%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SWC209+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 : n018.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 02:43:28 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.27s 0.56s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.27s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 9
% Number of leaves : 1
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 16 ( 10 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 66 ( 24 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 16 ( 4 avg)
% Number of connectives : 77 ( 27 ~; 24 |; 14 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 12 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 17 ( 5 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)
=> ( ( ( ~ segmentP(X4,X3)
| ~ neq(X3,nil) )
& ( nil != X3
| nil != X4 ) )
| neq(X1,nil)
| ~ 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)
=> ( ( ( ~ segmentP(X4,X3)
| ~ neq(X3,nil) )
& ( nil != X3
| nil != X4 ) )
| neq(X1,nil)
| ~ 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)
=> ( ( ( ~ segmentP(X4,X3)
| ~ neq(X3,nil) )
& ( nil != X3
| nil != X4 ) )
| neq(X1,nil)
| ~ neq(X2,nil)
| X1 != X3
| X2 != X4 ) ) ) ) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_1]) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
( ( nil = esk3_0
| segmentP(esk4_0,esk3_0) )
& ( nil = esk3_0
| neq(esk3_0,nil) )
& ( nil = esk4_0
| segmentP(esk4_0,esk3_0) )
& ( nil = esk4_0
| neq(esk3_0,nil) )
& ~ neq(esk1_0,nil)
& 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(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ neq(esk1_0,nil),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
esk1_0 = esk3_0,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( nil = esk3_0
| neq(esk3_0,nil) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
~ neq(esk3_0,nil),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
esk3_0 = nil,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
neq(esk2_0,nil),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
esk2_0 = esk4_0,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
( nil = esk4_0
| neq(esk3_0,nil) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
~ neq(nil,nil),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
neq(esk4_0,nil),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
esk4_0 = nil,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_8]),c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]),c_0_12]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.04 % Problem : SWC209+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.4.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.18/0.42 % Computer : n018.cluster.edu
% 0.18/0.42 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.18/0.42 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.18/0.42 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.18/0.42 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.18/0.42 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.18/0.42 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.18/0.42 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 08:06:44 UTC 2026
% 0.18/0.43 % CPUTime :
% 0.18/0.43 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.18/0.50 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.18/0.50 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
% 0.27/0.56 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.27/0.56 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.27/0.56 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.27/0.56 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.27/0.56 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.56 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.56 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.56 % new_bool_3 with pid 1408603 completed with status 0
% 0.27/0.56 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.27/0.56 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.27/0.56 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.27/0.56 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.27/0.56 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.56 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.27/0.56 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.27/0.56 % Search class: FGHSF-FFMM21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.27/0.56 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.27/0.56 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.56 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1408607 completed with status 0
% 0.27/0.56 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.27/0.56 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.27/0.56 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.27/0.56 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.27/0.56 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.56 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.27/0.56 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.27/0.56 % Search class: FGHSF-FFMM21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.27/0.56 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.27/0.56 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.56 % Preprocessing time : 0.003 s
% 0.27/0.56
% 0.27/0.56 % Proof found!
% 0.27/0.56 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.27/0.56 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.27/0.56 % Parsed axioms : 96
% 0.27/0.56 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 70
% 0.27/0.56 % Initial clauses : 50
% 0.27/0.56 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.27/0.56 % Initial clauses in saturation : 50
% 0.27/0.56 % Processed clauses : 19
% 0.27/0.56 % ...of these trivial : 1
% 0.27/0.56 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.27/0.56 % ...remaining for further processing : 18
% 0.27/0.56 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.27/0.56 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.27/0.56 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.27/0.56 % Backward-rewritten : 8
% 0.27/0.56 % Generated clauses : 0
% 0.27/0.56 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 2
% 0.27/0.56 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.27/0.56 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.27/0.56 % Paramodulations : 0
% 0.27/0.56 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.27/0.56 % NegExts : 0
% 0.27/0.56 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.27/0.56 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.27/0.56 % Total rewrite steps : 14
% 0.27/0.56 % ...of those cached : 7
% 0.27/0.56 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.27/0.56 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.27/0.56 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.27/0.56 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.27/0.56 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.27/0.56 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.27/0.56 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.56 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.56 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.56 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.56 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.56 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.56 % Current number of processed clauses : 10
% 0.27/0.56 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 6
% 0.27/0.56 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.27/0.56 % Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.27/0.56 % Non-unit-clauses : 2
% 0.27/0.56 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 33
% 0.27/0.56 % ...number of literals in the above : 130
% 0.27/0.56 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.27/0.56 % Current number of archived clauses : 8
% 0.27/0.56 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1
% 0.27/0.56 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.27/0.56 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.27/0.56 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.27/0.56 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.27/0.56 % BW rewrite match attempts : 4
% 0.27/0.56 % BW rewrite match successes : 4
% 0.27/0.56 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.27/0.56 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.27/0.56 % Termbank termtop insertions : 4683
% 0.27/0.56 % Search garbage collected termcells : 1488
% 0.27/0.56
% 0.27/0.56 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.27/0.56 % User time : 0.010 s
% 0.27/0.56 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.27/0.56 % Total time : 0.013 s
% 0.27/0.56 % Maximum resident set size: 3960 pages
% 0.27/0.56
% 0.27/0.56 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.27/0.56 % User time : 0.017 s
% 0.27/0.56 % System time : 0.008 s
% 0.27/0.56 % Total time : 0.025 s
% 0.27/0.56 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.27/0.56 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------