%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SWC082+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.4.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n011.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 02:42:55 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.22s 0.60s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.22s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 7
% Number of leaves : 1
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 19 ( 9 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 100 ( 18 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 21 ( 5 avg)
% Number of connectives : 125 ( 44 ~; 39 |; 27 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 15 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 21 ( 6 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 6 ( 6 usr; 6 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 21 ( 0 sgn 16 !; 3 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(co1,conjecture,
! [X1] :
( ssList(X1)
=> ! [X2] :
( ssList(X2)
=> ! [X3] :
( ssList(X3)
=> ! [X4] :
( ssList(X4)
=> ( ( neq(X4,nil)
& ! [X6] :
( ssList(X6)
=> ( ~ segmentP(X3,X6)
| ~ segmentP(X4,X6)
| ~ neq(X6,nil) ) ) )
| ( nil = X4
& nil != X3 )
| ? [X5] :
( segmentP(X1,X5)
& segmentP(X2,X5)
& neq(X5,nil)
& ssList(X5) )
| ~ neq(X2,nil)
| X1 != X3
| X2 != X4 ) ) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',co1) ).
fof(c_0_1,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1] :
( ssList(X1)
=> ! [X2] :
( ssList(X2)
=> ! [X3] :
( ssList(X3)
=> ! [X4] :
( ssList(X4)
=> ( ( neq(X4,nil)
& ! [X6] :
( ssList(X6)
=> ( ~ segmentP(X3,X6)
| ~ segmentP(X4,X6)
| ~ neq(X6,nil) ) ) )
| ( nil = X4
& nil != X3 )
| ? [X5] :
( segmentP(X1,X5)
& segmentP(X2,X5)
& neq(X5,nil)
& ssList(X5) )
| ~ neq(X2,nil)
| X1 != X3
| X2 != X4 ) ) ) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[co1]) ).
fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1] :
( ssList(X1)
=> ! [X2] :
( ssList(X2)
=> ! [X3] :
( ssList(X3)
=> ! [X4] :
( ssList(X4)
=> ( ( neq(X4,nil)
& ! [X6] :
( ssList(X6)
=> ( ~ segmentP(X3,X6)
| ~ segmentP(X4,X6)
| ~ neq(X6,nil) ) ) )
| ( nil = X4
& nil != X3 )
| ? [X5] :
( segmentP(X1,X5)
& segmentP(X2,X5)
& neq(X5,nil)
& ssList(X5) )
| ~ neq(X2,nil)
| X1 != X3
| X2 != X4 ) ) ) ) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_1]) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
! [X11] :
( ( ~ neq(esk4_0,nil)
| segmentP(esk3_0,esk5_0) )
& ( ~ neq(esk4_0,nil)
| segmentP(esk4_0,esk5_0) )
& ( ~ neq(esk4_0,nil)
| neq(esk5_0,nil) )
& ( ~ neq(esk4_0,nil)
| ssList(esk5_0) )
& ( nil != esk4_0
| nil = esk3_0 )
& ( ~ segmentP(esk1_0,X11)
| ~ segmentP(esk2_0,X11)
| ~ neq(X11,nil)
| ~ ssList(X11) )
& neq(esk2_0,nil)
& esk1_0 = esk3_0
& esk2_0 = esk4_0
& ssList(esk4_0)
& ssList(esk3_0)
& ssList(esk2_0)
& ssList(esk1_0) ),
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])])])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
neq(esk2_0,nil),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
esk2_0 = esk4_0,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( ~ segmentP(esk1_0,X1)
| ~ segmentP(esk2_0,X1)
| ~ neq(X1,nil)
| ~ ssList(X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
esk1_0 = esk3_0,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
( ~ neq(esk4_0,nil)
| neq(esk5_0,nil) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
neq(esk4_0,nil),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
( ~ neq(esk4_0,nil)
| segmentP(esk3_0,esk5_0) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
( ~ neq(esk4_0,nil)
| segmentP(esk4_0,esk5_0) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
( ~ neq(esk4_0,nil)
| ssList(esk5_0) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
( ~ neq(X1,nil)
| ~ ssList(X1)
| ~ segmentP(esk4_0,X1)
| ~ segmentP(esk3_0,X1) ),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]),c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
neq(esk5_0,nil),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9])]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
segmentP(esk3_0,esk5_0),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_9])]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
segmentP(esk4_0,esk5_0),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_9])]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
ssList(esk5_0),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_9])]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]),c_0_15]),c_0_16]),c_0_17])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : SWC082+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.4.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.18/0.46 % Computer : n011.cluster.edu
% 0.18/0.46 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.18/0.46 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.18/0.46 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.18/0.46 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.18/0.46 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.18/0.46 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.18/0.46 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 07:54:25 UTC 2026
% 0.18/0.46 % CPUTime :
% 0.18/0.47 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.22/0.52 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.22/0.52 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
% 0.22/0.60 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.22/0.60 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.22/0.60 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.22/0.60 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.22/0.60 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.60 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.60 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.60 % new_bool_1 with pid 1395216 completed with status 0
