%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : NUM838+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n009.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 01:50:47 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.12s 0.45s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.12s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 11 ( 8 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 14 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 9 ( 6 ~; 2 |; 0 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 1 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 6 ( 2 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 9 ( 0 sgn 6 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof('holds(conseq(195), 305, 0)',conjecture,
greater(vplus(vd301,vd303),vplus(vd302,vd303)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p','holds(conseq(195), 305, 0)') ).
fof('ass(cond(proof(196), 0), 4)',axiom,
! [X1,X6,X7] :
( greater(X6,X7)
=> greater(vplus(X6,X1),vplus(X7,X1)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p','ass(cond(proof(196), 0), 4)') ).
fof('holds(antec(195), 304, 0)',axiom,
greater(vd301,vd302),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p','holds(antec(195), 304, 0)') ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ greater(vplus(vd301,vd303),vplus(vd302,vd303)),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],['holds(conseq(195), 305, 0)']) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ greater(vplus(vd301,vd303),vplus(vd302,vd303)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ greater(vplus(vd301,vd303),vplus(vd302,vd303)),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X38,X39,X40] :
( greater(vplus(X39,X38),vplus(X40,X38))
| ~ greater(X39,X40) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],['ass(cond(proof(196), 0), 4)'])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
~ greater(vplus(vd301,vd303),vplus(vd302,vd303)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ greater(X1,X2)
| greater(vplus(X1,X3),vplus(X2,X3)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
greater(vd301,vd302),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],['holds(antec(195), 304, 0)']) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]),c_0_9])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : NUM838+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.38 % Computer : n009.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.38 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.38 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.38 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.12/0.38 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.12/0.38 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.38 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.12/0.38 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 03:12:28 UTC 2026
% 0.12/0.38 % CPUTime :
% 0.12/0.38 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.43 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.12/0.43 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
% 0.12/0.45 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.12/0.45 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.45 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % new_bool_1 with pid 709492 completed with status 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.12/0.45 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.45 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.12/0.45 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.12/0.45 % Search class: FGHSS-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.12/0.45 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % SubtermCWHack with pid 709494 completed with status 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.12/0.45 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.45 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.12/0.45 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.12/0.45 % Search class: FGHSS-FFSF22-SFFFFFNN
% 0.12/0.45 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.12/0.45
% 0.12/0.45 % Proof found!
% 0.12/0.45 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.12/0.45 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.12/0.45 % Parsed axioms : 30
% 0.12/0.45 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 17
% 0.12/0.45 % Initial clauses : 14
% 0.12/0.45 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 1
% 0.12/0.45 % Initial clauses in saturation : 13
% 0.12/0.45 % Processed clauses : 55
% 0.12/0.45 % ...of these trivial : 3
% 0.12/0.45 % ...subsumed : 23
% 0.12/0.45 % ...remaining for further processing : 29
% 0.12/0.45 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 12
% 0.12/0.45 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Backward-rewritten : 2
% 0.12/0.45 % Generated clauses : 146
% 0.12/0.45 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 117
% 0.12/0.45 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Paramodulations : 134
% 0.12/0.45 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % NegExts : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Equation resolutions : 12
% 0.12/0.45 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Total rewrite steps : 30
% 0.12/0.45 % ...of those cached : 14
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.45 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.45 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.45 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.45 % Current number of processed clauses : 22
% 0.12/0.45 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 6
% 0.12/0.45 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.12/0.45 % Negative unit clauses : 11
% 0.12/0.45 % Non-unit-clauses : 4
% 0.12/0.45 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 66
% 0.12/0.45 % ...number of literals in the above : 125
% 0.12/0.45 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Current number of archived clauses : 2
% 0.12/0.45 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1
% 0.12/0.45 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.12/0.45 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 17
% 0.12/0.45 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % BW rewrite match attempts : 5
% 0.12/0.45 % BW rewrite match successes : 3
% 0.12/0.45 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Termbank termtop insertions : 1645
% 0.12/0.45 % Search garbage collected termcells : 283
% 0.12/0.45
% 0.12/0.45 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.12/0.45 % User time : 0.004 s
% 0.12/0.45 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.12/0.45 % Total time : 0.007 s
% 0.12/0.45 % Maximum resident set size: 3672 pages
% 0.12/0.45
% 0.12/0.45 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.12/0.45 % User time : 0.008 s
% 0.12/0.45 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.12/0.45 % Total time : 0.013 s
% 0.12/0.45 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.12/0.45 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------