%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SET596^5 : 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 : n004.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 : Wed Sep 30 08:21:59 AM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.22s 0.27s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.22s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 7
% Number of leaves : 1
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 13 ( 3 unt; 0 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 42 ( 4 equ; 0 cnn)
% Maximal formula atoms : 16 ( 3 avg)
% Number of connectives : 105 ( 26 ~; 16 |; 15 &; 40 @)
% ( 2 <=>; 6 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 13 ( 6 avg)
% Number of types : 2 ( 1 usr)
% Number of type conns : 9 ( 9 >; 0 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of symbols : 7 ( 4 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 28 ( 8 ^; 20 !; 0 ?; 28 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thf(decl_sort1,type,
a: $tType ).
thf(decl_23,type,
epred1_0: a > $o ).
thf(decl_24,type,
epred2_0: a > $o ).
thf(decl_25,type,
epred3_0: a > $o ).
thf(decl_26,type,
esk1_0: a ).
thf(cBOOL_PROP_55_pme,conjecture,
! [X1: a > $o,X2: a > $o,X3: a > $o] :
( ( ! [X4: a] :
( ( X1 @ X4 )
=> ( X2 @ X4 ) )
& ( ( ^ [X4: a] :
( ( X2 @ X4 )
& ( X3 @ X4 ) ) )
= ( ^ [X4: a] : ~ $true ) ) )
=> ( ( ^ [X4: a] :
( ( X1 @ X4 )
& ( X3 @ X4 ) ) )
= ( ^ [X4: a] : ~ $true ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.yPLJGuDO9U/E---3.1_1292099.p',cBOOL_PROP_55_pme) ).
thf(c_0_1,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1: a > $o,X2: a > $o,X3: a > $o] :
( ( ! [X4: a] :
( ( X1 @ X4 )
=> ( X2 @ X4 ) )
& ( ( ^ [X4: a] :
( ( X2 @ X4 )
& ( X3 @ X4 ) ) )
= ( ^ [X4: a] : ~ $true ) ) )
=> ( ( ^ [X4: a] :
( ( X1 @ X4 )
& ( X3 @ X4 ) ) )
= ( ^ [X4: a] : ~ $true ) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[cBOOL_PROP_55_pme]) ).
thf(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1: a > $o,X2: a > $o,X3: a > $o] :
( ( ! [X4: a] :
( ( X1 @ X4 )
=> ( X2 @ X4 ) )
& ! [X9: a] :
( ( ( X2 @ X9 )
& ( X3 @ X9 ) )
<=> ~ $true ) )
=> ! [X10: a] :
( ( ( X1 @ X10 )
& ( X3 @ X10 ) )
<=> ~ $true ) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_1])]) ).
thf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
! [X14: a,X15: a] :
( ( ~ ( epred1_0 @ X14 )
| ( epred2_0 @ X14 ) )
& ( ~ ( epred2_0 @ X15 )
| ~ ( epred3_0 @ X15 )
| ~ $true )
& ( ( epred2_0 @ X15 )
| $true )
& ( ( epred3_0 @ X15 )
| $true )
& ( ~ ( epred1_0 @ esk1_0 )
| ~ ( epred3_0 @ esk1_0 )
| $true )
& ( ( epred1_0 @ esk1_0 )
| ~ $true )
& ( ( epred3_0 @ esk1_0 )
| ~ $true ) ),
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_2])])])])])]) ).
thf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
! [X4: a] :
( ~ ( epred2_0 @ X4 )
| ~ ( epred3_0 @ X4 )
| ~ $true ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
thf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
! [X4: a] :
( ~ ( epred2_0 @ X4 )
| ~ ( epred3_0 @ X4 ) ),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
thf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
! [X4: a] :
( ( epred2_0 @ X4 )
| ~ ( epred1_0 @ X4 ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
thf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
( ( epred3_0 @ esk1_0 )
| ~ $true ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
thf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
( ( epred1_0 @ esk1_0 )
| ~ $true ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
thf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
! [X4: a] :
( ~ ( epred3_0 @ X4 )
| ~ ( epred1_0 @ X4 ) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).
thf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
epred3_0 @ esk1_0,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
thf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
epred1_0 @ esk1_0,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
thf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_11])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SET596^5 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.18 % Computer : n004.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.18 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.18 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.18 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/0.18 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.18 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.18 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.09/0.18 % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 13:38:21 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.19 % CPUTime :
% 0.09/0.19 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.23 Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.09/0.25 Running: /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/eprover-ho --delete-bad-limit=2000000000 --definitional-cnf=24 -s --print-statistics -R --print-version --proof-object --auto-schedule=8 --cpu-limit=300 /export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.yPLJGuDO9U/E---3.1_1292099.p
% 0.22/0.27 % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 0.22/0.27 % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNSSA.
