 48
% 0.15/10.47 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.15/10.47 % Negative unit clauses : 17
% 0.15/10.47 % Non-unit-clauses : 154
% 0.15/10.47 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 216
% 0.15/10.47 % ...number of literals in the above : 1118
% 0.15/10.47 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.15/10.47 % Current number of archived clauses : 15
% 0.15/10.47 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 3217
% 0.15/10.47 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1985
% 0.15/10.47 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 63
% 0.15/10.47 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 473
% 0.15/10.47 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.15/10.47 % BW rewrite match attempts : 7
% 0.15/10.47 % BW rewrite match successes : 7
% 0.15/10.47 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.15/10.47 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.15/10.47 % Termbank termtop insertions : 21513
% 0.15/10.47 % Search garbage collected termcells : 3458
% 0.15/10.47
% 0.15/10.47 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/10.47 % User time : 0.026 s
% 0.15/10.47 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.15/10.47 % Total time : 0.029 s
% 0.15/10.47 % Maximum resident set size: 4256 pages
% 0.15/10.47
% 0.15/10.47 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/10.47 % User time : 0.079 s
% 0.15/10.47 % System time : 0.017 s
% 0.15/10.47 % Total time : 0.096 s
% 0.15/10.47 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.15/10.47 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------