%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : ROB004-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n014.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 02:06:38 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.12s 0.45s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.12s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 13
% Number of leaves : 7
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 34 ( 34 unt; 0 nHn; 11 RR)
% Number of literals : 34 ( 33 equ; 4 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 6 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 0 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 6 ( 6 usr; 4 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 33 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(robbins_axiom,axiom,
negate(add(negate(add(X1,X2)),negate(add(X1,negate(X2))))) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/ROB001-0.ax',robbins_axiom) ).
cnf(negate_d_is_c,hypothesis,
negate(d) = c,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',negate_d_is_c) ).
cnf(commutativity_of_add,axiom,
add(X1,X2) = add(X2,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/ROB001-0.ax',commutativity_of_add) ).
cnf(associativity_of_add,axiom,
add(add(X1,X2),X3) = add(X1,add(X2,X3)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/ROB001-0.ax',associativity_of_add) ).
cnf(c_plus_d_is_d,hypothesis,
add(c,d) = d,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',c_plus_d_is_d) ).
cnf(c_plus_c_is_c,hypothesis,
add(c,c) = c,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',c_plus_c_is_c) ).
cnf(prove_huntingtons_axiom,negated_conjecture,
add(negate(add(a,negate(b))),negate(add(negate(a),negate(b)))) != b,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_huntingtons_axiom) ).
cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
negate(add(negate(add(X1,X2)),negate(add(X1,negate(X2))))) = X1,
robbins_axiom ).
cnf(c_0_8,hypothesis,
negate(d) = c,
negate_d_is_c ).
cnf(c_0_9,axiom,
add(X1,X2) = add(X2,X1),
commutativity_of_add ).
cnf(c_0_10,axiom,
add(add(X1,X2),X3) = add(X1,add(X2,X3)),
associativity_of_add ).
cnf(c_0_11,hypothesis,
add(c,d) = d,
c_plus_d_is_d ).
cnf(c_0_12,hypothesis,
negate(add(negate(add(X1,c)),negate(add(X1,d)))) = X1,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]),c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,hypothesis,
add(c,c) = c,
c_plus_c_is_c ).
cnf(c_0_14,hypothesis,
add(c,add(d,X1)) = add(d,X1),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,hypothesis,
negate(add(negate(add(c,X1)),negate(add(X1,d)))) = X1,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,hypothesis,
add(c,add(c,X1)) = add(c,X1),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,hypothesis,
add(c,add(X1,d)) = add(X1,d),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,hypothesis,
add(c,X1) = X1,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16]),c_0_10]),c_0_17]),c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,hypothesis,
negate(add(negate(X1),negate(negate(X1)))) = c,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_18]),c_0_18]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,hypothesis,
negate(add(X1,negate(X1))) = c,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_19,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,hypothesis,
add(X1,c) = X1,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_18]) ).
cnf(c_0_22,hypothesis,
negate(negate(add(X1,X1))) = X1,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_20]),c_0_21]) ).
cnf(c_0_23,hypothesis,
negate(add(X1,negate(add(X1,X1)))) = c,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_20,c_0_22]),c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_24,hypothesis,
negate(negate(add(X1,negate(negate(X1))))) = X1,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_20]),c_0_18]) ).
cnf(c_0_25,hypothesis,
negate(negate(add(X1,add(X1,X1)))) = X1,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_23]),c_0_21]) ).
cnf(c_0_26,negated_conjecture,
add(negate(add(a,negate(b))),negate(add(negate(a),negate(b)))) != b,
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_huntingtons_axiom]) ).
cnf(c_0_27,hypothesis,
add(X1,X1) = X1,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_24,c_0_22]),c_0_10]),c_0_25]) ).
cnf(c_0_28,negated_conjecture,
add(negate(add(a,negate(b))),negate(add(negate(a),negate(b)))) != b,
c_0_26 ).
cnf(c_0_29,hypothesis,
negate(negate(X1)) = X1,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_27]),c_0_20]),c_0_21]) ).
cnf(c_0_30,plain,
negate(add(negate(add(X1,X2)),negate(add(X2,negate(X1))))) = X2,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_31,negated_conjecture,
add(negate(add(a,negate(b))),negate(add(negate(b),negate(a)))) != b,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_28,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_32,hypothesis,
add(negate(add(X1,X2)),negate(add(X2,negate(X1)))) = negate(X2),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_29,c_0_30]) ).
cnf(c_0_33,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_31,c_0_32]),c_0_29])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : ROB004-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.0.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.07/0.35 % Computer : n014.cluster.edu
% 0.07/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.07/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.07/0.35 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.07/0.35 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.07/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.07/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.07/0.35 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 04:22:04 UTC 2026
% 0.07/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.07/0.35 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.40 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.12/0.40 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
% 0.12/0.45 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.12/0.45 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.45 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % new_bool_3 with pid 3127627 completed with status 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.12/0.45 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.45 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.12/0.45 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.12/0.45 % Search class: FUUPS-FFSS21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.12/0.45 % partial match(1): FUUPS-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.12/0.45 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3127633 completed with status 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.12/0.45 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.45 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.12/0.45 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.12/0.45 % Search class: FUUPS-FFSS21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.12/0.45 % partial match(1): FUUPS-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.12/0.45 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.12/0.45 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.45 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.12/0.45
% 0.12/0.45 % Proof found!
% 0.12/0.45 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.12/0.45 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.12/0.45 % Parsed axioms : 7
% 0.12/0.45 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Initial clauses : 7
% 0.12/0.45 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Initial clauses in saturation : 7
% 0.12/0.45 % Processed clauses : 799
% 0.12/0.45 % ...of these trivial : 425
% 0.12/0.45 % ...subsumed : 277
% 0.12/0.45 % ...remaining for further processing : 97
% 0.12/0.45 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Backward-rewritten : 36
% 0.12/0.45 % Generated clauses : 6930
% 0.12/0.45 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 3422
% 0.12/0.45 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Paramodulations : 6930
% 0.12/0.45 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % NegExts : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Total rewrite steps : 16134
% 0.12/0.45 % ...of those cached : 13628
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.45 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.45 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.45 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.45 % Current number of processed clauses : 61
% 0.12/0.45 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 57
% 0.12/0.45 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 4
% 0.12/0.45 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 2445
% 0.12/0.45 % ...number of literals in the above : 2445
% 0.12/0.45 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Current number of archived clauses : 36
% 0.12/0.45 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 7
% 0.12/0.45 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % BW rewrite match attempts : 691
% 0.12/0.45 % BW rewrite match successes : 81
% 0.12/0.45 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Termbank termtop insertions : 78078
% 0.12/0.45 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2
% 0.12/0.45
% 0.12/0.45 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.12/0.45 % User time : 0.035 s
% 0.12/0.45 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.12/0.45 % Total time : 0.037 s
% 0.12/0.45 % Maximum resident set size: 3636 pages
% 0.12/0.45
% 0.12/0.45 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.12/0.45 % User time : 0.038 s
% 0.12/0.45 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.12/0.45 % Total time : 0.043 s
% 0.12/0.45 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.12/0.45 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------