%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SEU950^5 : 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 : 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 : Wed Sep 30 08:26:00 AM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.25s 0.34s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.25s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 1
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 7 ( 3 unt; 0 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 17 ( 13 equ; 0 cnn)
% Maximal formula atoms : 3 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 28 ( 5 ~; 2 |; 1 &; 16 @)
% ( 0 <=>; 4 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 8 ( 4 avg)
% Number of types : 2 ( 0 usr)
% Number of type conns : 19 ( 19 >; 0 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of symbols : 5 ( 3 usr; 1 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 19 ( 0 ^; 15 !; 4 ?; 19 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thf(decl_23,type,
h: ( $i > $o ) > $i ).
thf(decl_24,type,
epred1_1: ( $i > $i > $o ) > $i > $o ).
thf(decl_25,type,
esk2_2: $i > $i > $o ).
thf(cTHM573_pme,conjecture,
( ! [X1: $i > $o,X2: $i > $o] :
( ( ( h @ X1 )
= ( h @ X2 ) )
=> ( X1 = X2 ) )
=> ? [X3: $i > $i > $o] :
! [X4: $i > $o] :
? [X5: $i] :
( ( X3 @ X5 )
= X4 ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.VDuCspeiho/E---3.1_2768572.p',cTHM573_pme) ).
thf(c_0_1,negated_conjecture,
~ ( ! [X1: $i > $o,X2: $i > $o] :
( ( ( h @ X1 )
= ( h @ X2 ) )
=> ( X1 = X2 ) )
=> ? [X3: $i > $i > $o] :
! [X4: $i > $o] :
? [X5: $i] :
( ( X3 @ X5 )
= X4 ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[cTHM573_pme]) ).
thf(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
! [X11: $i > $o,X12: $i > $o,X13: $i > $i > $o,X15: $i] :
( ( ( ( h @ X11 )
!= ( h @ X12 ) )
| ( X11 = X12 ) )
& ( ( X13 @ X15 )
!= ( epred1_1 @ X13 ) ) ),
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_1])])])])]) ).
thf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
! [X1: $i > $o,X2: $i > $o] :
( ( X1 = X2 )
| ( ( h @ X1 )
!= ( h @ X2 ) ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
thf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
! [X5: $i,X3: $i > $i > $o] :
( ( X3 @ X5 )
!= ( epred1_1 @ X3 ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
thf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
! [X1: $i > $o] :
( ( esk2_2 @ ( h @ X1 ) )
= X1 ),
inference(recognize_injectivity,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
thf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(er,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_5])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.04 % Problem : SEU950^5 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.06 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.22 % Computer : n014.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.22 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.22 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.22 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.22 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.22 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.22 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.22 % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 14:50:44 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.23 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/0.23 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.25/0.29 Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.25/0.31 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.VDuCspeiho/E---3.1_2768572.p
% 0.25/0.34 % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 0.25/0.34 % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSCSSA.
% 0.25/0.34 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.34 % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.34 % Starting new_bool_9 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.34 % Starting full_lambda_8 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.34 % Starting post_as_ho10 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.34 % new_bool_9 with pid 2768586 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.34 % Result found by new_bool_9
% 0.25/0.34 % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSCSSA.
% 0.25/0.34 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.34 % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.34 % Starting new_bool_9 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.34 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1,,2,20000,1.0))
% 0.25/0.34 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1,,2,20000,1.0)
% 0.25/0.34 % Search class: HUUPF-FFSF11-SSSFFMBN
% 0.25/0.34 % partial match(1): HUUPF-FFSF11-SSSFFMNN
% 0.25/0.34 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.34 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.34 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2768589 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.34 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.25/0.34 % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSCSSA.
% 0.25/0.34 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.34 % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.34 % Starting new_bool_9 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.34 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1,,2,20000,1.0))
% 0.25/0.34 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1,,2,20000,1.0)
% 0.25/0.34 % Search class: HUUPF-FFSF11-SSSFFMBN
% 0.25/0.34 % partial match(1): HUUPF-FFSF11-SSSFFMNN
% 0.25/0.34 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.34 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.34 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.25/0.34
% 0.25/0.34 % Proof found!
% 0.25/0.34 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.25/0.34 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.25/0.34 % Parsed axioms : 2
% 0.25/0.34 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 1
% 0.25/0.34 % Initial clauses : 2
% 0.25/0.34 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.25/0.34 % Initial clauses in saturation : 2
% 0.25/0.34 % Processed clauses : 2
% 0.25/0.34 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.25/0.34 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.34 % ...remaining for further processing : 2
% 0.25/0.34 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 1
% 0.25/0.34 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.25/0.34 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.34 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.25/0.34 % Generated clauses : 3
% 0.25/0.34 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1
% 0.25/0.34 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.34 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.25/0.34 % Paramodulations : 1
% 0.25/0.34 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.25/0.34 % NegExts : 0
% 0.25/0.34 % Equation resolutions : 1
% 0.25/0.34 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.25/0.34 % Total rewrite steps : 0
% 0.25/0.34 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.25/0.34 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.25/0.34 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.25/0.34 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.25/0.34 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.34 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.25/0.34 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.25/0.34 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.34 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.34 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.34 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.34 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.34 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.34 % Current number of processed clauses : 2
% 0.25/0.34 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 1
% 0.25/0.34 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.25/0.34 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.25/0.34 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.34 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 1
% 0.25/0.34 % ...number of literals in the above : 1
% 0.25/0.34 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.25/0.34 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.25/0.34 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.25/0.34 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.25/0.34 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.25/0.34 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.25/0.34 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.25/0.34 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.25/0.34 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.25/0.34 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.25/0.34 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.25/0.34 % Termbank termtop insertions : 188
% 0.25/0.34 % Search garbage collected termcells : 79
% 0.25/0.34
% 0.25/0.34 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.34 % User time : 0.004 s
% 0.25/0.34 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.25/0.34 % Total time : 0.006 s
% 0.25/0.34 % Maximum resident set size: 3580 pages
% 0.25/0.34
% 0.25/0.34 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.34 % User time : 0.005 s
% 0.25/0.34 % System time : 0.009 s
% 0.25/0.34 % Total time : 0.014 s
% 0.25/0.34 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.25/0.34 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------