%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : SWC258-1 : 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 : 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 02:45:37 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.41s 15.56s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.41s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 6
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 17 ( 10 unt; 4 nHn; 17 RR)
% Number of literals : 24 ( 9 equ; 7 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 4 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 3 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(co1_7,negated_conjecture,
~ totalorderedP(sk1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',co1_7) ).
cnf(clause67,axiom,
( ~ ssItem(X1)
| totalorderedP(cons(X1,nil)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SWC001-0.ax',clause67) ).
cnf(co1_6,negated_conjecture,
sk1 = sk3,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',co1_6) ).
cnf(co1_13,negated_conjecture,
( nil = sk3
| cons(sk5,nil) = sk3 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',co1_13) ).
cnf(co1_9,negated_conjecture,
( nil = sk3
| ssItem(sk5) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',co1_9) ).
cnf(clause4,axiom,
totalorderedP(nil),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SWC001-0.ax',clause4) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
~ totalorderedP(sk1),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[co1_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ ssItem(X1)
| totalorderedP(cons(X1,nil)) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[clause67]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
~ totalorderedP(sk1),
c_0_6 ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
sk1 = sk3,
co1_6 ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( ~ ssItem(X1)
| totalorderedP(cons(X1,nil)) ),
c_0_7 ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
( nil = sk3
| cons(sk5,nil) = sk3 ),
co1_13 ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
~ totalorderedP(sk3),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
( nil = sk3
| ssItem(sk5) ),
co1_9 ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
sk3 = nil,
inference(csr,[status(thm)],[inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]),c_0_12]),c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,axiom,
totalorderedP(nil),
clause4 ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_14]),c_0_15])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.04 % Problem : SWC258-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.4.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/0.34 % Computer : n011.cluster.edu
% 0.08/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.08/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.08/0.34 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.08/0.34 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.15/15.48 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.15/15.48 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.15/15.48 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 08:08:37 UTC 2026
% 0.15/15.48 % CPUTime :
% 0.15/15.48 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.41/15.53 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.41/15.53 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
% 0.41/15.56 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.41/15.56 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.41/15.56 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.41/15.56 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.41/15.56 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.41/15.56 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.41/15.56 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.41/15.56 % new_bool_1 with pid 330097 completed with status 0
% 0.41/15.56 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.41/15.56 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.41/15.56 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.41/15.56 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.41/15.56 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.41/15.56 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.41/15.56 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.41/15.56 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.41/15.56 % Search class: FGHSF-FFMM21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.41/15.56 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.41/15.56 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.41/15.56 % SubtermCWHack with pid 330100 completed with status 0
% 0.41/15.56 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.41/15.56 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.41/15.56 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.41/15.56 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.41/15.56 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.41/15.56 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.41/15.56 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.41/15.56 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.41/15.56 % Search class: FGHSF-FFMM21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.41/15.56 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.41/15.56 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.41/15.56 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.41/15.56
% 0.41/15.56 % Proof found!
% 0.41/15.56 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.41/15.56 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.41/15.56 % Parsed axioms : 200
% 0.41/15.56 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 131
% 0.41/15.56 % Initial clauses : 69
% 0.41/15.56 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.41/15.56 % Initial clauses in saturation : 69
% 0.41/15.56 % Processed clauses : 23
% 0.41/15.56 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.41/15.56 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.41/15.56 % ...remaining for further processing : 23
% 0.41/15.56 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.41/15.56 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.41/15.56 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.41/15.56 % Backward-rewritten : 9
% 0.41/15.56 % Generated clauses : 2
% 0.41/15.56 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 3
% 0.41/15.56 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.41/15.56 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 1
% 0.41/15.56 % Paramodulations : 2
% 0.41/15.56 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.41/15.56 % NegExts : 0
% 0.41/15.56 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.41/15.56 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.41/15.56 % Total rewrite steps : 7
% 0.41/15.56 % ...of those cached : 1
% 0.41/15.56 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.41/15.56 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.41/15.56 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.41/15.56 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.41/15.56 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.41/15.56 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.41/15.56 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.41/15.56 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.41/15.56 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.41/15.56 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.41/15.56 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.41/15.56 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.41/15.56 % Current number of processed clauses : 14
% 0.41/15.56 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 6
% 0.41/15.56 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.41/15.56 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.41/15.56 % Non-unit-clauses : 8
% 0.41/15.56 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 49
% 0.41/15.56 % ...number of literals in the above : 229
% 0.41/15.56 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.41/15.56 % Current number of archived clauses : 9
% 0.41/15.56 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1
% 0.41/15.56 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.41/15.56 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 1
% 0.41/15.56 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.41/15.56 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.41/15.56 % BW rewrite match attempts : 3
% 0.41/15.56 % BW rewrite match successes : 3
% 0.41/15.56 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.41/15.56 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.41/15.56 % Termbank termtop insertions : 4064
% 0.41/15.56 % Search garbage collected termcells : 851
% 0.41/15.56
% 0.41/15.56 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.41/15.56 % User time : 0.004 s
% 0.41/15.56 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.41/15.56 % Total time : 0.007 s
% 0.41/15.56 % Maximum resident set size: 4068 pages
% 0.41/15.56
% 0.41/15.56 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.41/15.56 % User time : 0.010 s
% 0.41/15.56 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.41/15.56 % Total time : 0.016 s
% 0.41/15.56 % Maximum resident set size: 5120 pages
% 0.41/15.56 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------