%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : RNG087+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 02:06:20 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.23s 10.57s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.23s
% 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] :
( xy = 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] :
( xy = sdtpldt0(X1,X2)
& aElementOf0(X2,xJ)
& aElementOf0(X1,xI) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[m__]) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
! [X80,X81] :
( xy != sdtpldt0(X80,X81)
| ~ aElementOf0(X81,xJ)
| ~ aElementOf0(X80,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(esk14_0,esk15_0) = xy
& aElementOf0(esk15_0,xJ)
& aElementOf0(esk14_0,xI)
& aElementOf0(xx,sdtpldt1(xI,xJ))
& sdtpldt0(esk12_0,esk13_0) = xx
& aElementOf0(esk13_0,xJ)
& aElementOf0(esk12_0,xI) ),
inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[m__901])]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
( xy != sdtpldt0(X1,X2)
| ~ aElementOf0(X2,xJ)
| ~ aElementOf0(X1,xI) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,hypothesis,
sdtpldt0(esk14_0,esk15_0) = xy,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,hypothesis,
aElementOf0(esk15_0,xJ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,hypothesis,
aElementOf0(esk14_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
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : RNG087+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.17/10.44 % Computer : n020.cluster.edu
% 0.17/10.44 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.17/10.44 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.17/10.44 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.17/10.44 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.17/10.44 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.17/10.44 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.17/10.44 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 04:19:58 UTC 2026
% 0.17/10.44 % CPUTime :
% 0.17/10.44 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.23/10.51 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.23/10.51 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
% 0.23/10.57 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.23/10.57 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.23/10.57 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/10.57 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.23/10.57 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/10.57 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/10.57 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/10.57 % G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with pid 1986231 completed with status 0
% 0.23/10.57 % Result found by G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI
% 0.23/10.57 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.23/10.57 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/10.57 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.23/10.57 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.23/10.57 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.23/10.57 % Search class: FGHSF-FFMM32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.23/10.57 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.23/10.57 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.23/10.57 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with 151s (1) cores
% 0.23/10.57 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2SI with 136s (1) cores
% 0.23/10.57 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S2g with 136s (1) cores
% 0.23/10.57 % Starting G-E--_107_C48_F1_PI_AE_Q4_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.23/10.57 % G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2SI with pid 1986237 completed with status 0
% 0.23/10.57 % Result found by G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2SI
% 0.23/10.57 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.23/10.57 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/10.57 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.23/10.57 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.23/10.57 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.23/10.57 % Search class: FGHSF-FFMM32-SFFFFFNN
% 0.23/10.57 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.23/10.57 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.23/10.57 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2SI with 151s (1) cores
% 0.23/10.57 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2SI with 136s (1) cores
% 0.23/10.57 % Preprocessing time : 0.003 s
% 0.23/10.57 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.23/10.57
% 0.23/10.57 % Proof found!
% 0.23/10.57 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.23/10.57 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.23/10.57 % Parsed axioms : 28
% 0.23/10.57 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.23/10.57 % Initial clauses : 75
% 0.23/10.57 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 2
% 0.23/10.57 % Initial clauses in saturation : 73
% 0.23/10.57 % Processed clauses : 103
% 0.23/10.57 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.23/10.57 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.23/10.57 % ...remaining for further processing : 103
% 0.23/10.57 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 10
% 0.23/10.57 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.23/10.57 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.23/10.57 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.23/10.57 % Generated clauses : 16
% 0.23/10.57 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 13
% 0.23/10.57 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.23/10.57 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.23/10.57 % Paramodulations : 7
% 0.23/10.57 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.23/10.57 % NegExts : 0
% 0.23/10.57 % Equation resolutions : 10
% 0.23/10.57 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.23/10.57 % Total rewrite steps : 4
% 0.23/10.57 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.23/10.57 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.23/10.57 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.23/10.57 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.23/10.57 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.23/10.57 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.23/10.57 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.23/10.57 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.23/10.57 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.23/10.57 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.23/10.57 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.23/10.57 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.23/10.57 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.23/10.57 % Current number of processed clauses : 21
% 0.23/10.57 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 16
% 0.23/10.57 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.23/10.57 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.23/10.57 % Non-unit-clauses : 4
% 0.23/10.57 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 56
% 0.23/10.57 % ...number of literals in the above : 201
% 0.23/10.57 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.23/10.57 % Current number of archived clauses : 73
% 0.23/10.57 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 559
% 0.23/10.57 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 223
% 0.23/10.57 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.23/10.57 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.23/10.57 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.23/10.57 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.23/10.57 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.23/10.57 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.23/10.57 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.23/10.57 % Termbank termtop insertions : 5690
% 0.23/10.57 % Search garbage collected termcells : 1154
% 0.23/10.57
% 0.23/10.57 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.23/10.57 % User time : 0.018 s
% 0.23/10.57 % System time : 0.007 s
% 0.23/10.57 % Total time : 0.025 s
% 0.23/10.57 % Maximum resident set size: 3416 pages
% 0.23/10.57
% 0.23/10.57 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.23/10.57 % User time : 0.048 s
% 0.23/10.57 % System time : 0.023 s
% 0.23/10.57 % Total time : 0.071 s
% 0.23/10.57 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.23/10.57 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------