%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : NUM602+1 : 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 : 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 01:49:43 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.26s 0.57s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.26s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 12 ( 4 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 26 ( 7 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 6 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 25 ( 11 ~; 7 |; 6 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 1 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 6 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 9 ( 9 usr; 5 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 9 ( 0 sgn 3 !; 3 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(m__,conjecture,
? [X1] :
( sdtlpdtrp0(xe,X1) = xx
& aElementOf0(X1,szNzAzT0) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__) ).
fof(m__4982,hypothesis,
! [X1] :
( aElementOf0(X1,xO)
=> ? [X2] :
( sdtlpdtrp0(xe,X2) = X1
& aElementOf0(X2,sdtlbdtrb0(xd,szDzizrdt0(xd)))
& aElementOf0(X2,szNzAzT0) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__4982) ).
fof(m__5009,hypothesis,
aElementOf0(xx,xO),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__5009) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ? [X1] :
( sdtlpdtrp0(xe,X1) = xx
& aElementOf0(X1,szNzAzT0) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[m__]) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
! [X209] :
( sdtlpdtrp0(xe,X209) != xx
| ~ aElementOf0(X209,szNzAzT0) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])])]) ).
fof(c_0_5,hypothesis,
! [X207] :
( ( ~ aElementOf0(X207,xO)
| sdtlpdtrp0(xe,esk25_1(X207)) = X207 )
& ( ~ aElementOf0(X207,xO)
| aElementOf0(esk25_1(X207),sdtlbdtrb0(xd,szDzizrdt0(xd))) )
& ( ~ aElementOf0(X207,xO)
| aElementOf0(esk25_1(X207),szNzAzT0) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[m__4982])])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( sdtlpdtrp0(xe,X1) != xx
| ~ aElementOf0(X1,szNzAzT0) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,hypothesis,
( ~ aElementOf0(X1,xO)
| sdtlpdtrp0(xe,esk25_1(X1)) = X1 ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,hypothesis,
aElementOf0(xx,xO),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[m__5009]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
~ aElementOf0(esk25_1(xx),szNzAzT0),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(er,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7])]),c_0_8])]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,hypothesis,
( ~ aElementOf0(X1,xO)
| aElementOf0(esk25_1(X1),szNzAzT0) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,hypothesis,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_8])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : NUM602+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.17/0.43 % Computer : n004.cluster.edu
% 0.17/0.43 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.17/0.43 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.17/0.43 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.17/0.43 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.17/0.44 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.17/0.44 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.17/0.44 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 02:43:49 UTC 2026
% 0.17/0.44 % CPUTime :
% 0.17/0.44 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.26/0.51 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.26/0.51 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
% 0.26/0.57 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.26/0.57 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.57 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.57 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.57 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.57 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.57 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.57 % C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with pid 2082399 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Result found by C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr
% 0.26/0.57 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.57 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.57 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.57 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.26/0.57 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.26/0.57 % Search class: FGHSF-FSLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.57 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.26/0.57 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.57 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.57 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.57 % Starting SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with 136s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.57 % Starting G-E--_301_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S070I with 136s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.57 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2082403 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.26/0.57 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.57 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.57 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.57 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.26/0.57 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.26/0.57 % Search class: FGHSF-FSLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.57 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.26/0.57 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.57 % Preprocessing time : 0.003 s
% 0.26/0.57
% 0.26/0.57 % Proof found!
% 0.26/0.57 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.26/0.57 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.26/0.57 % Parsed axioms : 99
% 0.26/0.57 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Initial clauses : 201
% 0.26/0.57 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 7
% 0.26/0.57 % Initial clauses in saturation : 194
% 0.26/0.57 % Processed clauses : 100
% 0.26/0.57 % ...of these trivial : 1
% 0.26/0.57 % ...subsumed : 4
% 0.26/0.57 % ...remaining for further processing : 95
% 0.26/0.57 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 7
% 0.26/0.57 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.26/0.57 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Generated clauses : 63
% 0.26/0.57 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 38
% 0.26/0.57 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Paramodulations : 56
% 0.26/0.57 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % NegExts : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Equation resolutions : 7
% 0.26/0.57 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Total rewrite steps : 67
% 0.26/0.57 % ...of those cached : 46
% 0.26/0.57 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.57 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.57 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.57 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.57 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.57 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.57 % Current number of processed clauses : 89
% 0.26/0.57 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 43
% 0.26/0.57 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Negative unit clauses : 7
% 0.26/0.57 % Non-unit-clauses : 39
% 0.26/0.57 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 132
% 0.26/0.57 % ...number of literals in the above : 639
% 0.26/0.57 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.26/0.57 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 347
% 0.26/0.57 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 292
% 0.26/0.57 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 2
% 0.26/0.57 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 90
% 0.26/0.57 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.26/0.57 % Termbank termtop insertions : 16916
% 0.26/0.57 % Search garbage collected termcells : 3741
% 0.26/0.57
% 0.26/0.57 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.57 % User time : 0.026 s
% 0.26/0.57 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.26/0.57 % Total time : 0.031 s
% 0.26/0.57 % Maximum resident set size: 4276 pages
% 0.26/0.57
% 0.26/0.57 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.57 % User time : 0.052 s
% 0.26/0.57 % System time : 0.026 s
% 0.26/0.57 % Total time : 0.078 s
% 0.26/0.57 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.26/0.57 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------