%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : NUM742_8 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v8.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n017.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 01:50:28 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.11s 0.44s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.11s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 8
% Number of leaves : 7
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 30 ( 13 unt; 0 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 57 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 50 ( 23 ~; 19 |; 0 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 8 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 9 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of types : 2 ( 1 usr)
% Number of type conns : 0 ( 0 >; 0 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 3 ( 3 usr; 3 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 35 ( 0 sgn 35 !; 0 ?; 35 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tff(decl_sort1,type,
frac: $tType ).
tff(decl_23,type,
x: frac ).
tff(decl_24,type,
y: frac ).
tff(decl_25,type,
z: frac ).
tff(decl_26,type,
lessf: ( frac * frac ) > $o ).
tff(decl_27,type,
eq: ( frac * frac ) > $o ).
tff(satz51a,conjecture,
lessf(x,z),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',satz51a) ).
tff(l,axiom,
( ~ lessf(x,y)
=> eq(x,y) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',l) ).
tff(satz50,axiom,
! [X2: frac,X3: frac,X4: frac] :
( lessf(X2,X3)
=> ( lessf(X3,X4)
=> lessf(X2,X4) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',satz50) ).
tff(satz38,axiom,
! [X2: frac,X3: frac] :
( eq(X2,X3)
=> eq(X3,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',satz38) ).
tff(k,axiom,
lessf(y,z),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',k) ).
tff(satz45,axiom,
! [X2: frac,X3: frac,X4: frac,X5: frac] :
( lessf(X2,X3)
=> ( eq(X2,X4)
=> ( eq(X3,X5)
=> lessf(X4,X5) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',satz45) ).
tff(satz37,axiom,
! [X2: frac] : eq(X2,X2),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',satz37) ).
tff(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
~ lessf(x,z),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[satz51a]) ).
tff(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ lessf(x,y)
=> eq(x,y) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[l]) ).
tff(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
~ lessf(x,z),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
tff(c_0_10,plain,
! [X10: frac,X11: frac,X12: frac] :
( lessf(X10,X12)
| ~ lessf(X11,X12)
| ~ lessf(X10,X11) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[satz50])])]) ).
tff(c_0_11,plain,
! [X13: frac,X14: frac] :
( eq(X14,X13)
| ~ eq(X13,X14) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[satz38])])]) ).
tff(c_0_12,plain,
( eq(x,y)
| lessf(x,y) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
tff(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
~ lessf(x,z),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
tcf(c_0_14,plain,
! [X2: frac,X3: frac,X4: frac] :
( ~ lessf(X3,X4)
| ~ lessf(X2,X3)
| lessf(X2,X4) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
tcf(c_0_15,plain,
lessf(y,z),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[k]) ).
tff(c_0_16,plain,
! [X6: frac,X7: frac,X8: frac,X9: frac] :
( lessf(X8,X9)
| ~ eq(X7,X9)
| ~ eq(X6,X8)
| ~ lessf(X6,X7) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[satz45])])]) ).
tff(c_0_17,plain,
! [X15: frac] : eq(X15,X15),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[satz37]) ).
tcf(c_0_18,plain,
! [X2: frac,X3: frac] :
( ~ eq(X2,X3)
| eq(X3,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_11]) ).
tcf(c_0_19,plain,
( eq(x,y)
| lessf(x,y) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_12]) ).
tcf(c_0_20,negated_conjecture,
~ lessf(x,z),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_13]) ).
tcf(c_0_21,plain,
! [X2: frac] :
( ~ lessf(X2,y)
| lessf(X2,z) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]) ).
tcf(c_0_22,plain,
! [X2: frac,X3: frac,X4: frac,X5: frac] :
( ~ eq(X3,X5)
| ~ eq(X2,X4)
| ~ lessf(X2,X3)
| lessf(X4,X5) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_16]) ).
tcf(c_0_23,plain,
! [X2: frac] : eq(X2,X2),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_17]) ).
tcf(c_0_24,plain,
( lessf(x,y)
| eq(y,x) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_18,c_0_19]) ).
tcf(c_0_25,negated_conjecture,
~ lessf(x,y),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_20,c_0_21]) ).
tcf(c_0_26,plain,
! [X2: frac,X4: frac,X3: frac] :
( ~ lessf(X4,X3)
| ~ eq(X4,X2)
| lessf(X2,X3) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_22,c_0_23]) ).
tcf(c_0_27,plain,
eq(y,x),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_24,c_0_25]) ).
tcf(c_0_28,plain,
! [X2: frac] :
( ~ lessf(y,X2)
| lessf(x,X2) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_26,c_0_27]) ).
cnf(c_0_29,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_20,c_0_28]),c_0_15])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : NUM742_8 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v8.0.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.37 % Computer : n017.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.38 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.38 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/0.38 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 02:56:12 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.38 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/0.38 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.42 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.11/0.42 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
% 0.11/0.44 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.11/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.11/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.11/0.44 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.11/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.44 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.44 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.44 % new_bool_3 with pid 1275196 completed with status 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.11/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.11/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.11/0.44 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.11/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.44 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.11/0.44 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.11/0.44 % Search class: FGUNF-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.11/0.44 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.11/0.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.44 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1275201 completed with status 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.11/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.11/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.11/0.44 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.11/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.44 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.11/0.44 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.11/0.44 % Search class: FGUNF-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.11/0.44 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.11/0.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.11/0.44 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.11/0.44
% 0.11/0.44 % Proof found!
% 0.11/0.44 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.11/0.44 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.11/0.44 % Parsed axioms : 14
% 0.11/0.44 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 7
% 0.11/0.44 % Initial clauses : 7
% 0.11/0.44 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Initial clauses in saturation : 7
% 0.11/0.44 % Processed clauses : 17
% 0.11/0.44 % ...of these trivial : 1
% 0.11/0.44 % ...subsumed : 1
% 0.11/0.44 % ...remaining for further processing : 15
% 0.11/0.44 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Generated clauses : 20
% 0.11/0.44 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 15
% 0.11/0.44 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Paramodulations : 18
% 0.11/0.44 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % NegExts : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Total rewrite steps : 4
% 0.11/0.44 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.11/0.44 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.11/0.44 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.11/0.44 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.11/0.44 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.11/0.44 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.11/0.44 % Current number of processed clauses : 13
% 0.11/0.44 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 4
% 0.11/0.44 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.11/0.44 % Non-unit-clauses : 7
% 0.11/0.44 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 3
% 0.11/0.44 % ...number of literals in the above : 8
% 0.11/0.44 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Current number of archived clauses : 2
% 0.11/0.44 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 11
% 0.11/0.44 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 11
% 0.11/0.44 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 1
% 0.11/0.44 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.11/0.44 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.11/0.44 % Termbank termtop insertions : 637
% 0.11/0.44 % Search garbage collected termcells : 68
% 0.11/0.44
% 0.11/0.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.11/0.44 % User time : 0.005 s
% 0.11/0.44 % System time : 0.001 s
% 0.11/0.44 % Total time : 0.006 s
% 0.11/0.44 % Maximum resident set size: 3636 pages
% 0.11/0.44
% 0.11/0.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.11/0.44 % User time : 0.006 s
% 0.11/0.44 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.11/0.44 % Total time : 0.010 s
% 0.11/0.44 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.11/0.44 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------