% 0.22/0.60 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.22/0.60 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.22/0.60 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.22/0.60 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.22/0.60 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.60 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.60 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.22/0.60 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.22/0.60 % Search class: FGHSF-FFMM21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.22/0.60 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.22/0.60 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.60 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1395219 completed with status 0
% 0.22/0.60 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.22/0.60 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.22/0.60 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.22/0.60 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.22/0.60 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.60 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.60 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.22/0.60 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.22/0.60 % Search class: FGHSF-FFMM21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.22/0.60 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.22/0.60 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.22/0.60 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.22/0.60
% 0.22/0.60 % Proof found!
% 0.22/0.60 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.22/0.60 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.22/0.60 % Parsed axioms : 96
% 0.22/0.60 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 70
% 0.22/0.60 % Initial clauses : 51
% 0.22/0.60 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.22/0.60 % Initial clauses in saturation : 51
% 0.22/0.60 % Processed clauses : 47
% 0.22/0.60 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.22/0.60 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.22/0.60 % ...remaining for further processing : 47
% 0.22/0.60 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 5
% 0.22/0.60 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.22/0.60 % Backward-subsumed : 7
% 0.22/0.60 % Backward-rewritten : 2
% 0.22/0.60 % Generated clauses : 22
% 0.22/0.60 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 11
% 0.22/0.60 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.22/0.60 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.22/0.60 % Paramodulations : 18
% 0.22/0.60 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.22/0.60 % NegExts : 0
% 0.22/0.60 % Equation resolutions : 5
% 0.22/0.60 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.22/0.60 % Total rewrite steps : 26
% 0.22/0.60 % ...of those cached : 16
% 0.22/0.60 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.22/0.60 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.22/0.60 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.22/0.60 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.22/0.60 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.22/0.60 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.22/0.60 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.22/0.60 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.22/0.60 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.22/0.60 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.22/0.60 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.22/0.60 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.22/0.60 % Current number of processed clauses : 34
% 0.22/0.60 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 14
% 0.22/0.60 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.22/0.60 % Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.22/0.60 % Non-unit-clauses : 18
% 0.22/0.60 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 15
% 0.22/0.60 % ...number of literals in the above : 71
% 0.22/0.60 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.22/0.60 % Current number of archived clauses : 9
% 0.22/0.60 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 50
% 0.22/0.60 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 32
% 0.22/0.60 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.22/0.60 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 11
% 0.22/0.60 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.22/0.60 % BW rewrite match attempts : 2
% 0.22/0.60 % BW rewrite match successes : 2
% 0.22/0.60 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.22/0.60 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.22/0.60 % Termbank termtop insertions : 5259
% 0.22/0.60 % Search garbage collected termcells : 1570
% 0.22/0.60
% 0.22/0.60 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.22/0.60 % User time : 0.006 s
% 0.22/0.60 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.22/0.60 % Total time : 0.009 s
% 0.22/0.60 % Maximum resident set size: 3760 pages
% 0.22/0.60
% 0.22/0.60 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.22/0.60 % User time : 0.010 s
% 0.22/0.60 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.22/0.60 % Total time : 0.016 s
% 0.22/0.60 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.22/0.60 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------