%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : PUZ140^2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v6.4.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n015.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 08:20:37 AM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.23s 0.28s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.23s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 11 ( 4 unt; 0 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 22 ( 12 equ; 0 cnn)
% Maximal formula atoms : 3 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 45 ( 9 ~; 5 |; 6 &; 25 @)
% ( 0 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 7 ( 5 avg)
% Number of types : 3 ( 2 usr)
% Number of type conns : 5 ( 5 >; 0 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of symbols : 6 ( 4 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 15 ( 0 ^; 11 !; 4 ?; 15 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thf(decl_sort1,type,
syrup: $tType ).
thf(decl_sort2,type,
beverage: $tType ).
thf(decl_23,type,
coffee: beverage ).
thf(decl_25,type,
coffee_mixture: syrup > beverage ).
thf(decl_26,type,
hot: beverage > $o ).
thf(decl_27,type,
esk1_1: ( syrup > beverage ) > syrup ).
thf(there_is_hot_coffee,conjecture,
? [X2: syrup > beverage] :
! [X1: syrup] :
? [X3: beverage] :
( ( X3
= ( X2 @ X1 ) )
& ( X3 = coffee )
& ( hot @ X3 ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.LXB7vOXNLr/E---3.1_3512922.p',there_is_hot_coffee) ).
thf(coffee_and_syrup_is_hot_coffee,axiom,
! [X1: syrup] :
( ( ( coffee_mixture @ X1 )
= coffee )
& ( hot @ ( coffee_mixture @ X1 ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.LXB7vOXNLr/E---3.1_3512922.p',coffee_and_syrup_is_hot_coffee) ).
thf(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ ? [X2: syrup > beverage] :
! [X1: syrup] :
? [X3: beverage] :
( ( X3
= ( X2 @ X1 ) )
& ( X3 = coffee )
& ( hot @ X3 ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[there_is_hot_coffee]) ).
thf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
! [X9: syrup > beverage,X11: beverage] :
( ( X11
!= ( X9 @ ( esk1_1 @ X9 ) ) )
| ( X11 != coffee )
| ~ ( hot @ X11 ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])])])]) ).
thf(c_0_4,plain,
! [X8: syrup] :
( ( ( coffee_mixture @ X8 )
= coffee )
& ( hot @ ( coffee_mixture @ X8 ) ) ),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[coffee_and_syrup_is_hot_coffee]) ).
thf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
! [X2: syrup > beverage,X3: beverage] :
( ( X3
!= ( X2 @ ( esk1_1 @ X2 ) ) )
| ( X3 != coffee )
| ~ ( hot @ X3 ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
thf(c_0_6,plain,
! [X1: syrup] : ( hot @ ( coffee_mixture @ X1 ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
thf(c_0_7,plain,
! [X1: syrup] :
( ( coffee_mixture @ X1 )
= coffee ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
thf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
! [X2: syrup > beverage] :
( ( ( X2 @ ( esk1_1 @ X2 ) )
!= coffee )
| ~ ( hot @ ( X2 @ ( esk1_1 @ X2 ) ) ) ),
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
thf(c_0_9,plain,
hot @ coffee,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).
thf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_7]),c_0_9])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : PUZ140^2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v6.4.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.06/0.19 % Computer : n015.cluster.edu
% 0.06/0.19 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.06/0.19 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.06/0.19 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.06/0.19 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.06/0.19 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.06/0.19 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.06/0.19 % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 13:30:02 UTC 2026
% 0.06/0.20 % CPUTime :
% 0.06/0.20 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.06/0.24 Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.06/0.25 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.LXB7vOXNLr/E---3.1_3512922.p
% 0.23/0.28 % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 0.23/0.28 % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNSSA.
% 0.23/0.28 % Scheduled 8 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/0.28 % Starting post_as_ho12 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.28 % Starting new_bool_9 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.28 % Starting post_as_ho1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.28 % Starting post_as_ho4 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.28 % Starting post_as_ho2 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.28 % Starting ehoh_best2_full_lfho with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.28 % Starting full_lambda_10 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.28 % Starting new_ho_8 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.28 % post_as_ho12 with pid 3512935 completed with status 0
% 0.23/0.28 % Result found by post_as_ho12
% 0.23/0.28 % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNSSA.
% 0.23/0.28 % Scheduled 8 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/0.28 % Starting post_as_ho12 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.28 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.23/0.28 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.23/0.28 % Search class: HUHSS-FFSF21-SSSFFSNN
% 0.23/0.28 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.23/0.28 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.28 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3512943 completed with status 0
% 0.23/0.28 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.23/0.28 % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNSSA.
% 0.23/0.28 % Scheduled 8 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/0.28 % Starting post_as_ho12 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.28 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.23/0.28 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.23/0.28 % Search class: HUHSS-FFSF21-SSSFFSNN
% 0.23/0.28 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.23/0.28 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.28 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.23/0.28
% 0.23/0.28 % Proof found!
% 0.23/0.28 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.23/0.28 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.23/0.28 % Parsed axioms : 9
% 0.23/0.28 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.23/0.28 % Initial clauses : 10
% 0.23/0.28 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 6
% 0.23/0.28 % Initial clauses in saturation : 4
% 0.23/0.28 % Processed clauses : 7
% 0.23/0.28 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.23/0.28 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.23/0.28 % ...remaining for further processing : 7
% 0.23/0.28 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 1
% 0.23/0.28 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.23/0.28 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.23/0.28 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.23/0.28 % Generated clauses : 4
% 0.23/0.28 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 3
% 0.23/0.28 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.23/0.28 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.23/0.28 % Paramodulations : 2
% 0.23/0.28 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.23/0.28 % NegExts : 0
% 0.23/0.28 % Equation resolutions : 1
% 0.23/0.28 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.23/0.28 % Total rewrite steps : 3
% 0.23/0.28 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.23/0.28 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.23/0.28 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.23/0.28 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.23/0.28 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.23/0.28 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.23/0.28 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.23/0.28 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.28 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.28 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.28 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.28 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.28 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.28 % Current number of processed clauses : 5
% 0.23/0.28 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 4
% 0.23/0.28 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.23/0.28 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.23/0.28 % Non-unit-clauses : 1
% 0.23/0.28 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.23/0.28 % ...number of literals in the above : 0
% 0.23/0.28 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.23/0.28 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.23/0.28 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.23/0.28 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.23/0.28 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.23/0.28 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.23/0.28 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.23/0.28 % BW rewrite match attempts : 3
% 0.23/0.28 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.23/0.28 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.23/0.28 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.23/0.28 % Termbank termtop insertions : 335
% 0.23/0.28 % Search garbage collected termcells : 57
% 0.23/0.28
% 0.23/0.28 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.23/0.28 % User time : 0.003 s
% 0.23/0.28 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.23/0.28 % Total time : 0.005 s
% 0.23/0.28 % Maximum resident set size: 3580 pages
% 0.23/0.28
% 0.23/0.28 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.23/0.28 % User time : 0.005 s
% 0.23/0.28 % System time : 0.007 s
% 0.23/0.28 % Total time : 0.012 s
% 0.23/0.28 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.23/0.28 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------