%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : NUM812^5 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v5.2.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n010.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 08:17:10 AM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.27s 0.39s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.27s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 10 ( 4 unt; 0 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 17 ( 13 equ; 0 cnn)
% Maximal formula atoms : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 66 ( 12 ~; 10 |; 5 &; 31 @)
% ( 1 <=>; 7 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 13 ( 6 avg)
% Number of types : 2 ( 0 usr)
% Number of type conns : 4 ( 4 >; 0 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of symbols : 7 ( 5 usr; 4 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 20 ( 1 ^; 16 !; 3 ?; 20 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thf(decl_23,type,
c0: $i ).
thf(decl_24,type,
cS: $i > $i ).
thf(decl_25,type,
cIND: $o ).
thf(decl_26,type,
esk1_1: ( $i > $o ) > $i ).
thf(decl_27,type,
esk2_0: $i ).
thf(cTHM578,conjecture,
( cIND
=> ! [X3: $i] :
( ( X3 = c0 )
| ? [X4: $i] :
( X3
= ( cS @ X4 ) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.dFBC78K8OF/E---3.1_2810177.p',cTHM578) ).
thf(cIND_def,axiom,
( cIND
<=> ! [X1: $i > $o] :
( ( ( X1 @ c0 )
& ! [X2: $i] :
( ( X1 @ X2 )
=> ( X1 @ ( cS @ X2 ) ) ) )
=> ! [X2: $i] : ( X1 @ X2 ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.dFBC78K8OF/E---3.1_2810177.p',cIND_def) ).
thf(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ ( cIND
=> ! [X3: $i] :
( ( X3 = c0 )
| ? [X4: $i] :
( X3
= ( cS @ X4 ) ) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[cTHM578]) ).
thf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ( ! [X10: $i > $o] :
( ( ( X10 @ c0 )
& ! [X11: $i] :
( ( X10 @ X11 )
=> ( X10 @ ( cS @ X11 ) ) ) )
=> ! [X12: $i] : ( X10 @ X12 ) )
=> ! [X3: $i] :
( ( X3 = c0 )
| ? [X4: $i] :
( X3
= ( cS @ X4 ) ) ) ),
inference(apply_def,[status(thm)],[c_0_2,cIND_def]) ).
thf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
! [X13: $i > $o,X15: $i,X17: $i] :
( ( ( X13 @ ( esk1_1 @ X13 ) )
| ~ ( X13 @ c0 )
| ( X13 @ X15 ) )
& ( ~ ( X13 @ ( cS @ ( esk1_1 @ X13 ) ) )
| ~ ( X13 @ c0 )
| ( X13 @ X15 ) )
& ( esk2_0 != c0 )
& ( esk2_0
!= ( cS @ X17 ) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])])])])])]) ).
thf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
! [X2: $i,X1: $i > $o] :
( ( X1 @ X2 )
| ~ ( X1 @ ( cS @ ( esk1_1 @ X1 ) ) )
| ~ ( X1 @ c0 ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
thf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
! [X2: $i] :
( esk2_0
!= ( cS @ X2 ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
thf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
! [X2: $i] :
( ( ( cS
@ ( esk1_1
@ ^ [Z0: $i] : ( Z0 != X2 ) ) )
= X2 )
| ( c0 = X2 ) ),
inference(eliminate_leibniz_eq,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[]),c_0_5]) ).
thf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
esk2_0 != c0,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
thf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(er,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7])]),c_0_8]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : NUM812^5 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v5.2.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.13/0.27 % Computer : n010.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.27 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.27 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.27 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.13/0.27 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.13/0.27 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.27 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.13/0.27 % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 13:01:48 UTC 2026
% 0.13/0.27 % CPUTime :
% 0.13/0.27 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.27/0.34 Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.27/0.36 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.dFBC78K8OF/E---3.1_2810177.p
% 0.27/0.39 % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 0.27/0.39 % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSLSNSFA.
% 0.27/0.39 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.27/0.39 % Starting post_as_ho4 with 1200s (4) cores
% 0.27/0.39 % Starting post_as_ho5 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.27/0.39 % Starting new_ho_8 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.39 % Starting new_ho_4 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.39 % post_as_ho4 with pid 2810190 completed with status 0
% 0.27/0.39 % Result found by post_as_ho4
% 0.27/0.39 % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSLSNSFA.
