%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : NUM854+1 : 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 : 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 : Thu Sep 24 01:50:51 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.15s 0.66s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.15s
% 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(conjunct1(315), 514, 0)',conjecture,
greater(vmul(vd508,vd511),vmul(vd509,vd511)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p','holds(conjunct1(315), 514, 0)') ).
fof('ass(cond(299, 0), 2)',axiom,
! [X10,X15,X16] :
( greater(X15,X16)
=> greater(vmul(X15,X10),vmul(X16,X10)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p','ass(cond(299, 0), 2)') ).
fof('holds(conjunct1(314), 510, 0)',axiom,
greater(vd508,vd509),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p','holds(conjunct1(314), 510, 0)') ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ greater(vmul(vd508,vd511),vmul(vd509,vd511)),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],['holds(conjunct1(315), 514, 0)']) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ greater(vmul(vd508,vd511),vmul(vd509,vd511)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ greater(vmul(vd508,vd511),vmul(vd509,vd511)),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X113,X114,X115] :
( greater(vmul(X114,X113),vmul(X115,X113))
| ~ greater(X114,X115) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],['ass(cond(299, 0), 2)'])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
~ greater(vmul(vd508,vd511),vmul(vd509,vd511)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ greater(X1,X2)
| greater(vmul(X1,X3),vmul(X2,X3)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
greater(vd508,vd509),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],['holds(conjunct1(314), 510, 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
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : NUM854+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.58 % Computer : n010.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.58 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.58 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.58 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.58 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.58 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.58 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.58 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 03:13:56 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.58 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/0.58 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.62 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.10/0.62 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
% 0.15/0.66 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.15/0.66 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.66 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.66 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.66 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.66 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.66 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.66 % new_bool_1 with pid 4107631 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.66 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.15/0.66 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.66 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.66 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.66 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.66 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.66 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.15/0.66 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.15/0.66 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.66 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.15/0.66 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.66 % SubtermCWHack with pid 4107633 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.66 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.15/0.66 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.66 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.66 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.66 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.66 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.66 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.15/0.66 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.15/0.66 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.66 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.15/0.66 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.66 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.15/0.66
% 0.15/0.66 % Proof found!
% 0.15/0.66 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.15/0.66 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.15/0.66 % Parsed axioms : 59
% 0.15/0.66 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 2
% 0.15/0.66 % Initial clauses : 67
% 0.15/0.66 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 2
% 0.15/0.66 % Initial clauses in saturation : 65
% 0.15/0.66 % Processed clauses : 253
% 0.15/0.66 % ...of these trivial : 25
% 0.15/0.66 % ...subsumed : 118
% 0.15/0.66 % ...remaining for further processing : 110
% 0.15/0.66 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 29
% 0.15/0.66 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.15/0.66 % Backward-subsumed : 6
% 0.15/0.66 % Backward-rewritten : 12
% 0.15/0.66 % Generated clauses : 768
% 0.15/0.66 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 649
% 0.15/0.66 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.15/0.66 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.15/0.66 % Paramodulations : 735
% 0.15/0.66 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.15/0.66 % NegExts : 0
% 0.15/0.66 % Equation resolutions : 33
% 0.15/0.66 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.15/0.66 % Total rewrite steps : 154
% 0.15/0.66 % ...of those cached : 77
% 0.15/0.66 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.15/0.66 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.15/0.66 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.15/0.66 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.15/0.66 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.15/0.66 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.15/0.66 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.66 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.66 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.66 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.66 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.66 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.66 % Current number of processed clauses : 83
% 0.15/0.66 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 23
% 0.15/0.66 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 4
% 0.15/0.66 % Negative unit clauses : 21
% 0.15/0.66 % Non-unit-clauses : 35
% 0.15/0.66 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 455
% 0.15/0.66 % ...number of literals in the above : 804
% 0.15/0.66 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.15/0.66 % Current number of archived clauses : 18
% 0.15/0.66 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 153
% 0.15/0.66 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 139
% 0.15/0.66 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 17
% 0.15/0.66 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 81
% 0.15/0.66 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.15/0.66 % BW rewrite match attempts : 29
% 0.15/0.66 % BW rewrite match successes : 19
% 0.15/0.66 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.15/0.66 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.15/0.66 % Termbank termtop insertions : 8174
% 0.15/0.66 % Search garbage collected termcells : 749
% 0.15/0.66
% 0.15/0.66 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.66 % User time : 0.015 s
% 0.15/0.66 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.15/0.66 % Total time : 0.017 s
% 0.15/0.66 % Maximum resident set size: 3988 pages
% 0.15/0.66
% 0.15/0.66 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.66 % User time : 0.018 s
% 0.15/0.66 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.15/0.66 % Total time : 0.024 s
% 0.15/0.66 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.15/0.66 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------