%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SET838-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.2.0.
% 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 02:15:32 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.15s 0.52s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.15s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 14 ( 3 unt; 0 nHn; 14 RR)
% Number of literals : 25 ( 24 equ; 14 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 0 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 1 con; 0-1 aty)
% Number of variables : 11 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_conjecture_1,negated_conjecture,
( v_f(v_g(X1)) != X1
| X1 = v_x ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_1) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_2,negated_conjecture,
( v_g(v_f(X1)) != X1
| v_g(v_f(v_xa(X1))) = v_xa(X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_2) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_3,negated_conjecture,
( v_g(v_f(X1)) != X1
| v_xa(X1) != X1 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_3) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
v_f(v_g(v_x)) = v_x,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_0) ).
cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
( v_f(v_g(X1)) != X1
| X1 = v_x ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_1]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
( v_g(v_f(X1)) != X1
| v_g(v_f(v_xa(X1))) = v_xa(X1) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( v_f(v_g(X1)) != X1
| X1 = v_x ),
c_0_4 ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
( v_g(v_f(X1)) != X1
| v_g(v_f(v_xa(X1))) = v_xa(X1) ),
c_0_5 ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
( v_g(v_f(X1)) != X1
| v_xa(X1) != X1 ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
( v_g(v_f(X1)) != X1
| v_f(v_xa(X1)) = v_x ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
( v_g(v_f(X1)) != X1
| v_xa(X1) != X1 ),
c_0_8 ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
( v_g(v_f(X1)) != X1
| v_xa(X1) = v_g(v_x) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
v_f(v_g(v_x)) = v_x,
cls_conjecture_0 ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(er,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11])]),c_0_12])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : SET838-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.37 % Computer : n009.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/0.37 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 05:40:58 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.44 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/0.44 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
% 0.15/0.52 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.15/0.52 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.52 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.52 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.52 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.52 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.52 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.52 % sh5l with pid 963091 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.15/0.52 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.52 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.52 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.52 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.52 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.52 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.52 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.15/0.52 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.15/0.52 % Search class: FHHPF-FFSF11-MFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.52 % partial match(1): FHHNF-FFSF11-MFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.52 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.15/0.52 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.52 % SubtermCWHack with pid 963092 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.15/0.52 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.52 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.52 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.52 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.52 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.52 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.52 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.15/0.52 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.15/0.52 % Search class: FHHPF-FFSF11-MFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.52 % partial match(1): FHHNF-FFSF11-MFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.52 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.15/0.52 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.52 % Preprocessing time : 0.003 s
% 0.15/0.52
% 0.15/0.52 % Proof found!
% 0.15/0.52 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.15/0.52 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.15/0.52 % Parsed axioms : 1361
% 0.15/0.52 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 1357
% 0.15/0.52 % Initial clauses : 4
% 0.15/0.52 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Initial clauses in saturation : 4
% 0.15/0.52 % Processed clauses : 6
% 0.15/0.52 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % ...remaining for further processing : 6
% 0.15/0.52 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 1
% 0.15/0.52 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Generated clauses : 6
% 0.15/0.52 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 2
% 0.15/0.52 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Paramodulations : 5
% 0.15/0.52 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % NegExts : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Equation resolutions : 1
% 0.15/0.52 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Total rewrite steps : 3
% 0.15/0.52 % ...of those cached : 2
% 0.15/0.52 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.52 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.52 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.52 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.52 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.52 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.52 % Current number of processed clauses : 6
% 0.15/0.52 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 1
% 0.15/0.52 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Non-unit-clauses : 5
% 0.15/0.52 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.15/0.52 % ...number of literals in the above : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 5
% 0.15/0.52 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 5
% 0.15/0.52 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.15/0.52 % Termbank termtop insertions : 7838
% 0.15/0.52 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2700
% 0.15/0.52
% 0.15/0.52 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.52 % User time : 0.008 s
% 0.15/0.52 % System time : 0.007 s
% 0.15/0.52 % Total time : 0.015 s
% 0.15/0.52 % Maximum resident set size: 4604 pages
% 0.15/0.52
% 0.15/0.52 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.52 % User time : 0.043 s
% 0.15/0.52 % System time : 0.015 s
% 0.15/0.52 % Total time : 0.058 s
% 0.15/0.52 % Maximum resident set size: 5376 pages
% 0.15/0.52 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------