% 0.27/0.39 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.27/0.39 % Starting post_as_ho4 with 1200s (4) cores
% 0.27/0.39 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.27/0.39 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.27/0.39 % Search class: HGUSF-FFSF11-SSFFMMBN
% 0.27/0.39 % partial match(2): HGUNF-FFSF11-SSFFMSBN
% 0.27/0.39 % Scheduled 6 strats onto 4 cores with 1200 seconds (1200 total)
% 0.27/0.39 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 121s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.39 % Starting post_as_ho12 with 481s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.39 % Starting new_ho_8 with 181s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.39 % Starting new_ho_4 with 181s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.39 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2810196 completed with status 10
% 0.27/0.39 % Starting post_as_ho5 with 181s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.39 % new_ho_4 with pid 2810201 completed with status 10
% 0.27/0.39 % Starting post_as_ho4 with 55s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.39 % new_ho_8 with pid 2810200 completed with status 10
% 0.27/0.39 % post_as_ho4 with pid 2810205 completed with status 0
% 0.27/0.39 % Result found by post_as_ho4
% 0.27/0.39 % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSLSNSFA.
% 0.27/0.39 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.27/0.39 % Starting post_as_ho4 with 1200s (4) cores
% 0.27/0.39 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.27/0.39 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.27/0.39 % Search class: HGUSF-FFSF11-SSFFMMBN
% 0.27/0.39 % partial match(2): HGUNF-FFSF11-SSFFMSBN
% 0.27/0.39 % Scheduled 6 strats onto 4 cores with 1200 seconds (1200 total)
% 0.27/0.39 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 121s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.39 % Starting post_as_ho12 with 481s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.39 % Starting new_ho_8 with 181s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.39 % Starting new_ho_4 with 181s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.39 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2810196 completed with status 10
% 0.27/0.39 % Starting post_as_ho5 with 181s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.39 % new_ho_4 with pid 2810201 completed with status 10
% 0.27/0.39 % Starting post_as_ho4 with 55s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.39 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.27/0.39 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.27/0.39
% 0.27/0.39 % Proof found!
% 0.27/0.39 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.27/0.39 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.27/0.39 % Parsed axioms : 5
% 0.27/0.39 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.27/0.39 % Initial clauses : 7
% 0.27/0.39 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 3
% 0.27/0.39 % Initial clauses in saturation : 4
% 0.27/0.39 % Processed clauses : 13
% 0.27/0.39 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.27/0.39 % ...subsumed : 1
% 0.27/0.39 % ...remaining for further processing : 12
% 0.27/0.39 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 1
% 0.27/0.39 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.27/0.39 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.27/0.39 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.27/0.39 % Generated clauses : 23
% 0.27/0.39 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 14
% 0.27/0.39 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.27/0.39 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.27/0.39 % Paramodulations : 9
% 0.27/0.39 % Factorizations : 1
% 0.27/0.39 % NegExts : 0
% 0.27/0.39 % Equation resolutions : 3
% 0.27/0.39 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.27/0.39 % Total rewrite steps : 1
% 0.27/0.39 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.27/0.39 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.27/0.39 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.27/0.39 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.27/0.39 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.27/0.39 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.27/0.39 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.27/0.39 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.39 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.39 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.39 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.39 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.39 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.39 % Current number of processed clauses : 8
% 0.27/0.39 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 1
% 0.27/0.39 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.27/0.39 % Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.27/0.39 % Non-unit-clauses : 5
% 0.27/0.39 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 2
% 0.27/0.39 % ...number of literals in the above : 6
% 0.27/0.39 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.27/0.39 % Current number of archived clauses : 4
% 0.27/0.39 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 3
% 0.27/0.39 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3
% 0.27/0.39 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 1
% 0.27/0.39 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.27/0.39 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.27/0.39 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.27/0.39 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.27/0.39 % Condensation attempts : 13
% 0.27/0.39 % Condensation successes : 1
% 0.27/0.39 % Termbank termtop insertions : 1282
% 0.27/0.39 % Search garbage collected termcells : 168
% 0.27/0.39
% 0.27/0.39 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.27/0.39 % User time : 0.010 s
% 0.27/0.39 % System time : 0.007 s
% 0.27/0.39 % Total time : 0.017 s
% 0.27/0.39 % Maximum resident set size: 3580 pages
% 0.27/0.39
% 0.27/0.39 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.27/0.39 % User time : 0.026 s
% 0.27/0.39 % System time : 0.013 s
% 0.27/0.39 % Total time : 0.039 s
% 0.27/0.39 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.27/0.39 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------