%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : SEV672+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v9.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/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 02:36:58 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 4.81s 1.89s
% Output : CNFRefutation 4.81s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 8 ( 8 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 8 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 4 ( 4 ~; 0 |; 0 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 2 ( 2 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-4 aty)
% Number of functors : 8 ( 8 usr; 4 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 0 ( 0 sgn 0 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof('_HAMMER_GOAL',conjecture,
cPLF_2eSmallstep_2emulti___24a4(cStlc_2eSTLC_2etm,cStlc_2eSTLC_2estep,cStlc_2eSTLC_2eapp___24a2(cStlc_2eSTLC_2eabs___24a3(cStlc_2eSTLC_2ex,cStlc_2eSTLC_2eArrow___24a2(cStlc_2eSTLC_2eBool,cStlc_2eSTLC_2eBool),cStlc_2eSTLC_2evar___24a1(cStlc_2eSTLC_2ex)),cStlc_2eSTLC_2eabs___24a3(cStlc_2eSTLC_2ex,cStlc_2eSTLC_2eBool,cStlc_2eSTLC_2evar___24a1(cStlc_2eSTLC_2ex))),cStlc_2eSTLC_2eabs___24a3(cStlc_2eSTLC_2ex,cStlc_2eSTLC_2eBool,cStlc_2eSTLC_2evar___24a1(cStlc_2eSTLC_2ex))),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p','_HAMMER_GOAL') ).
fof('Stlc.STLC.step_example1',axiom,
cPLF_2eSmallstep_2emulti___24a4(cStlc_2eSTLC_2etm,cStlc_2eSTLC_2estep,cStlc_2eSTLC_2eapp___24a2(cStlc_2eSTLC_2eabs___24a3(cStlc_2eSTLC_2ex,cStlc_2eSTLC_2eArrow___24a2(cStlc_2eSTLC_2eBool,cStlc_2eSTLC_2eBool),cStlc_2eSTLC_2evar___24a1(cStlc_2eSTLC_2ex)),cStlc_2eSTLC_2eabs___24a3(cStlc_2eSTLC_2ex,cStlc_2eSTLC_2eBool,cStlc_2eSTLC_2evar___24a1(cStlc_2eSTLC_2ex))),cStlc_2eSTLC_2eabs___24a3(cStlc_2eSTLC_2ex,cStlc_2eSTLC_2eBool,cStlc_2eSTLC_2evar___24a1(cStlc_2eSTLC_2ex))),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p','Stlc.STLC.step_example1') ).
fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ cPLF_2eSmallstep_2emulti___24a4(cStlc_2eSTLC_2etm,cStlc_2eSTLC_2estep,cStlc_2eSTLC_2eapp___24a2(cStlc_2eSTLC_2eabs___24a3(cStlc_2eSTLC_2ex,cStlc_2eSTLC_2eArrow___24a2(cStlc_2eSTLC_2eBool,cStlc_2eSTLC_2eBool),cStlc_2eSTLC_2evar___24a1(cStlc_2eSTLC_2ex)),cStlc_2eSTLC_2eabs___24a3(cStlc_2eSTLC_2ex,cStlc_2eSTLC_2eBool,cStlc_2eSTLC_2evar___24a1(cStlc_2eSTLC_2ex))),cStlc_2eSTLC_2eabs___24a3(cStlc_2eSTLC_2ex,cStlc_2eSTLC_2eBool,cStlc_2eSTLC_2evar___24a1(cStlc_2eSTLC_2ex))),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],['_HAMMER_GOAL']) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ cPLF_2eSmallstep_2emulti___24a4(cStlc_2eSTLC_2etm,cStlc_2eSTLC_2estep,cStlc_2eSTLC_2eapp___24a2(cStlc_2eSTLC_2eabs___24a3(cStlc_2eSTLC_2ex,cStlc_2eSTLC_2eArrow___24a2(cStlc_2eSTLC_2eBool,cStlc_2eSTLC_2eBool),cStlc_2eSTLC_2evar___24a1(cStlc_2eSTLC_2ex)),cStlc_2eSTLC_2eabs___24a3(cStlc_2eSTLC_2ex,cStlc_2eSTLC_2eBool,cStlc_2eSTLC_2evar___24a1(cStlc_2eSTLC_2ex))),cStlc_2eSTLC_2eabs___24a3(cStlc_2eSTLC_2ex,cStlc_2eSTLC_2eBool,cStlc_2eSTLC_2evar___24a1(cStlc_2eSTLC_2ex))),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ cPLF_2eSmallstep_2emulti___24a4(cStlc_2eSTLC_2etm,cStlc_2eSTLC_2estep,cStlc_2eSTLC_2eapp___24a2(cStlc_2eSTLC_2eabs___24a3(cStlc_2eSTLC_2ex,cStlc_2eSTLC_2eArrow___24a2(cStlc_2eSTLC_2eBool,cStlc_2eSTLC_2eBool),cStlc_2eSTLC_2evar___24a1(cStlc_2eSTLC_2ex)),cStlc_2eSTLC_2eabs___24a3(cStlc_2eSTLC_2ex,cStlc_2eSTLC_2eBool,cStlc_2eSTLC_2evar___24a1(cStlc_2eSTLC_2ex))),cStlc_2eSTLC_2eabs___24a3(cStlc_2eSTLC_2ex,cStlc_2eSTLC_2eBool,cStlc_2eSTLC_2evar___24a1(cStlc_2eSTLC_2ex))),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,plain,
cPLF_2eSmallstep_2emulti___24a4(cStlc_2eSTLC_2etm,cStlc_2eSTLC_2estep,cStlc_2eSTLC_2eapp___24a2(cStlc_2eSTLC_2eabs___24a3(cStlc_2eSTLC_2ex,cStlc_2eSTLC_2eArrow___24a2(cStlc_2eSTLC_2eBool,cStlc_2eSTLC_2eBool),cStlc_2eSTLC_2evar___24a1(cStlc_2eSTLC_2ex)),cStlc_2eSTLC_2eabs___24a3(cStlc_2eSTLC_2ex,cStlc_2eSTLC_2eBool,cStlc_2eSTLC_2evar___24a1(cStlc_2eSTLC_2ex))),cStlc_2eSTLC_2eabs___24a3(cStlc_2eSTLC_2ex,cStlc_2eSTLC_2eBool,cStlc_2eSTLC_2evar___24a1(cStlc_2eSTLC_2ex))),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],['Stlc.STLC.step_example1']) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
~ cPLF_2eSmallstep_2emulti___24a4(cStlc_2eSTLC_2etm,cStlc_2eSTLC_2estep,cStlc_2eSTLC_2eapp___24a2(cStlc_2eSTLC_2eabs___24a3(cStlc_2eSTLC_2ex,cStlc_2eSTLC_2eArrow___24a2(cStlc_2eSTLC_2eBool,cStlc_2eSTLC_2eBool),cStlc_2eSTLC_2evar___24a1(cStlc_2eSTLC_2ex)),cStlc_2eSTLC_2eabs___24a3(cStlc_2eSTLC_2ex,cStlc_2eSTLC_2eBool,cStlc_2eSTLC_2evar___24a1(cStlc_2eSTLC_2ex))),cStlc_2eSTLC_2eabs___24a3(cStlc_2eSTLC_2ex,cStlc_2eSTLC_2eBool,cStlc_2eSTLC_2evar___24a1(cStlc_2eSTLC_2ex))),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SEV672+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v9.3.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.39 % Computer : n002.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.39 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.39 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.39 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.12/0.39 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.12/0.39 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.39 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.12/0.39 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 07:38:04 UTC 2026
% 0.12/0.40 % CPUTime :
% 0.12/0.40 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.44 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.12/0.44 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
% 4.81/1.89 % Version: 3.5.1
% 4.81/1.89 % Preprocessing class: FMLLSMLLSSSNFFN.
% 4.81/1.89 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 4.81/1.89 % Starting new_bool_3 with 900s (3) cores
% 4.81/1.89 % Starting new_bool_1 with 900s (3) cores
% 4.81/1.89 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 4.81/1.89 % Starting G-E--_301_C18_F1_URBAN_S5PRR_RG_S0Y with 300s (1) cores
% 4.81/1.89 % new_bool_1 with pid 2782629 completed with status 0
% 4.81/1.89 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 4.81/1.89 % Preprocessing class: FMLLSMLLSSSNFFN.
