%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : RNG086+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 : n020.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 02:05:47 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.16s 5.52s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.16s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 10 ( 4 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 34 ( 9 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 9 ( 3 avg)
% Number of connectives : 31 ( 7 ~; 4 |; 20 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 9 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 11 ( 11 usr; 9 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 12 ( 0 sgn 2 !; 8 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(m__,conjecture,
? [X1,X2] :
( xx = sdtpldt0(X1,X2)
& aElementOf0(X2,xJ)
& aElementOf0(X1,xI) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__) ).
fof(m__901,hypothesis,
( aElement0(xz)
& aElementOf0(xy,sdtpldt1(xI,xJ))
& ? [X1,X2] :
( sdtpldt0(X1,X2) = xy
& aElementOf0(X2,xJ)
& aElementOf0(X1,xI) )
& aElementOf0(xx,sdtpldt1(xI,xJ))
& ? [X1,X2] :
( sdtpldt0(X1,X2) = xx
& aElementOf0(X2,xJ)
& aElementOf0(X1,xI) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__901) ).
fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ ? [X1,X2] :
( xx = sdtpldt0(X1,X2)
& aElementOf0(X2,xJ)
& aElementOf0(X1,xI) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[m__]) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
! [X17,X18] :
( xx != sdtpldt0(X17,X18)
| ~ aElementOf0(X18,xJ)
| ~ aElementOf0(X17,xI) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])])]) ).
fof(c_0_4,hypothesis,
( aElement0(xz)
& aElementOf0(xy,sdtpldt1(xI,xJ))
& sdtpldt0(esk3_0,esk4_0) = xy
& aElementOf0(esk4_0,xJ)
& aElementOf0(esk3_0,xI)
& aElementOf0(xx,sdtpldt1(xI,xJ))
& sdtpldt0(esk1_0,esk2_0) = xx
& aElementOf0(esk2_0,xJ)
& aElementOf0(esk1_0,xI) ),
inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[m__901])]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
( xx != sdtpldt0(X1,X2)
| ~ aElementOf0(X2,xJ)
| ~ aElementOf0(X1,xI) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,hypothesis,
sdtpldt0(esk1_0,esk2_0) = xx,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,hypothesis,
aElementOf0(esk2_0,xJ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,hypothesis,
aElementOf0(esk1_0,xI),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,hypothesis,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]),c_0_7]),c_0_8])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : RNG086+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.13/5.39 % Computer : n020.cluster.edu
% 0.13/5.39 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/5.39 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/5.39 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.13/5.39 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.13/5.39 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/5.39 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.13/5.39 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 04:19:40 UTC 2026
% 0.13/5.39 % CPUTime :
% 0.13/5.39 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/5.46 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.16/5.46 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
% 0.16/5.52 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.16/5.52 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.16/5.52 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.16/5.52 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.16/5.52 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/5.52 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/5.52 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/5.52 % new_bool_1 with pid 1985838 completed with status 0
% 0.16/5.52 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.16/5.52 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.16/5.52 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.16/5.52 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.16/5.52 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/5.52 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/5.52 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.16/5.52 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.16/5.52 % Search class: FGHSF-FFMM32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.16/5.52 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.16/5.52 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.16/5.52 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1985840 completed with status 0
% 0.16/5.52 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.16/5.52 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.16/5.52 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.16/5.52 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.16/5.52 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/5.52 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.16/5.52 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.16/5.52 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.16/5.52 % Search class: FGHSF-FFMM32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.16/5.52 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.16/5.52 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.16/5.52 % Preprocessing time : 0.003 s
% 0.16/5.52
% 0.16/5.52 % Proof found!
% 0.16/5.52 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.16/5.52 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.16/5.52 % Parsed axioms : 27
% 0.16/5.52 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 11
% 0.16/5.52 % Initial clauses : 50
% 0.16/5.52 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 2
% 0.16/5.52 % Initial clauses in saturation : 48
% 0.16/5.52 % Processed clauses : 41
% 0.16/5.52 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.16/5.52 % ...subsumed : 4
% 0.16/5.52 % ...remaining for further processing : 37
% 0.16/5.52 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 1
% 0.16/5.52 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.16/5.52 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.16/5.52 % Backward-rewritten : 2
% 0.16/5.52 % Generated clauses : 33
% 0.16/5.52 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 26
% 0.16/5.52 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.16/5.52 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.16/5.52 % Paramodulations : 32
% 0.16/5.52 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.16/5.52 % NegExts : 0
% 0.16/5.52 % Equation resolutions : 1
% 0.16/5.52 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.16/5.52 % Total rewrite steps : 20
% 0.16/5.52 % ...of those cached : 6
% 0.16/5.52 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.16/5.52 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.16/5.52 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.16/5.52 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.16/5.52 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.16/5.52 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.16/5.52 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.16/5.52 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.16/5.52 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.16/5.52 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.16/5.52 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.16/5.52 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.16/5.52 % Current number of processed clauses : 34
% 0.16/5.52 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 19
% 0.16/5.52 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.16/5.52 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.16/5.52 % Non-unit-clauses : 15
% 0.16/5.52 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 32
% 0.16/5.52 % ...number of literals in the above : 147
% 0.16/5.52 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.16/5.52 % Current number of archived clauses : 2
% 0.16/5.52 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 19
% 0.16/5.52 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 17
% 0.16/5.52 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 4
% 0.16/5.52 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 19
% 0.16/5.52 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.16/5.52 % BW rewrite match attempts : 2
% 0.16/5.52 % BW rewrite match successes : 2
% 0.16/5.52 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.16/5.52 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.16/5.52 % Termbank termtop insertions : 4130
% 0.16/5.52 % Search garbage collected termcells : 937
% 0.16/5.52
% 0.16/5.52 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.16/5.52 % User time : 0.012 s
% 0.16/5.52 % System time : 0.001 s
% 0.16/5.52 % Total time : 0.013 s
% 0.16/5.52 % Maximum resident set size: 3668 pages
% 0.16/5.52
% 0.16/5.52 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.16/5.52 % User time : 0.014 s
% 0.16/5.52 % System time : 0.008 s
% 0.16/5.52 % Total time : 0.022 s
% 0.16/5.52 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.16/5.52 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------