%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SWC210+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 : n017.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 0.10s 0.44s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.10s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 8
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 25 ( 14 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 91 ( 16 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 18 ( 3 avg)
% Number of connectives : 106 ( 40 ~; 33 |; 15 &)
% ( 2 <=>; 16 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 16 ( 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 : 20 ( 0 sgn 18 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(co1,conjecture,
! [X1] :
( ssList(X1)
=> ! [X2] :
( ssList(X2)
=> ! [X3] :
( ssList(X3)
=> ! [X4] :
( ssList(X4)
=> ( ( ( neq(X4,nil)
| ~ neq(X2,nil) )
& ( neq(X1,nil)
| ~ singletonP(X3)
| ~ neq(X2,nil) ) )
| X1 != X3
| X2 != X4 ) ) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',co1) ).
fof(ax15,axiom,
! [X1] :
( ssList(X1)
=> ! [X2] :
( ssList(X2)
=> ( neq(X1,X2)
<=> X1 != X2 ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SWC001+0.ax',ax15) ).
fof(ax39,axiom,
~ singletonP(nil),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SWC001+0.ax',ax39) ).
fof(ax17,axiom,
ssList(nil),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SWC001+0.ax',ax17) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1] :
( ssList(X1)
=> ! [X2] :
( ssList(X2)
=> ! [X3] :
( ssList(X3)
=> ! [X4] :
( ssList(X4)
=> ( ( ( neq(X4,nil)
| ~ neq(X2,nil) )
& ( neq(X1,nil)
| ~ singletonP(X3)
| ~ neq(X2,nil) ) )
| X1 != X3
| X2 != X4 ) ) ) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[co1]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1] :
( ssList(X1)
=> ! [X2] :
( ssList(X2)
=> ! [X3] :
( ssList(X3)
=> ! [X4] :
( ssList(X4)
=> ( ( ( neq(X4,nil)
| ~ neq(X2,nil) )
& ( neq(X1,nil)
| ~ singletonP(X3)
| ~ neq(X2,nil) ) )
| X1 != X3
| X2 != X4 ) ) ) ) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
fof(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( ( ~ neq(esk1_0,nil)
| ~ neq(esk4_0,nil) )
& ( ~ neq(esk1_0,nil)
| neq(esk2_0,nil) )
& ( singletonP(esk3_0)
| ~ neq(esk4_0,nil) )
& ( singletonP(esk3_0)
| neq(esk2_0,nil) )
& ( neq(esk2_0,nil)
| ~ neq(esk4_0,nil) )
& ( neq(esk2_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_5])])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
( neq(esk2_0,nil)
| neq(esk2_0,nil) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
fof(c_0_8,plain,
! [X1] :
( ssList(X1)
=> ! [X2] :
( ssList(X2)
=> ( neq(X1,X2)
<=> X1 != X2 ) ) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[ax15]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
( ~ neq(esk1_0,nil)
| ~ neq(esk4_0,nil) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
esk2_0 = esk4_0,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
neq(esk2_0,nil),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
fof(c_0_12,plain,
! [X13,X14] :
( ( ~ ssList(X13)
| ~ ssList(X14)
| neq(X13,X14)
| X13 = X14 )
& ( ~ ssList(X13)
| ~ ssList(X14)
| X13 != X14
| ~ neq(X13,X14) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_8])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_13,plain,
~ singletonP(nil),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[ax39]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
( ~ neq(esk4_0,nil)
| singletonP(esk3_0) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
esk1_0 = esk3_0,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
~ neq(esk1_0,nil),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_11])]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,plain,
( ~ ssList(X1)
| ~ ssList(X2)
| neq(X1,X2)
| X1 = X2 ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,plain,
ssList(nil),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[ax17]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
ssList(esk1_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
fof(c_0_20,plain,
~ singletonP(nil),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,negated_conjecture,
singletonP(esk1_0),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_15]),c_0_10]),c_0_11])]) ).
cnf(c_0_22,negated_conjecture,
esk1_0 = nil,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]),c_0_18]),c_0_19])]) ).
cnf(c_0_23,plain,
~ singletonP(nil),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_20]) ).
cnf(c_0_24,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_21,c_0_22]),c_0_23]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SWC210+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.4.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.37 % Computer : n017.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.37 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 07:59:57 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.41 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.10/0.41 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
% 0.10/0.44 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.10/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.10/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.10/0.44 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.10/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.44 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.44 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.44 % new_bool_3 with pid 1844695 completed with status 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.10/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.10/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.10/0.44 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.10/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.44 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.10/0.44 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.10/0.44 % Search class: FGHSF-FFMM21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.10/0.44 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.10/0.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.44 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1844698 completed with status 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.10/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.10/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.10/0.44 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.10/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.44 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.10/0.44 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.10/0.44 % Search class: FGHSF-FFMM21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.10/0.44 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.10/0.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.10/0.44 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.10/0.44
% 0.10/0.44 % Proof found!
% 0.10/0.44 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.10/0.44 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.10/0.44 % Parsed axioms : 96
% 0.10/0.44 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 75
% 0.10/0.44 % Initial clauses : 43
% 0.10/0.44 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Initial clauses in saturation : 43
% 0.10/0.44 % Processed clauses : 30
% 0.10/0.44 % ...of these trivial : 3
% 0.10/0.44 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % ...remaining for further processing : 27
% 0.10/0.44 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Backward-rewritten : 7
% 0.10/0.44 % Generated clauses : 4
% 0.10/0.44 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 3
% 0.10/0.44 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Paramodulations : 4
% 0.10/0.44 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % NegExts : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Total rewrite steps : 23
% 0.10/0.44 % ...of those cached : 16
% 0.10/0.44 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.10/0.44 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.10/0.44 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.10/0.44 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.10/0.44 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.10/0.44 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.10/0.44 % Current number of processed clauses : 20
% 0.10/0.44 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 7
% 0.10/0.44 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.10/0.44 % Non-unit-clauses : 11
% 0.10/0.44 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 15
% 0.10/0.44 % ...number of literals in the above : 64
% 0.10/0.44 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Current number of archived clauses : 7
% 0.10/0.44 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 3
% 0.10/0.44 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% 0.10/0.44 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.10/0.44 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % BW rewrite match attempts : 3
% 0.10/0.44 % BW rewrite match successes : 3
% 0.10/0.44 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.10/0.44 % Termbank termtop insertions : 4064
% 0.10/0.44 % Search garbage collected termcells : 1326
% 0.10/0.44
% 0.10/0.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.10/0.44 % User time : 0.007 s
% 0.10/0.44 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.10/0.44 % Total time : 0.009 s
% 0.10/0.44 % Maximum resident set size: 3960 pages
% 0.10/0.44
% 0.10/0.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.10/0.44 % User time : 0.011 s
% 0.10/0.44 % System time : 0.008 s
% 0.10/0.44 % Total time : 0.019 s
% 0.10/0.44 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.10/0.44 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------