%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SWC103+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.4.0.
% 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 : Thu Sep 24 02:43:01 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.27s 0.60s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.27s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 8
% Number of leaves : 1
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 15 ( 7 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 72 ( 18 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 15 ( 4 avg)
% Number of connectives : 89 ( 32 ~; 26 |; 19 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 12 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 18 ( 6 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 5 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 12 ( 0 sgn 12 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(co1,conjecture,
! [X1] :
( ssList(X1)
=> ! [X2] :
( ssList(X2)
=> ! [X3] :
( ssList(X3)
=> ! [X4] :
( ssList(X4)
=> ( ( ( ~ frontsegP(X4,X3)
| ~ neq(X3,nil) )
& neq(X4,nil) )
| ( frontsegP(X2,X1)
& neq(X1,nil) )
| ( nil = X4
& nil != X3 )
| ~ neq(X2,nil)
| X1 != X3
| X2 != X4 ) ) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',co1) ).
fof(c_0_1,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1] :
( ssList(X1)
=> ! [X2] :
( ssList(X2)
=> ! [X3] :
( ssList(X3)
=> ! [X4] :
( ssList(X4)
=> ( ( ( ~ frontsegP(X4,X3)
| ~ neq(X3,nil) )
& neq(X4,nil) )
| ( frontsegP(X2,X1)
& neq(X1,nil) )
| ( nil = X4
& nil != X3 )
| ~ 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)
=> ( ( ( ~ frontsegP(X4,X3)
| ~ neq(X3,nil) )
& neq(X4,nil) )
| ( frontsegP(X2,X1)
& neq(X1,nil) )
| ( nil = X4
& nil != X3 )
| ~ neq(X2,nil)
| X1 != X3
| X2 != X4 ) ) ) ) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_1]) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
( ( ~ neq(esk51_0,nil)
| frontsegP(esk51_0,esk50_0) )
& ( ~ neq(esk51_0,nil)
| neq(esk50_0,nil) )
& ( ~ frontsegP(esk49_0,esk48_0)
| ~ neq(esk48_0,nil) )
& ( nil != esk51_0
| nil = esk50_0 )
& neq(esk49_0,nil)
& esk48_0 = esk50_0
& esk49_0 = esk51_0
& ssList(esk51_0)
& ssList(esk50_0)
& ssList(esk49_0)
& ssList(esk48_0) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[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(esk49_0,nil),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
esk49_0 = esk51_0,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( ~ frontsegP(esk49_0,esk48_0)
| ~ neq(esk48_0,nil) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
esk48_0 = esk50_0,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
( ~ neq(esk51_0,nil)
| frontsegP(esk51_0,esk50_0) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
neq(esk51_0,nil),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
( ~ neq(esk50_0,nil)
| ~ frontsegP(esk51_0,esk50_0) ),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]),c_0_5]),c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
frontsegP(esk51_0,esk50_0),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9])]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
( ~ neq(esk51_0,nil)
| neq(esk50_0,nil) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
~ neq(esk50_0,nil),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11])]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_9])]),c_0_13]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : SWC103+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.4.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.17/0.43 % Computer : n014.cluster.edu
% 0.17/0.43 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.17/0.43 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.17/0.43 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.17/0.43 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.17/0.43 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.17/0.43 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.17/0.43 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 07:55:49 UTC 2026
% 0.17/0.44 % CPUTime :
% 0.17/0.44 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.17/0.53 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.17/0.53 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
% 0.27/0.60 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.27/0.60 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.27/0.60 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.27/0.60 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.27/0.60 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.60 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.60 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.60 % G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with pid 3581491 completed with status 0
% 0.27/0.60 % Result found by G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S
% 0.27/0.60 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.27/0.60 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.27/0.60 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.27/0.60 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.27/0.60 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.27/0.60 % Search class: FGHSF-FSLM21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.27/0.60 % Scheduled 11 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.27/0.60 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.60 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 151s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.60 % Starting G-E--_008_C45_F1_PI_AE_Q4_CS_SP_S4d with 136s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.60 % Starting G-E--_110_C45_F1_PI_SE_CS_SP_PS_S4S with 136s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.60 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_TT_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.60 % G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_TT_S0Y with pid 3581499 completed with status 0
% 0.27/0.60 % Result found by G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_TT_S0Y
% 0.27/0.60 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.27/0.60 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.27/0.60 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.27/0.60 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.27/0.60 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.27/0.60 % Search class: FGHSF-FSLM21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.27/0.60 % Scheduled 11 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.27/0.60 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.60 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 151s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.60 % Starting G-E--_008_C45_F1_PI_AE_Q4_CS_SP_S4d with 136s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.60 % Starting G-E--_110_C45_F1_PI_SE_CS_SP_PS_S4S with 136s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.60 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_TT_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.60 % Preprocessing time : 0.006 s
% 0.27/0.60 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.27/0.60
% 0.27/0.60 % Proof found!
% 0.27/0.60 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.27/0.60 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.27/0.60 % Parsed axioms : 96
% 0.27/0.60 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.27/0.60 % Initial clauses : 201
% 0.27/0.60 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 2
% 0.27/0.60 % Initial clauses in saturation : 199
% 0.27/0.60 % Processed clauses : 24
% 0.27/0.60 % ...of these trivial : 2
% 0.27/0.60 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.27/0.60 % ...remaining for further processing : 21
% 0.27/0.60 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.27/0.60 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.27/0.60 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.27/0.60 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.27/0.60 % Generated clauses : 0
% 0.27/0.60 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1
% 0.27/0.60 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.27/0.60 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.27/0.60 % Paramodulations : 0
% 0.27/0.60 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.27/0.60 % NegExts : 0
% 0.27/0.60 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.27/0.60 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.27/0.60 % Total rewrite steps : 11
% 0.27/0.60 % ...of those cached : 5
% 0.27/0.60 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.27/0.60 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.27/0.60 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.27/0.60 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.27/0.60 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.27/0.60 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.27/0.60 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.60 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.60 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.60 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.60 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.60 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.60 % Current number of processed clauses : 20
% 0.27/0.60 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 14
% 0.27/0.60 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.27/0.60 % Negative unit clauses : 3
% 0.27/0.60 % Non-unit-clauses : 3
% 0.27/0.60 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 176
% 0.27/0.60 % ...number of literals in the above : 691
% 0.27/0.60 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.27/0.60 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.27/0.60 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1
% 0.27/0.60 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.27/0.60 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.27/0.60 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.27/0.60 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.27/0.60 % BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.27/0.60 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.27/0.60 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.27/0.60 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.27/0.60 % Termbank termtop insertions : 16236
% 0.27/0.60 % Search garbage collected termcells : 4260
% 0.27/0.60
% 0.27/0.60 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.27/0.60 % User time : 0.025 s
% 0.27/0.60 % System time : 0.009 s
% 0.27/0.60 % Total time : 0.034 s
% 0.27/0.60 % Maximum resident set size: 4220 pages
% 0.27/0.60
% 0.27/0.60 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.27/0.60 % User time : 0.055 s
% 0.27/0.60 % System time : 0.034 s
% 0.27/0.60 % Total time : 0.088 s
% 0.27/0.60 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.27/0.60 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------