%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : NUM743^1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.7.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n003.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 : Wed Sep 30 08:17:35 AM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.22s 0.26s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.22s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 6
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 23 ( 11 unt; 0 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 46 ( 0 equ; 0 cnn)
% Maximal formula atoms : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 132 ( 19 ~; 16 |; 0 &; 90 @)
% ( 0 <=>; 7 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 11 ( 6 avg)
% Number of types : 2 ( 1 usr)
% Number of type conns : 0 ( 0 >; 0 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of symbols : 6 ( 5 usr; 4 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 27 ( 0 ^; 27 !; 0 ?; 27 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thf(decl_sort1,type,
frac: $tType ).
thf(decl_23,type,
x: frac ).
thf(decl_24,type,
y: frac ).
thf(decl_25,type,
z: frac ).
thf(decl_26,type,
lessf: frac > frac > $o ).
thf(decl_27,type,
eq: frac > frac > $o ).
thf(k,axiom,
( ~ ( lessf @ y @ z )
=> ( eq @ y @ z ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.Hm3TFW4ooH/E---3.1_2456926.p',k) ).
thf(satz51b,conjecture,
lessf @ x @ z,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.Hm3TFW4ooH/E---3.1_2456926.p',satz51b) ).
thf(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/sandbox/tmp/tmp.Hm3TFW4ooH/E---3.1_2456926.p',satz45) ).
thf(satz37,axiom,
! [X2: frac] : ( eq @ X2 @ X2 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.Hm3TFW4ooH/E---3.1_2456926.p',satz37) ).
thf(satz50,axiom,
! [X2: frac,X3: frac,X4: frac] :
( ( lessf @ X2 @ X3 )
=> ( ( lessf @ X3 @ X4 )
=> ( lessf @ X2 @ X4 ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.Hm3TFW4ooH/E---3.1_2456926.p',satz50) ).
thf(l,axiom,
lessf @ x @ y,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.Hm3TFW4ooH/E---3.1_2456926.p',l) ).
thf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ ( lessf @ y @ z )
=> ( eq @ y @ z ) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[k]) ).
thf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
~ ( lessf @ x @ z ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[satz51b]) ).
thf(c_0_8,plain,
! [X15: frac,X16: frac,X17: frac,X18: frac] :
( ~ ( lessf @ X15 @ X16 )
| ~ ( eq @ X15 @ X17 )
| ~ ( eq @ X16 @ X18 )
| ( lessf @ X17 @ X18 ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[satz45])])]) ).
thf(c_0_9,plain,
( ( lessf @ y @ z )
| ( eq @ y @ z ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
thf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
~ ( lessf @ x @ z ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
thf(c_0_11,plain,
! [X2: frac,X3: frac,X4: frac,X5: frac] :
( ( lessf @ X4 @ X5 )
| ~ ( lessf @ X2 @ X3 )
| ~ ( eq @ X2 @ X4 )
| ~ ( eq @ X3 @ X5 ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
thf(c_0_12,plain,
( ( lessf @ y @ z )
| ( eq @ y @ z ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
thf(c_0_13,plain,
! [X19: frac] : ( eq @ X19 @ X19 ),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[satz37]) ).
thf(c_0_14,plain,
! [X20: frac,X21: frac,X22: frac] :
( ~ ( lessf @ X20 @ X21 )
| ~ ( lessf @ X21 @ X22 )
| ( lessf @ X20 @ X22 ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[satz50])])]) ).
thf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
~ ( lessf @ x @ z ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
thf(c_0_16,plain,
! [X3: frac,X2: frac] :
( ( lessf @ y @ z )
| ( lessf @ X2 @ z )
| ~ ( lessf @ X3 @ y )
| ~ ( eq @ X3 @ X2 ) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]) ).
thf(c_0_17,plain,
! [X2: frac] : ( eq @ X2 @ X2 ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_13]) ).
thf(c_0_18,plain,
! [X2: frac,X3: frac,X4: frac] :
( ( lessf @ X2 @ X4 )
| ~ ( lessf @ X2 @ X3 )
| ~ ( lessf @ X3 @ X4 ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_14]) ).
thf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
~ ( lessf @ x @ z ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_15]) ).
