%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : PUZ038-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.4.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n004.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 02:02:24 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.14s 0.61s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.14s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 3
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 9 ( 6 unt; 0 nHn; 9 RR)
% Number of literals : 12 ( 0 equ; 6 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 6 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-12 aty)
% Number of functors : 14 ( 14 usr; 1 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 69 ( 33 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(v3_down,axiom,
( ~ state(X1,X2,X3,v3(X4,X5),X6,X7,X8,X9,X10,X11,e1(s(s(X4)),X5),X12)
| state(X1,X2,X3,v3(s(X4),X5),X6,X7,X8,X9,X10,X11,e1(X4,X5),X12) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/PUZ004-0.ax',v3_down) ).
cnf(goal_state,negated_conjecture,
~ state(X1,X2,X3,v3(s(s(s(o))),o),X4,X5,X6,X7,X8,X9,X10,X11),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',goal_state) ).
cnf(initial_state,hypothesis,
state(bb(o,s(o)),v1(o,o),v2(o,s(s(s(o)))),v3(s(s(o)),o),v4(s(s(o)),s(s(s(o)))),h(s(s(o)),s(o)),s1(s(s(s(o))),s(o)),s2(s(s(s(o))),s(s(o))),s3(s(s(s(s(o)))),s(o)),s4(s(s(s(s(o)))),s(s(o))),e1(s(s(s(s(o)))),o),e2(s(s(s(s(o)))),s(s(s(o))))),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',initial_state) ).
cnf(c_0_3,plain,
( ~ state(X1,X2,X3,v3(X4,X5),X6,X7,X8,X9,X10,X11,e1(s(s(X4)),X5),X12)
| state(X1,X2,X3,v3(s(X4),X5),X6,X7,X8,X9,X10,X11,e1(X4,X5),X12) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[v3_down]) ).
cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ state(X1,X2,X3,v3(s(s(s(o))),o),X4,X5,X6,X7,X8,X9,X10,X11),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[goal_state]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,plain,
( ~ state(X1,X2,X3,v3(X4,X5),X6,X7,X8,X9,X10,X11,e1(s(s(X4)),X5),X12)
| state(X1,X2,X3,v3(s(X4),X5),X6,X7,X8,X9,X10,X11,e1(X4,X5),X12) ),
c_0_3 ).
cnf(c_0_6,hypothesis,
state(bb(o,s(o)),v1(o,o),v2(o,s(s(s(o)))),v3(s(s(o)),o),v4(s(s(o)),s(s(s(o)))),h(s(s(o)),s(o)),s1(s(s(s(o))),s(o)),s2(s(s(s(o))),s(s(o))),s3(s(s(s(s(o)))),s(o)),s4(s(s(s(s(o)))),s(s(o))),e1(s(s(s(s(o)))),o),e2(s(s(s(s(o)))),s(s(s(o))))),
initial_state ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
~ state(X1,X2,X3,v3(s(s(s(o))),o),X4,X5,X6,X7,X8,X9,X10,X11),
c_0_4 ).
cnf(c_0_8,hypothesis,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]),c_0_7]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : PUZ038-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.4.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.54 % Computer : n004.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.54 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.54 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.54 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.54 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.54 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.54 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.54 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 03:46:21 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.54 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/0.54 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.14/0.59 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.14/0.59 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
% 0.14/0.61 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.14/0.61 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.61 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.61 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.61 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.61 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.61 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.61 % new_bool_3 with pid 2175511 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.61 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.14/0.61 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.61 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.61 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.61 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.61 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.14/0.61 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.14/0.61 % Search class: FHUNF-FFLF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.61 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.14/0.61 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.61 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2175517 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.61 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.14/0.61 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.61 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.61 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.61 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.61 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.14/0.61 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.14/0.61 % Search class: FHUNF-FFLF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.61 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.14/0.61 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.61 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.14/0.61
% 0.14/0.61 % Proof found!
% 0.14/0.61 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.14/0.61 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.14/0.61 % Parsed axioms : 43
% 0.14/0.61 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.14/0.61 % Initial clauses : 43
% 0.14/0.61 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.14/0.61 % Initial clauses in saturation : 43
% 0.14/0.61 % Processed clauses : 77
% 0.14/0.61 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.14/0.61 % ...subsumed : 12
% 0.14/0.61 % ...remaining for further processing : 65
% 0.14/0.61 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.14/0.61 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.14/0.61 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.61 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.14/0.61 % Generated clauses : 453
% 0.14/0.61 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 429
% 0.14/0.61 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.61 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.14/0.61 % Paramodulations : 453
% 0.14/0.61 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.14/0.61 % NegExts : 0
% 0.14/0.61 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.14/0.61 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.14/0.61 % Total rewrite steps : 0
% 0.14/0.61 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.14/0.61 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.14/0.61 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.14/0.61 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.14/0.61 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.14/0.61 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.14/0.61 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.14/0.61 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.61 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.61 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.61 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.61 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.61 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.61 % Current number of processed clauses : 65
% 0.14/0.61 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 1
% 0.14/0.61 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.14/0.61 % Negative unit clauses : 39
% 0.14/0.61 % Non-unit-clauses : 25
% 0.14/0.61 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 395
% 0.14/0.61 % ...number of literals in the above : 536
% 0.14/0.61 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.14/0.61 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.14/0.61 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 302
% 0.14/0.61 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 302
% 0.14/0.61 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.14/0.61 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 314
% 0.14/0.61 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.14/0.61 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.14/0.61 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.14/0.61 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.14/0.61 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.14/0.61 % Termbank termtop insertions : 7536
% 0.14/0.61 % Search garbage collected termcells : 85
% 0.14/0.61
% 0.14/0.61 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.61 % User time : 0.007 s
% 0.14/0.61 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.14/0.61 % Total time : 0.010 s
% 0.14/0.61 % Maximum resident set size: 3684 pages
% 0.14/0.61
% 0.14/0.61 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.61 % User time : 0.011 s
% 0.14/0.61 % System time : 0.007 s
% 0.14/0.61 % Total time : 0.018 s
% 0.14/0.61 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.14/0.61 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------