%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : RNG103+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n005.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 02:05:51 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.13s 0.46s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.13s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 18 ( 12 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 35 ( 15 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 8 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 31 ( 14 ~; 10 |; 6 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 1 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 9 ( 2 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 7 ( 7 usr; 5 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 10 ( 0 sgn 6 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(m__,conjecture,
sdtpldt0(xx,xy) = sdtasdt0(xc,sdtpldt0(xu,xv)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__) ).
fof(mAMDistr,axiom,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( ( aElement0(X3)
& aElement0(X2)
& aElement0(X1) )
=> ( sdtasdt0(sdtpldt0(X2,X3),X1) = sdtpldt0(sdtasdt0(X2,X1),sdtasdt0(X3,X1))
& sdtasdt0(X1,sdtpldt0(X2,X3)) = sdtpldt0(sdtasdt0(X1,X2),sdtasdt0(X1,X3)) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',mAMDistr) ).
fof(m__1979,hypothesis,
( sdtasdt0(xc,xv) = xy
& aElement0(xv) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__1979) ).
fof(m__1905,hypothesis,
aElement0(xc),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__1905) ).
fof(m__1956,hypothesis,
( sdtasdt0(xc,xu) = xx
& aElement0(xu) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__1956) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
sdtpldt0(xx,xy) != sdtasdt0(xc,sdtpldt0(xu,xv)),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[m__]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X26,X27,X28] :
( ( ~ aElement0(X28)
| ~ aElement0(X27)
| ~ aElement0(X26)
| sdtasdt0(sdtpldt0(X27,X28),X26) = sdtpldt0(sdtasdt0(X27,X26),sdtasdt0(X28,X26)) )
& ( ~ aElement0(X28)
| ~ aElement0(X27)
| ~ aElement0(X26)
| sdtasdt0(X26,sdtpldt0(X27,X28)) = sdtpldt0(sdtasdt0(X26,X27),sdtasdt0(X26,X28)) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[mAMDistr])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
sdtpldt0(xx,xy) != sdtasdt0(xc,sdtpldt0(xu,xv)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ aElement0(X3)
| ~ aElement0(X2)
| ~ aElement0(X1)
| sdtasdt0(X1,sdtpldt0(X2,X3)) = sdtpldt0(sdtasdt0(X1,X2),sdtasdt0(X1,X3)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,hypothesis,
sdtasdt0(xc,xv) = xy,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[m__1979]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,hypothesis,
aElement0(xv),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[m__1979]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,hypothesis,
aElement0(xc),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[m__1905]) ).
fof(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
sdtpldt0(xx,xy) != sdtasdt0(xc,sdtpldt0(xu,xv)),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,hypothesis,
( ~ aElement0(X1)
| sdtpldt0(sdtasdt0(xc,X1),xy) = sdtasdt0(xc,sdtpldt0(X1,xv)) ),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]),c_0_10]),c_0_11])]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,hypothesis,
sdtasdt0(xc,xu) = xx,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[m__1956]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,hypothesis,
aElement0(xu),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[m__1956]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
sdtpldt0(xx,xy) != sdtasdt0(xc,sdtpldt0(xu,xv)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,hypothesis,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]),c_0_15])]),c_0_16]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : RNG103+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.36 % Computer : n005.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 04:20:03 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.09/0.36 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.13/0.40 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.13/0.41 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
% 0.13/0.46 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.13/0.46 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.46 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.46 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.46 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.46 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.46 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.46 % C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with pid 2537348 completed with status 0
% 0.13/0.46 % Result found by C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr
% 0.13/0.46 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.46 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.46 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.46 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.13/0.46 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.13/0.46 % Search class: FGUSF-FFMM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.13/0.46 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.13/0.46 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.46 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.46 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.46 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.46 % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.46 % new_bool_3 with pid 2537362 completed with status 0
% 0.13/0.46 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.13/0.46 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.46 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.46 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.46 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.13/0.46 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.13/0.46 % Search class: FGUSF-FFMM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.13/0.46 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.13/0.46 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.46 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.46 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.46 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.46 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.13/0.46 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.13/0.46
% 0.13/0.46 % Proof found!
% 0.13/0.46 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.13/0.46 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.13/0.46 % Parsed axioms : 42
% 0.13/0.46 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.13/0.46 % Initial clauses : 101
% 0.13/0.46 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 4
% 0.13/0.46 % Initial clauses in saturation : 97
% 0.13/0.46 % Processed clauses : 530
% 0.13/0.46 % ...of these trivial : 17
% 0.13/0.46 % ...subsumed : 126
% 0.13/0.46 % ...remaining for further processing : 387
% 0.13/0.46 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 22
% 0.13/0.46 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.13/0.46 % Backward-subsumed : 12
% 0.13/0.46 % Backward-rewritten : 8
% 0.13/0.46 % Generated clauses : 1478
% 0.13/0.46 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1273
% 0.13/0.46 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.13/0.46 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 4
% 0.13/0.46 % Paramodulations : 1454
% 0.13/0.46 % Factorizations : 4
% 0.13/0.46 % NegExts : 0
% 0.13/0.46 % Equation resolutions : 22
% 0.13/0.46 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.13/0.46 % Total rewrite steps : 1412
% 0.13/0.46 % ...of those cached : 1345
% 0.13/0.46 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.13/0.46 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.13/0.46 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.13/0.46 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.13/0.46 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.13/0.46 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.13/0.46 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.46 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.46 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.46 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.46 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.46 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.46 % Current number of processed clauses : 256
% 0.13/0.46 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 131
% 0.13/0.46 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.13/0.46 % Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.13/0.46 % Non-unit-clauses : 123
% 0.13/0.46 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 903
% 0.13/0.46 % ...number of literals in the above : 3895
% 0.13/0.46 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.13/0.46 % Current number of archived clauses : 117
% 0.13/0.46 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 3828
% 0.13/0.46 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1550
% 0.13/0.46 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 142
% 0.13/0.46 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 89
% 0.13/0.46 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.13/0.46 % BW rewrite match attempts : 29
% 0.13/0.46 % BW rewrite match successes : 9
% 0.13/0.46 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.13/0.46 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.13/0.46 % Termbank termtop insertions : 35247
% 0.13/0.46 % Search garbage collected termcells : 1828
% 0.13/0.46
% 0.13/0.46 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.13/0.46 % User time : 0.034 s
% 0.13/0.46 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.13/0.46 % Total time : 0.040 s
% 0.13/0.46 % Maximum resident set size: 3944 pages
% 0.13/0.46
% 0.13/0.46 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.13/0.46 % User time : 0.155 s
% 0.13/0.46 % System time : 0.016 s
% 0.13/0.46 % Total time : 0.172 s
% 0.13/0.46 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.13/0.46 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------