%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : RNG103+2 : 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 : n009.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 02:06:24 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.14s 0.47s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.14s
% 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,negated_conjecture,
sdtpldt0(xx,xy) != sdtasdt0(xc,sdtpldt0(xu,xv)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
fof(c_0_7,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_8,negated_conjecture,
sdtpldt0(xx,xy) != sdtasdt0(xc,sdtpldt0(xu,xv)),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,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_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,hypothesis,
sdtasdt0(xc,xv) = xy,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[m__1979]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,hypothesis,
aElement0(xv),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[m__1979]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,hypothesis,
aElement0(xc),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[m__1905]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
sdtpldt0(xx,xy) != sdtasdt0(xc,sdtpldt0(xu,xv)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,hypothesis,
( ~ aElement0(X1)
| sdtasdt0(xc,sdtpldt0(X1,xv)) = sdtpldt0(sdtasdt0(xc,X1),xy) ),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_11]),c_0_12])]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,hypothesis,
sdtasdt0(xc,xu) = xx,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[m__1956]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,hypothesis,
aElement0(xu),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[m__1956]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[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
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : RNG103+2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.36 % Computer : n009.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.36 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.36 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.37 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 04:20:12 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.14/0.41 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.14/0.41 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
% 0.14/0.47 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.14/0.47 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.47 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.47 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.47 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.47 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.47 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.47 % C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with pid 832347 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.47 % Result found by C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr
% 0.14/0.47 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.47 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.47 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.47 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.14/0.47 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.14/0.47 % Search class: FGUSF-FFMM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.47 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.14/0.47 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.47 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.47 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.47 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.47 % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.47 % C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with pid 832355 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.47 % Result found by C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr
% 0.14/0.47 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.47 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.47 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.47 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.14/0.47 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.14/0.47 % Search class: FGUSF-FFMM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.47 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.14/0.47 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.47 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.47 % Preprocessing time : 0.003 s
% 0.14/0.47 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.14/0.47
% 0.14/0.47 % Proof found!
% 0.14/0.47 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.14/0.47 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.14/0.47 % Parsed axioms : 42
% 0.14/0.47 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.14/0.47 % Initial clauses : 105
% 0.14/0.47 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 4
% 0.14/0.47 % Initial clauses in saturation : 101
% 0.14/0.47 % Processed clauses : 410
% 0.14/0.47 % ...of these trivial : 16
% 0.14/0.47 % ...subsumed : 47
% 0.14/0.47 % ...remaining for further processing : 347
% 0.14/0.47 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 18
% 0.14/0.47 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.14/0.47 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.47 % Backward-rewritten : 7
% 0.14/0.47 % Generated clauses : 978
% 0.14/0.47 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 786
% 0.14/0.47 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.47 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 3
% 0.14/0.47 % Paramodulations : 962
% 0.14/0.47 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.14/0.47 % NegExts : 0
% 0.14/0.47 % Equation resolutions : 18
% 0.14/0.47 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.14/0.47 % Total rewrite steps : 1008
% 0.14/0.47 % ...of those cached : 965
% 0.14/0.47 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.14/0.47 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.14/0.47 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.14/0.47 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.14/0.47 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.14/0.47 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.14/0.47 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.47 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.47 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.47 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.47 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.47 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.47 % Current number of processed clauses : 225
% 0.14/0.47 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 80
% 0.14/0.47 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.14/0.47 % Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.14/0.47 % Non-unit-clauses : 143
% 0.14/0.47 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 537
% 0.14/0.47 % ...number of literals in the above : 2291
% 0.14/0.47 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.14/0.47 % Current number of archived clauses : 108
% 0.14/0.47 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 2794
% 0.14/0.47 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1056
% 0.14/0.47 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 50
% 0.14/0.47 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 94
% 0.14/0.47 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.14/0.47 % BW rewrite match attempts : 8
% 0.14/0.47 % BW rewrite match successes : 8
% 0.14/0.47 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.14/0.47 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.14/0.47 % Termbank termtop insertions : 23056
% 0.14/0.47 % Search garbage collected termcells : 1849
% 0.14/0.47
% 0.14/0.47 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.47 % User time : 0.045 s
% 0.14/0.47 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.14/0.47 % Total time : 0.048 s
% 0.14/0.47 % Maximum resident set size: 3944 pages
% 0.14/0.47
% 0.14/0.47 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.47 % User time : 0.153 s
% 0.14/0.47 % System time : 0.022 s
% 0.14/0.47 % Total time : 0.175 s
% 0.14/0.47 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.14/0.47 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------