%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : RNG007-4 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n018.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 02:05:28 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.14s 0.48s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.14s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 6
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 20 ( 20 unt; 0 nHn; 4 RR)
% Number of literals : 20 ( 19 equ; 3 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 0 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 21 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(multiply_additive_inverse1,axiom,
multiply(X1,additive_inverse(X2)) = additive_inverse(multiply(X1,X2)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/RNG002-0.ax',multiply_additive_inverse1) ).
cnf(boolean_ring,hypothesis,
multiply(X1,X1) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',boolean_ring) ).
cnf(additive_inverse_additive_inverse,axiom,
additive_inverse(additive_inverse(X1)) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/RNG002-0.ax',additive_inverse_additive_inverse) ).
cnf(multiply_additive_inverse2,axiom,
multiply(additive_inverse(X1),X2) = additive_inverse(multiply(X1,X2)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/RNG002-0.ax',multiply_additive_inverse2) ).
cnf(left_additive_inverse,axiom,
add(additive_inverse(X1),X1) = additive_identity,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/RNG002-0.ax',left_additive_inverse) ).
cnf(prove_inverse,negated_conjecture,
add(a,a) != additive_identity,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_inverse) ).
cnf(c_0_6,axiom,
multiply(X1,additive_inverse(X2)) = additive_inverse(multiply(X1,X2)),
multiply_additive_inverse1 ).
cnf(c_0_7,hypothesis,
multiply(X1,X1) = X1,
boolean_ring ).
cnf(c_0_8,hypothesis,
multiply(X1,additive_inverse(X1)) = additive_inverse(X1),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,axiom,
additive_inverse(additive_inverse(X1)) = X1,
additive_inverse_additive_inverse ).
cnf(c_0_10,axiom,
multiply(additive_inverse(X1),X2) = additive_inverse(multiply(X1,X2)),
multiply_additive_inverse2 ).
cnf(c_0_11,axiom,
add(additive_inverse(X1),X1) = additive_identity,
left_additive_inverse ).
cnf(c_0_12,hypothesis,
multiply(additive_inverse(X1),X1) = X1,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
multiply(additive_inverse(X1),X2) = multiply(X1,additive_inverse(X2)),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
add(a,a) != additive_identity,
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_inverse]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
add(X1,additive_inverse(X1)) = additive_identity,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,hypothesis,
additive_inverse(X1) = X1,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]),c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
add(a,a) != additive_identity,
c_0_14 ).
cnf(c_0_18,plain,
add(X1,X1) = additive_identity,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_18])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : RNG007-4 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.36 % Computer : n018.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.36 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/0.36 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.09/0.36 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 04:12:13 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.09/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.14/0.44 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.14/0.44 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
% 0.14/0.48 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.14/0.48 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.48 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.48 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.48 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.48 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.48 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.48 % G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with pid 941010 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.48 % Result found by G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN
% 0.14/0.48 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.48 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.48 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.48 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.14/0.48 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.14/0.48 % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.48 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.14/0.48 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.48 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.48 % Starting SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.48 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.48 % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.48 % SubtermCWHack with pid 941012 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.48 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.14/0.48 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.48 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.48 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.48 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.14/0.48 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.14/0.48 % Search class: FUUPM-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.48 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.14/0.48 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.48 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.14/0.48
% 0.14/0.48 % Proof found!
% 0.14/0.48 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.14/0.48 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.14/0.48 % Parsed axioms : 16
% 0.14/0.48 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.14/0.48 % Initial clauses : 16
% 0.14/0.48 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.14/0.48 % Initial clauses in saturation : 16
% 0.14/0.48 % Processed clauses : 20
% 0.14/0.48 % ...of these trivial : 1
% 0.14/0.48 % ...subsumed : 2
% 0.14/0.48 % ...remaining for further processing : 17
% 0.14/0.48 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.14/0.48 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.14/0.48 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.48 % Backward-rewritten : 9
% 0.14/0.48 % Generated clauses : 35
% 0.14/0.48 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 15
% 0.14/0.48 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.48 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.14/0.48 % Paramodulations : 35
% 0.14/0.48 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.14/0.48 % NegExts : 0
% 0.14/0.48 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.14/0.48 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.14/0.48 % Total rewrite steps : 55
% 0.14/0.48 % ...of those cached : 28
% 0.14/0.48 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.14/0.48 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.14/0.48 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.14/0.48 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.14/0.48 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.14/0.48 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.14/0.48 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.48 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.48 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.48 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.48 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.48 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.48 % Current number of processed clauses : 8
% 0.14/0.48 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 7
% 0.14/0.48 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.14/0.48 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.14/0.48 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.14/0.48 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 9
% 0.14/0.48 % ...number of literals in the above : 9
% 0.14/0.48 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.14/0.48 % Current number of archived clauses : 9
% 0.14/0.48 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.14/0.48 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.14/0.48 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.14/0.48 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.14/0.48 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.14/0.48 % BW rewrite match attempts : 22
% 0.14/0.48 % BW rewrite match successes : 15
% 0.14/0.48 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.14/0.48 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.14/0.48 % Termbank termtop insertions : 412
% 0.14/0.48 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2
% 0.14/0.48
% 0.14/0.48 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.48 % User time : 0.005 s
% 0.14/0.48 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.14/0.48 % Total time : 0.009 s
% 0.14/0.48 % Maximum resident set size: 3640 pages
% 0.14/0.48
% 0.14/0.48 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.48 % User time : 0.016 s
% 0.14/0.48 % System time : 0.013 s
% 0.14/0.48 % Total time : 0.029 s
% 0.14/0.48 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.14/0.48 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------