%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : RNG115+4 : 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 : 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 02:05:54 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.25s 0.59s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.25s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 11 ( 4 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 72 ( 29 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 16 ( 6 avg)
% Number of connectives : 94 ( 33 ~; 26 |; 33 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 2 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 15 ( 7 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 11 ( 11 usr; 7 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 27 ( 0 sgn 9 !; 16 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(m__,conjecture,
? [X1,X2] :
( xu = sdtpldt0(X1,X2)
& ( aElementOf0(X2,slsdtgt0(xb))
| ? [X3] :
( sdtasdt0(xb,X3) = X2
& aElement0(X3) ) )
& ( aElementOf0(X1,slsdtgt0(xa))
| ? [X3] :
( sdtasdt0(xa,X3) = X1
& aElement0(X3) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__) ).
fof(m__2273,hypothesis,
( ! [X1] :
( ( X1 != sz00
& ( aElementOf0(X1,xI)
| ? [X2,X3] :
( sdtpldt0(X2,X3) = X1
& aElementOf0(X3,slsdtgt0(xb))
& aElementOf0(X2,slsdtgt0(xa)) ) ) )
=> ~ iLess0(sbrdtbr0(X1),sbrdtbr0(xu)) )
& xu != sz00
& aElementOf0(xu,xI)
& ? [X1,X2] :
( sdtpldt0(X1,X2) = xu
& aElementOf0(X2,slsdtgt0(xb))
& aElementOf0(X1,slsdtgt0(xa)) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',m__2273) ).
fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ ? [X1,X2] :
( xu = sdtpldt0(X1,X2)
& ( aElementOf0(X2,slsdtgt0(xb))
| ? [X3] :
( sdtasdt0(xb,X3) = X2
& aElement0(X3) ) )
& ( aElementOf0(X1,slsdtgt0(xa))
| ? [X3] :
( sdtasdt0(xa,X3) = X1
& aElement0(X3) ) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[m__]) ).
fof(c_0_3,hypothesis,
( ! [X1] :
( ( X1 != sz00
& ( aElementOf0(X1,xI)
| ? [X2,X3] :
( sdtpldt0(X2,X3) = X1
& aElementOf0(X3,slsdtgt0(xb))
& aElementOf0(X2,slsdtgt0(xa)) ) ) )
=> ~ iLess0(sbrdtbr0(X1),sbrdtbr0(xu)) )
& xu != sz00
& aElementOf0(xu,xI)
& ? [X1,X2] :
( sdtpldt0(X1,X2) = xu
& aElementOf0(X2,slsdtgt0(xb))
& aElementOf0(X1,slsdtgt0(xa)) ) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[m__2273]) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
! [X159,X160,X161,X162] :
( ( xu != sdtpldt0(X159,X160)
| ~ aElementOf0(X159,slsdtgt0(xa))
| ~ aElementOf0(X160,slsdtgt0(xb)) )
& ( xu != sdtpldt0(X159,X160)
| ~ aElementOf0(X159,slsdtgt0(xa))
| sdtasdt0(xb,X162) != X160
| ~ aElement0(X162) )
& ( xu != sdtpldt0(X159,X160)
| sdtasdt0(xa,X161) != X159
| ~ aElement0(X161)
| ~ aElementOf0(X160,slsdtgt0(xb)) )
& ( xu != sdtpldt0(X159,X160)
| sdtasdt0(xa,X161) != X159
| ~ aElement0(X161)
| sdtasdt0(xb,X162) != X160
| ~ aElement0(X162) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_5,hypothesis,
! [X154,X155,X156] :
( ( ~ iLess0(sbrdtbr0(X154),sbrdtbr0(xu))
| X154 = sz00
| ~ aElementOf0(X154,xI) )
& ( ~ iLess0(sbrdtbr0(X154),sbrdtbr0(xu))
| X154 = sz00
| sdtpldt0(X155,X156) != X154
| ~ aElementOf0(X156,slsdtgt0(xb))
| ~ aElementOf0(X155,slsdtgt0(xa)) )
& xu != sz00
& aElementOf0(xu,xI)
& sdtpldt0(esk37_0,esk38_0) = xu
& aElementOf0(esk38_0,slsdtgt0(xb))
& aElementOf0(esk37_0,slsdtgt0(xa)) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])])])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( xu != sdtpldt0(X2,X1)
| ~ aElementOf0(X2,slsdtgt0(xa))
| ~ aElementOf0(X1,slsdtgt0(xb)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,hypothesis,
sdtpldt0(esk37_0,esk38_0) = xu,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,hypothesis,
aElementOf0(esk37_0,slsdtgt0(xa)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,hypothesis,
aElementOf0(esk38_0,slsdtgt0(xb)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,hypothesis,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]),c_0_8]),c_0_9])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : RNG115+4 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.06 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.14/0.42 % Computer : n005.cluster.edu
% 0.14/0.42 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.14/0.42 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.14/0.42 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.14/0.42 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.14/0.42 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.14/0.42 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.14/0.42 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 04:21:03 UTC 2026
% 0.14/0.42 % CPUTime :
% 0.14/0.42 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.14/0.49 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.14/0.49 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
% 0.25/0.59 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.25/0.59 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.59 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.59 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.59 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.59 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.59 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.59 % G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with pid 2539367 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.59 % Result found by G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S
