%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SWC269+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 : n004.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 02:43:43 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.26s 0.55s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.26s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 1
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 8 ( 4 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 60 ( 9 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 14 ( 7 avg)
% Number of connectives : 73 ( 21 ~; 19 |; 21 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 12 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 20 ( 10 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 7 ( 5 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 4 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 16 ( 0 sgn 13 !; 3 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(co1,conjecture,
! [X1] :
( ssList(X1)
=> ! [X2] :
( ssList(X2)
=> ! [X3] :
( ssList(X3)
=> ! [X4] :
( ssList(X4)
=> ( totalorderedP(X1)
| ? [X5] :
( totalorderedP(X5)
& segmentP(X5,X3)
& frontsegP(X4,X5)
& neq(X3,X5)
& ssList(X5) )
| ~ totalorderedP(X3)
| ~ frontsegP(X4,X3)
| 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)
=> ( totalorderedP(X1)
| ? [X5] :
( totalorderedP(X5)
& segmentP(X5,X3)
& frontsegP(X4,X5)
& neq(X3,X5)
& ssList(X5) )
| ~ totalorderedP(X3)
| ~ frontsegP(X4,X3)
| 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)
=> ( totalorderedP(X1)
| ? [X5] :
( totalorderedP(X5)
& segmentP(X5,X3)
& frontsegP(X4,X5)
& neq(X3,X5)
& ssList(X5) )
| ~ totalorderedP(X3)
| ~ frontsegP(X4,X3)
| X1 != X3
| X2 != X4 ) ) ) ) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_1]) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
! [X11] :
( ~ totalorderedP(esk1_0)
& ( ~ totalorderedP(X11)
| ~ segmentP(X11,esk3_0)
| ~ frontsegP(esk4_0,X11)
| ~ neq(esk3_0,X11)
| ~ ssList(X11) )
& totalorderedP(esk3_0)
& frontsegP(esk4_0,esk3_0)
& esk1_0 = esk3_0
& esk2_0 = esk4_0
& ssList(esk4_0)
& ssList(esk3_0)
& ssList(esk2_0)
& ssList(esk1_0) ),
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,
~ totalorderedP(esk1_0),
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,
totalorderedP(esk3_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_5]),c_0_6])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.04 % Problem : SWC269+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.4.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.18/0.43 % Computer : n004.cluster.edu
% 0.18/0.43 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.18/0.43 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.18/0.43 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.18/0.43 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.18/0.43 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.18/0.43 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.18/0.43 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 08:09:49 UTC 2026
% 0.18/0.44 % CPUTime :
% 0.18/0.44 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.26/0.51 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.26/0.51 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
% 0.26/0.55 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.26/0.55 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.55 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.55 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.55 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.55 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.55 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.55 % new_bool_3 with pid 2676373 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.26/0.55 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.55 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.55 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.55 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.55 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.26/0.55 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.26/0.55 % Search class: FGHSF-FFMM21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.55 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.26/0.55 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.55 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2676381 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.26/0.55 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.55 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.55 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.55 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.55 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.26/0.55 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.26/0.55 % Search class: FGHSF-FFMM21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.55 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.26/0.55 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.55 % Preprocessing time : 0.004 s
% 0.26/0.55
% 0.26/0.55 % Proof found!
% 0.26/0.55 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.26/0.55 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.26/0.55 % Parsed axioms : 96
% 0.26/0.55 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 39
% 0.26/0.55 % Initial clauses : 99
% 0.26/0.55 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 1
% 0.26/0.55 % Initial clauses in saturation : 98
% 0.26/0.55 % Processed clauses : 11
% 0.26/0.55 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % ...remaining for further processing : 11
% 0.26/0.55 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Backward-rewritten : 2
% 0.26/0.55 % Generated clauses : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Paramodulations : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % NegExts : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Total rewrite steps : 2
% 0.26/0.55 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.55 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.55 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.55 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.55 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.55 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.55 % Current number of processed clauses : 9
% 0.26/0.55 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 9
% 0.26/0.55 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 87
% 0.26/0.55 % ...number of literals in the above : 341
% 0.26/0.55 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Current number of archived clauses : 2
% 0.26/0.55 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.26/0.55 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.26/0.55 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.26/0.55 % Termbank termtop insertions : 8888
% 0.26/0.55 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2412
% 0.26/0.55
% 0.26/0.55 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.55 % User time : 0.014 s
% 0.26/0.55 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.26/0.55 % Total time : 0.020 s
% 0.26/0.55 % Maximum resident set size: 3964 pages
% 0.26/0.55
% 0.26/0.55 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.55 % User time : 0.018 s
% 0.26/0.55 % System time : 0.014 s
% 0.26/0.55 % Total time : 0.032 s
% 0.26/0.55 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.26/0.55 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------