%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SCT007-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n002.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 02:07:33 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.22s 10.75s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.22s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 10 ( 7 unt; 0 nHn; 10 RR)
% Number of literals : 13 ( 0 equ; 7 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 5 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-1 aty)
% Number of functors : 11 ( 11 usr; 3 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 13 ( 4 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_conjecture_2,negated_conjecture,
~ hBOOL(hAPP(c_Order__Relation_Ostrict__linear__order__on(c_Orderings_Otop__class_Otop(tc_fun(tc_Arrow__Order__Mirabelle_Oalt,tc_bool)),tc_Arrow__Order__Mirabelle_Oalt),X1)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_2) ).
cnf(cls_strict__linear__order__on__diff__Id_0,axiom,
( ~ hBOOL(c_Order__Relation_Olinear__order__on(X1,X3,X2))
| hBOOL(hAPP(c_Order__Relation_Ostrict__linear__order__on(X1,X2),c_HOL_Ominus__class_Ominus(X3,c_Relation_OId(X2),tc_fun(tc_prod(X2,X2),tc_bool)))) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_strict__linear__order__on__diff__Id_0) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
hBOOL(c_Order__Relation_Olinear__order__on(c_Orderings_Otop__class_Otop(tc_fun(tc_Arrow__Order__Mirabelle_Oalt,tc_bool)),v_r,tc_Arrow__Order__Mirabelle_Oalt)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_0) ).
cnf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ hBOOL(hAPP(c_Order__Relation_Ostrict__linear__order__on(c_Orderings_Otop__class_Otop(tc_fun(tc_Arrow__Order__Mirabelle_Oalt,tc_bool)),tc_Arrow__Order__Mirabelle_Oalt),X1)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_4,plain,
( ~ hBOOL(c_Order__Relation_Olinear__order__on(X1,X3,X2))
| hBOOL(hAPP(c_Order__Relation_Ostrict__linear__order__on(X1,X2),c_HOL_Ominus__class_Ominus(X3,c_Relation_OId(X2),tc_fun(tc_prod(X2,X2),tc_bool)))) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_strict__linear__order__on__diff__Id_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ hBOOL(hAPP(c_Order__Relation_Ostrict__linear__order__on(c_Orderings_Otop__class_Otop(tc_fun(tc_Arrow__Order__Mirabelle_Oalt,tc_bool)),tc_Arrow__Order__Mirabelle_Oalt),X1)),
c_0_3 ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ hBOOL(c_Order__Relation_Olinear__order__on(X1,X3,X2))
| hBOOL(hAPP(c_Order__Relation_Ostrict__linear__order__on(X1,X2),c_HOL_Ominus__class_Ominus(X3,c_Relation_OId(X2),tc_fun(tc_prod(X2,X2),tc_bool)))) ),
c_0_4 ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
hBOOL(c_Order__Relation_Olinear__order__on(c_Orderings_Otop__class_Otop(tc_fun(tc_Arrow__Order__Mirabelle_Oalt,tc_bool)),v_r,tc_Arrow__Order__Mirabelle_Oalt)),
cls_conjecture_0 ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
~ hBOOL(c_Order__Relation_Olinear__order__on(c_Orderings_Otop__class_Otop(tc_fun(tc_Arrow__Order__Mirabelle_Oalt,tc_bool)),X1,tc_Arrow__Order__Mirabelle_Oalt)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : SCT007-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/10.45 % Computer : n002.cluster.edu
% 0.16/10.45 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.16/10.45 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.16/10.45 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.16/10.45 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.16/10.45 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.16/10.45 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.16/10.45 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 04:27:58 UTC 2026
% 0.16/10.45 % CPUTime :
% 0.16/10.45 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.22/10.51 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.22/10.51 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
% 0.22/10.75 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.22/10.75 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.22/10.75 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.22/10.75 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.22/10.75 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/10.75 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/10.75 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/10.75 % new_bool_3 with pid 2425550 completed with status 0
% 0.22/10.75 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.22/10.75 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.22/10.75 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.22/10.75 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.22/10.75 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/10.75 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.22/10.75 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.22/10.75 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLF32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.22/10.75 % partial match(1): FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.22/10.75 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.22/10.75 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.22/10.75 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2425559 completed with status 0
% 0.22/10.75 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.22/10.75 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.22/10.75 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.22/10.75 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.22/10.75 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/10.75 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.22/10.75 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.22/10.75 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLF32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.22/10.75 % partial match(1): FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.22/10.75 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.22/10.75 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.22/10.75 % Preprocessing time : 0.006 s
% 0.22/10.75
% 0.22/10.75 % Proof found!
% 0.22/10.75 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.22/10.75 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.22/10.75 % Parsed axioms : 605
% 0.22/10.75 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 327
% 0.22/10.75 % Initial clauses : 278
% 0.22/10.75 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.22/10.75 % Initial clauses in saturation : 278
% 0.22/10.75 % Processed clauses : 1277
% 0.22/10.75 % ...of these trivial : 79
% 0.22/10.75 % ...subsumed : 810
% 0.22/10.75 % ...remaining for further processing : 388
% 0.22/10.75 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 23
% 0.22/10.75 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.22/10.75 % Backward-subsumed : 11
% 0.22/10.75 % Backward-rewritten : 10
% 0.22/10.75 % Generated clauses : 5555
% 0.22/10.75 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 3610
% 0.22/10.75 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.22/10.75 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.22/10.75 % Paramodulations : 5530
% 0.22/10.75 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.22/10.75 % NegExts : 0
% 0.22/10.75 % Equation resolutions : 24
% 0.22/10.75 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.22/10.75 % Total rewrite steps : 3598
% 0.22/10.75 % ...of those cached : 2686
% 0.22/10.75 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.22/10.75 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.22/10.75 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.22/10.75 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.22/10.75 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.22/10.75 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.22/10.75 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.22/10.75 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.22/10.75 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.22/10.75 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.22/10.75 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.22/10.75 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.22/10.75 % Current number of processed clauses : 366
% 0.22/10.75 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 148
% 0.22/10.75 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 4
% 0.22/10.75 % Negative unit clauses : 6
% 0.22/10.75 % Non-unit-clauses : 208
% 0.22/10.75 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 2585
% 0.22/10.75 % ...number of literals in the above : 4896
% 0.22/10.75 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.22/10.75 % Current number of archived clauses : 22
% 0.22/10.75 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 16506
% 0.22/10.75 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 14285
% 0.22/10.75 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 736
% 0.22/10.75 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 27
% 0.22/10.75 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.22/10.75 % BW rewrite match attempts : 50
% 0.22/10.75 % BW rewrite match successes : 30
% 0.22/10.75 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.22/10.75 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.22/10.75 % Termbank termtop insertions : 87884
% 0.22/10.75 % Search garbage collected termcells : 1675
% 0.22/10.75
% 0.22/10.75 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.22/10.75 % User time : 0.151 s
% 0.22/10.75 % System time : 0.014 s
% 0.22/10.75 % Total time : 0.165 s
% 0.22/10.75 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.22/10.75
% 0.22/10.75 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.22/10.75 % User time : 0.180 s
% 0.22/10.75 % System time : 0.021 s
% 0.22/10.75 % Total time : 0.201 s
% 0.22/10.75 % Maximum resident set size: 5376 pages
% 0.22/10.75 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------