thf(c_0_20,plain,
! [X2: frac] :
( ( lessf @ X2 @ z )
| ~ ( lessf @ X2 @ y ) ),
inference(csr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]),c_0_18]) ).
thf(c_0_21,plain,
lessf @ x @ y,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[l]) ).
thf(c_0_22,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_19,c_0_20]),c_0_21])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : NUM743^1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.7.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.07/0.19 % Computer : n003.cluster.edu
% 0.07/0.19 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.07/0.19 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.07/0.19 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.07/0.19 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.07/0.19 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.07/0.19 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.07/0.19 % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 12:50:42 UTC 2026
% 0.07/0.19 % CPUTime :
% 0.07/0.19 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.07/0.23 Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.07/0.24 Running: /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/eprover-ho --delete-bad-limit=2000000000 --definitional-cnf=24 -s --print-statistics -R --print-version --proof-object --auto-schedule=8 --cpu-limit=300 /export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.Hm3TFW4ooH/E---3.1_2456926.p
% 0.22/0.26 % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 0.22/0.26 % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.22/0.26 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.22/0.26 % Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.22/0.26 % Starting ho_unfolding_6 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.26 % Starting sh4l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.26 % Starting ehoh_best_nonlift_rwall with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.26 % ho_unfolding_6 with pid 2456940 completed with status 0
% 0.22/0.26 % Result found by ho_unfolding_6
% 0.22/0.26 % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.22/0.26 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.22/0.26 % Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.22/0.26 % Starting ho_unfolding_6 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.26 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.22/0.26 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.22/0.26 % Search class: HGUNF-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.22/0.26 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.22/0.26 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.26 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2456945 completed with status 0
% 0.22/0.26 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.22/0.26 % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.22/0.26 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.22/0.26 % Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.22/0.26 % Starting ho_unfolding_6 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.26 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.22/0.26 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.22/0.26 % Search class: HGUNF-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.22/0.26 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.22/0.26 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.26 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.22/0.26
% 0.22/0.26 % Proof found!
% 0.22/0.26 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.22/0.26 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.22/0.26 % Parsed axioms : 13
% 0.22/0.26 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.22/0.26 % Initial clauses : 13
% 0.22/0.26 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 7
% 0.22/0.26 % Initial clauses in saturation : 6
% 0.22/0.26 % Processed clauses : 13
% 0.22/0.26 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.22/0.26 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.22/0.26 % ...remaining for further processing : 13
% 0.22/0.26 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.22/0.26 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.22/0.26 % Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.22/0.26 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.22/0.26 % Generated clauses : 13
% 0.22/0.26 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 9
% 0.22/0.26 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.22/0.26 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 1
% 0.22/0.26 % Paramodulations : 13
% 0.22/0.26 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.22/0.26 % NegExts : 0
% 0.22/0.26 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.22/0.26 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.22/0.26 % Total rewrite steps : 1
% 0.22/0.26 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.22/0.26 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.22/0.26 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.22/0.26 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.22/0.26 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.22/0.26 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.22/0.26 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.22/0.26 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.22/0.26 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.22/0.26 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.22/0.26 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.22/0.26 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.22/0.26 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.22/0.26 % Current number of processed clauses : 12
% 0.22/0.26 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 2
% 0.22/0.26 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.22/0.26 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.22/0.26 % Non-unit-clauses : 9
% 0.22/0.26 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 2
% 0.22/0.26 % ...number of literals in the above : 8
% 0.22/0.26 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.22/0.26 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.22/0.26 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 26
% 0.22/0.26 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 25
% 0.22/0.26 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 2
% 0.22/0.26 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.22/0.26 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.22/0.26 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.22/0.26 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.22/0.26 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.22/0.26 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.22/0.26 % Termbank termtop insertions : 739
% 0.22/0.26 % Search garbage collected termcells : 90
% 0.22/0.26
% 0.22/0.26 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.22/0.26 % User time : 0.004 s
% 0.22/0.26 % System time : 0.001 s
% 0.22/0.26 % Total time : 0.005 s
% 0.22/0.26 % Maximum resident set size: 3584 pages
% 0.22/0.26
% 0.22/0.26 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.22/0.26 % User time : 0.005 s
% 0.22/0.26 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.22/0.26 % Total time : 0.011 s
% 0.22/0.26 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.22/0.26 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------