% 0.25/0.59 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.59 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.59 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.59 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.25/0.59 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.25/0.59 % Search class: FGHSF-FSLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.59 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.25/0.59 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.59 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 151s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.59 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.59 % Starting SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.59 % Starting G-E--_301_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S070I with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.59 % G-E--_301_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S070I with pid 2539378 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.59 % Result found by G-E--_301_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S070I
% 0.25/0.59 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.59 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.59 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.59 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.25/0.59 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.25/0.59 % Search class: FGHSF-FSLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.59 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.25/0.59 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.59 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 151s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.59 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.59 % Starting SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.59 % Starting G-E--_301_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S070I with 136s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.59 % Preprocessing time : 0.008 s
% 0.25/0.59
% 0.25/0.59 % Proof found!
% 0.25/0.59 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.25/0.59 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.25/0.59 % Parsed axioms : 47
% 0.25/0.59 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.25/0.59 % Initial clauses : 192
% 0.25/0.59 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 4
% 0.25/0.59 % Initial clauses in saturation : 188
% 0.25/0.59 % Processed clauses : 62
% 0.25/0.59 % ...of these trivial : 1
% 0.25/0.59 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.59 % ...remaining for further processing : 61
% 0.25/0.59 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.25/0.59 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.25/0.59 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.59 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.25/0.59 % Generated clauses : 53
% 0.25/0.59 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 40
% 0.25/0.59 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.59 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.25/0.59 % Paramodulations : 53
% 0.25/0.59 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.25/0.59 % NegExts : 0
% 0.25/0.59 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.25/0.59 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.25/0.59 % Total rewrite steps : 27
% 0.25/0.59 % ...of those cached : 14
% 0.25/0.59 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.25/0.59 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.25/0.59 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.25/0.59 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.59 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.25/0.59 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.25/0.59 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.59 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.59 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.59 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.59 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.59 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.59 % Current number of processed clauses : 61
% 0.25/0.59 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 36
% 0.25/0.59 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.25/0.59 % Negative unit clauses : 3
% 0.25/0.59 % Non-unit-clauses : 22
% 0.25/0.59 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 166
% 0.25/0.59 % ...number of literals in the above : 590
% 0.25/0.59 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.25/0.59 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.59 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 84
% 0.25/0.59 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 62
% 0.25/0.59 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.25/0.59 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% 0.25/0.59 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.25/0.59 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.25/0.59 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.25/0.59 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.25/0.59 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.25/0.59 % Termbank termtop insertions : 11922
% 0.25/0.59 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2717
% 0.25/0.59
% 0.25/0.59 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.59 % User time : 0.024 s
% 0.25/0.59 % System time : 0.009 s
% 0.25/0.59 % Total time : 0.033 s
% 0.25/0.59 % Maximum resident set size: 3972 pages
% 0.25/0.59
% 0.25/0.59 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.59 % User time : 0.076 s
% 0.25/0.59 % System time : 0.027 s
% 0.25/0.59 % Total time : 0.104 s
% 0.25/0.59 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.25/0.59 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------