% 4.81/1.89 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 4.81/1.89 % Starting new_bool_3 with 900s (3) cores
% 4.81/1.89 % Starting new_bool_1 with 900s (3) cores
% 4.81/1.89 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 4.81/1.89 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 4.81/1.89 % Search class: FGUSF-SMLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 4.81/1.89 % partial match(2): FGHSS-SMLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 4.81/1.89 % Scheduled 13 strats onto 3 cores with 899 seconds (899 total)
% 4.81/1.89 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 81s (1) cores
% 4.81/1.89 % Starting new_bool_1 with 90s (1) cores
% 4.81/1.89 % Starting G-E--_042_C45_F1_PI_AE_Q4_CS_SP_PS_S4S with 68s (1) cores
% 4.81/1.89 % new_bool_1 with pid 2782633 completed with status 0
% 4.81/1.89 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 4.81/1.89 % Preprocessing class: FMLLSMLLSSSNFFN.
% 4.81/1.89 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 4.81/1.89 % Starting new_bool_3 with 900s (3) cores
% 4.81/1.89 % Starting new_bool_1 with 900s (3) cores
% 4.81/1.89 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 4.81/1.89 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 4.81/1.89 % Search class: FGUSF-SMLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 4.81/1.89 % partial match(2): FGHSS-SMLM31-MFFFFFNN
% 4.81/1.89 % Scheduled 13 strats onto 3 cores with 899 seconds (899 total)
% 4.81/1.89 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 81s (1) cores
% 4.81/1.89 % Starting new_bool_1 with 90s (1) cores
% 4.81/1.89 % Preprocessing time : 0.259 s
% 4.81/1.89 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 4.81/1.89
% 4.81/1.89 % Proof found!
% 4.81/1.89 % SZS status Theorem
% 4.81/1.89 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 4.81/1.89 % Parsed axioms : 3119
% 4.81/1.89 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 3075
% 4.81/1.89 % Initial clauses : 16046
% 4.81/1.89 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 4.81/1.89 % Initial clauses in saturation : 16046
% 4.81/1.89 % Processed clauses : 16
% 4.81/1.89 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 4.81/1.89 % ...subsumed : 0
% 4.81/1.89 % ...remaining for further processing : 15
% 4.81/1.89 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 4.81/1.89 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 4.81/1.89 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 4.81/1.89 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 4.81/1.89 % Generated clauses : 0
% 4.81/1.89 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 0
% 4.81/1.89 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 4.81/1.89 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 4.81/1.89 % Paramodulations : 0
% 4.81/1.89 % Factorizations : 0
% 4.81/1.89 % NegExts : 0
% 4.81/1.89 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 4.81/1.89 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 4.81/1.89 % Total rewrite steps : 0
% 4.81/1.89 % ...of those cached : 0
% 4.81/1.89 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 4.81/1.89 % Propositional check models : 0
% 4.81/1.89 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 4.81/1.89 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 4.81/1.89 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 4.81/1.89 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 4.81/1.89 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 4.81/1.89 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 4.81/1.89 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 4.81/1.89 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 4.81/1.89 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 4.81/1.89 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 4.81/1.89 % Current number of processed clauses : 15
% 4.81/1.89 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 10
% 4.81/1.89 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 4.81/1.89 % Negative unit clauses : 5
% 4.81/1.89 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 4.81/1.89 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 16030
% 4.81/1.89 % ...number of literals in the above : 175466
% 4.81/1.89 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 4.81/1.89 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 4.81/1.89 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 4.81/1.89 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 4.81/1.89 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 4.81/1.89 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 4.81/1.89 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 4.81/1.89 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 4.81/1.89 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 4.81/1.89 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 4.81/1.89 % Condensation successes : 0
% 4.81/1.89 % Termbank termtop insertions : 1493761
% 4.81/1.89 % Search garbage collected termcells : 124214
% 4.81/1.89
% 4.81/1.89 % -------------------------------------------------
% 4.81/1.89 % User time : 1.219 s
% 4.81/1.89 % System time : 0.086 s
% 4.81/1.89 % Total time : 1.305 s
% 4.81/1.89 % Maximum resident set size: 52308 pages
% 4.81/1.89
% 4.81/1.89 % -------------------------------------------------
% 4.81/1.89 % User time : 1.788 s
% 4.81/1.89 % System time : 0.165 s
% 4.81/1.89 % Total time : 1.953 s
% 4.81/1.89 % Maximum resident set size: 12032 pages
% 4.81/1.89 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------