%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : REL009-2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n026.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 02:03:52 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.27s 0.65s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.27s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 7
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 22 ( 19 unt; 0 nHn; 8 RR)
% Number of literals : 25 ( 24 equ; 7 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 5 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 0 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 6 ( 6 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 31 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(converse_multiplicativity_10,axiom,
converse(composition(X1,X2)) = composition(converse(X2),converse(X1)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/REL001-0.ax',converse_multiplicativity_10) ).
cnf(converse_idempotence_8,axiom,
converse(converse(X1)) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/REL001-0.ax',converse_idempotence_8) ).
cnf(goals_18,negated_conjecture,
( join(composition(sk3,sk1),composition(sk3,sk2)) != composition(sk3,sk2)
| join(composition(sk1,sk3),composition(sk2,sk3)) != composition(sk2,sk3) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',goals_18) ).
cnf(goals_17,negated_conjecture,
join(sk1,sk2) = sk2,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',goals_17) ).
cnf(maddux1_join_commutativity_1,axiom,
join(X1,X2) = join(X2,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/REL001-0.ax',maddux1_join_commutativity_1) ).
cnf(converse_additivity_9,axiom,
converse(join(X1,X2)) = join(converse(X1),converse(X2)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/REL001-0.ax',converse_additivity_9) ).
cnf(composition_distributivity_7,axiom,
composition(join(X1,X2),X3) = join(composition(X1,X3),composition(X2,X3)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/REL001-0.ax',composition_distributivity_7) ).
cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
converse(composition(X1,X2)) = composition(converse(X2),converse(X1)),
converse_multiplicativity_10 ).
cnf(c_0_8,axiom,
converse(converse(X1)) = X1,
converse_idempotence_8 ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
( join(composition(sk3,sk1),composition(sk3,sk2)) != composition(sk3,sk2)
| join(composition(sk1,sk3),composition(sk2,sk3)) != composition(sk2,sk3) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[goals_18]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
join(sk1,sk2) = sk2,
goals_17 ).
cnf(c_0_11,axiom,
join(X1,X2) = join(X2,X1),
maddux1_join_commutativity_1 ).
cnf(c_0_12,axiom,
converse(join(X1,X2)) = join(converse(X1),converse(X2)),
converse_additivity_9 ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
converse(composition(converse(X1),X2)) = composition(converse(X2),X1),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,axiom,
composition(join(X1,X2),X3) = join(composition(X1,X3),composition(X2,X3)),
composition_distributivity_7 ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
( join(composition(sk3,sk1),composition(sk3,sk2)) != composition(sk3,sk2)
| join(composition(sk1,sk3),composition(sk2,sk3)) != composition(sk2,sk3) ),
c_0_9 ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
join(sk2,sk1) = sk2,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,plain,
converse(join(composition(converse(X1),X2),X3)) = join(composition(converse(X2),X1),converse(X3)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,plain,
join(composition(X1,converse(X2)),converse(composition(X2,X3))) = composition(join(X1,converse(X3)),converse(X2)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
join(composition(sk3,sk2),composition(sk3,sk1)) != composition(sk3,sk2),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_14]),c_0_11]),c_0_16]),c_0_11])]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,plain,
join(composition(X1,X2),composition(X1,X3)) = composition(X1,join(X2,X3)),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_18]),c_0_12]),c_0_7]),c_0_8]),c_0_8]),c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_19,c_0_20]),c_0_16])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : REL009-2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.20/0.44 % Computer : n026.cluster.edu
% 0.20/0.44 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.20/0.44 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.20/0.44 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.20/0.44 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.20/0.45 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.20/0.45 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.20/0.45 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 04:00:51 UTC 2026
% 0.20/0.45 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.45 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.27/0.53 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.27/0.53 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
% 0.27/0.65 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.27/0.65 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.27/0.65 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.27/0.65 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.27/0.65 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.65 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.65 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.65 % new_bool_1 with pid 1320915 completed with status 0
% 0.27/0.65 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.27/0.65 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.27/0.65 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.27/0.65 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.27/0.65 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.65 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.65 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.27/0.65 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.27/0.65 % Search class: FUHPM-FFMF21-DFFFFFNN
% 0.27/0.65 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.27/0.65 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.65 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1320920 completed with status 0
% 0.27/0.65 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.27/0.65 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.27/0.65 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.27/0.65 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.27/0.65 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.65 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.65 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.27/0.65 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.27/0.65 % Search class: FUHPM-FFMF21-DFFFFFNN
% 0.27/0.65 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.27/0.65 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.65 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.27/0.65
% 0.27/0.65 % Proof found!
% 0.27/0.65 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.27/0.65 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.27/0.65 % Parsed axioms : 18
% 0.27/0.65 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 3
% 0.27/0.65 % Initial clauses : 15
% 0.27/0.65 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.27/0.65 % Initial clauses in saturation : 15
% 0.27/0.65 % Processed clauses : 640
% 0.27/0.65 % ...of these trivial : 332
% 0.27/0.65 % ...subsumed : 208
% 0.27/0.65 % ...remaining for further processing : 100
% 0.27/0.65 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.27/0.65 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.27/0.65 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.27/0.65 % Backward-rewritten : 4
% 0.27/0.65 % Generated clauses : 3805
% 0.27/0.65 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 3433
% 0.27/0.65 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.27/0.65 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.27/0.65 % Paramodulations : 3805
% 0.27/0.65 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.27/0.65 % NegExts : 0
% 0.27/0.65 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.27/0.65 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.27/0.65 % Total rewrite steps : 2998
% 0.27/0.65 % ...of those cached : 1705
% 0.27/0.65 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.27/0.65 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.27/0.65 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.27/0.65 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.27/0.65 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.27/0.65 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.27/0.65 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.65 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.65 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.65 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.65 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.65 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.65 % Current number of processed clauses : 96
% 0.27/0.65 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 78
% 0.27/0.65 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 18
% 0.27/0.65 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.27/0.65 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.27/0.65 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 2802
% 0.27/0.65 % ...number of literals in the above : 2802
% 0.27/0.65 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.27/0.65 % Current number of archived clauses : 4
% 0.27/0.65 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.27/0.65 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.27/0.65 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.27/0.65 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 71
% 0.27/0.65 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.27/0.65 % BW rewrite match attempts : 212
% 0.27/0.65 % BW rewrite match successes : 59
% 0.27/0.65 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.27/0.65 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.27/0.65 % Termbank termtop insertions : 47530
% 0.27/0.65 % Search garbage collected termcells : 14
% 0.27/0.65
% 0.27/0.65 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.27/0.65 % User time : 0.072 s
% 0.27/0.65 % System time : 0.009 s
% 0.27/0.65 % Total time : 0.081 s
% 0.27/0.65 % Maximum resident set size: 3648 pages
% 0.27/0.65
% 0.27/0.65 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.27/0.65 % User time : 0.076 s
% 0.27/0.65 % System time : 0.013 s
% 0.27/0.65 % Total time : 0.090 s
% 0.27/0.65 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.27/0.65 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------