%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : NUM647_8 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v8.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/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 01:49:56 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.25s 0.53s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.25s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 13 ( 8 unt; 0 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 18 ( 17 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 16 ( 11 ~; 3 |; 0 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 2 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 6 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of types : 1 ( 1 usr)
% Number of type conns : 0 ( 0 >; 0 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 0 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 13 ( 0 sgn 13 !; 0 ?; 13 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tff(decl_sort1,type,
nat: $tType ).
tff(decl_23,type,
x: nat ).
tff(decl_24,type,
y: nat ).
tff(decl_25,type,
z: nat ).
tff(decl_26,type,
pl: ( nat * nat ) > nat ).
tff(satz8,axiom,
! [X2: nat,X3: nat,X4: nat] :
( ( X3 != X4 )
=> ( pl(X2,X3) != pl(X2,X4) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',satz8) ).
tff(satz8a,conjecture,
y = z,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',satz8a) ).
tff(i,axiom,
pl(x,y) = pl(x,z),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',i) ).
tff(c_0_3,plain,
! [X2: nat,X3: nat,X4: nat] :
( ( X3 != X4 )
=> ( pl(X2,X3) != pl(X2,X4) ) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[satz8]) ).
tff(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
y != z,
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[satz8a]) ).
tff(c_0_5,plain,
! [X5: nat,X6: nat,X7: nat] :
( ( pl(X5,X6) != pl(X5,X7) )
| ( X6 = X7 ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])])]) ).
tff(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
y != z,
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
tcf(c_0_7,plain,
! [X2: nat,X4: nat,X3: nat] :
( ( pl(X4,X2) != pl(X4,X3) )
| ( X2 = X3 ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
tcf(c_0_8,plain,
pl(x,y) = pl(x,z),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[i]) ).
tff(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
y != z,
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
tcf(c_0_10,plain,
! [X2: nat] :
( ( pl(x,X2) != pl(x,z) )
| ( X2 = y ) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
tcf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
y != z,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]),c_0_11]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.04 % Problem : NUM647_8 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v8.0.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.19/0.44 % Computer : n007.cluster.edu
% 0.19/0.44 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.19/0.44 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.19/0.44 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.19/0.44 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.19/0.44 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.19/0.44 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.19/0.44 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 02:45:35 UTC 2026
% 0.19/0.44 % CPUTime :
% 0.19/0.44 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.25/0.51 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.25/0.51 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
% 0.25/0.53 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.25/0.53 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.53 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.53 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.53 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.53 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.53 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.53 % G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with pid 5468 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Result found by G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN
% 0.25/0.53 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.53 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.53 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.53 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.25/0.53 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.25/0.53 % Search class: FHUPF-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.53 % partial match(1): FUUPF-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.53 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.25/0.53 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.53 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.53 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.53 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.53 % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.53 % SubtermCWHack with pid 5472 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.53 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.25/0.53 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.53 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.53 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.53 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.25/0.53 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.25/0.53 % Search class: FHUPF-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.53 % partial match(1): FUUPF-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.53 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.25/0.53 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.53 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.25/0.53
% 0.25/0.53 % Proof found!
% 0.25/0.53 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.25/0.53 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.25/0.54 % Parsed axioms : 9
% 0.25/0.54 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.25/0.54 % Initial clauses : 9
% 0.25/0.54 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 6
% 0.25/0.54 % Initial clauses in saturation : 3
% 0.25/0.54 % Processed clauses : 4
% 0.25/0.54 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.25/0.54 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.54 % ...remaining for further processing : 4
% 0.25/0.54 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.25/0.54 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.25/0.54 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.54 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.25/0.54 % Generated clauses : 4
% 0.25/0.54 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 2
% 0.25/0.54 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.54 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.25/0.54 % Paramodulations : 2
% 0.25/0.54 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.25/0.54 % NegExts : 0
% 0.25/0.54 % Equation resolutions : 2
% 0.25/0.54 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.25/0.54 % Total rewrite steps : 0
% 0.25/0.54 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.25/0.54 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.25/0.54 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.25/0.54 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.25/0.54 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.54 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.25/0.54 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.25/0.54 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.54 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.54 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.54 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.54 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.54 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.54 % Current number of processed clauses : 4
% 0.25/0.54 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 1
% 0.25/0.54 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.25/0.54 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.25/0.54 % Non-unit-clauses : 2
% 0.25/0.54 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 1
% 0.25/0.54 % ...number of literals in the above : 2
% 0.25/0.54 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.25/0.54 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.54 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1
% 0.25/0.54 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.25/0.54 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.25/0.54 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.25/0.54 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.25/0.54 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.25/0.54 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.25/0.54 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.25/0.54 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.25/0.54 % Termbank termtop insertions : 237
% 0.25/0.54 % Search garbage collected termcells : 24
% 0.25/0.54
% 0.25/0.54 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.54 % User time : 0.004 s
% 0.25/0.54 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.25/0.54 % Total time : 0.007 s
% 0.25/0.54 % Maximum resident set size: 3632 pages
% 0.25/0.54
% 0.25/0.54 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.54 % User time : 0.008 s
% 0.25/0.54 % System time : 0.015 s
% 0.25/0.54 % Total time : 0.023 s
% 0.25/0.54 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.25/0.54 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------