% 0.22/0.27 % Scheduled 8 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.22/0.27 % Starting post_as_ho12 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.27 % Starting new_bool_9 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.27 % Starting post_as_ho1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.27 % Starting post_as_ho4 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.27 % Starting post_as_ho2 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.27 % Starting ehoh_best2_full_lfho with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.27 % Starting full_lambda_10 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.27 % Starting new_ho_8 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.27 % post_as_ho2 with pid 1292135 completed with status 0
% 0.22/0.27 % Result found by post_as_ho2
% 0.22/0.27 % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNSSA.
% 0.22/0.27 % Scheduled 8 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.22/0.27 % Starting post_as_ho12 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.27 % Starting new_bool_9 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.27 % Starting post_as_ho1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.27 % Starting post_as_ho4 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.27 % Starting post_as_ho2 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.27 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.22/0.27 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.22/0.27 % Search class: HHHNF-FFSF00-SSSFFFNN
% 0.22/0.27 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.22/0.27 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.27 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1292140 completed with status 0
% 0.22/0.27 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.22/0.27 % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNSSA.
% 0.22/0.27 % Scheduled 8 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.22/0.27 % Starting post_as_ho12 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.27 % Starting new_bool_9 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.27 % Starting post_as_ho1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.27 % Starting post_as_ho4 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.27 % Starting post_as_ho2 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.27 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.22/0.27 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.22/0.27 % Search class: HHHNF-FFSF00-SSSFFFNN
% 0.22/0.27 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.22/0.27 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.27 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.22/0.27
% 0.22/0.27 % Proof found!
% 0.22/0.27 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.22/0.27 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.22/0.27 % Parsed axioms : 2
% 0.22/0.27 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.22/0.27 % Initial clauses : 8
% 0.22/0.27 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 4
% 0.22/0.27 % Initial clauses in saturation : 4
% 0.22/0.27 % Processed clauses : 5
% 0.22/0.27 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.22/0.27 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.22/0.27 % ...remaining for further processing : 5
% 0.22/0.27 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.22/0.27 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.22/0.27 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.22/0.27 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.22/0.27 % Generated clauses : 2
% 0.22/0.27 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1
% 0.22/0.27 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.22/0.27 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.22/0.27 % Paramodulations : 2
% 0.22/0.27 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.22/0.27 % NegExts : 0
% 0.22/0.27 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.22/0.27 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.22/0.27 % Total rewrite steps : 1
% 0.22/0.27 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.22/0.27 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.22/0.27 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.22/0.27 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.22/0.27 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.22/0.27 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.22/0.27 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.22/0.27 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.22/0.27 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.22/0.27 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.22/0.27 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.22/0.27 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.22/0.27 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.22/0.27 % Current number of processed clauses : 5
% 0.22/0.27 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 2
% 0.22/0.27 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.22/0.27 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.22/0.27 % Non-unit-clauses : 3
% 0.22/0.27 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.22/0.27 % ...number of literals in the above : 0
% 0.22/0.27 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.22/0.27 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.22/0.27 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.22/0.27 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.22/0.27 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.22/0.27 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.22/0.27 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.22/0.27 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.22/0.27 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.22/0.27 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.22/0.27 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.22/0.27 % Termbank termtop insertions : 690
% 0.22/0.27 % Search garbage collected termcells : 268
% 0.22/0.27
% 0.22/0.27 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.22/0.27 % User time : 0.001 s
% 0.22/0.27 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.22/0.27 % Total time : 0.003 s
% 0.22/0.27 % Maximum resident set size: 3624 pages
% 0.22/0.27
% 0.22/0.27 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.22/0.27 % User time : 0.003 s
% 0.22/0.27 % System time : 0.007 s
% 0.22/0.27 % Total time : 0.010 s
% 0.22/0.27 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.22/0.27 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------