%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SWC288+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 : 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 02:43:47 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.14s 0.44s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.14s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 7
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 16 ( 7 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 120 ( 43 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 43 ( 7 avg)
% Number of connectives : 147 ( 43 ~; 53 |; 35 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 16 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 27 ( 8 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 7 ( 5 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 10 ( 10 usr; 8 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 32 ( 0 sgn 25 !; 6 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(co1,conjecture,
! [X1] :
( ssList(X1)
=> ! [X2] :
( ssList(X2)
=> ! [X3] :
( ssList(X3)
=> ! [X4] :
( ( ( nil != X3
| nil != X4 )
& ! [X5] :
( ssItem(X5)
=> ! [X6] :
( ssList(X6)
=> ! [X7] :
( ? [X9] :
( lt(X9,X5)
& memberP(X7,X9)
& ssItem(X9) )
| ? [X8] :
( lt(X5,X8)
& memberP(X6,X8)
& ssItem(X8) )
| app(app(X6,X3),X7) != X4
| cons(X5,nil) != X3
| ~ ssList(X7) ) ) ) )
| strictorderedP(X1)
| X1 != X3
| X2 != X4
| ~ ssList(X4) ) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',co1) ).
fof(ax68,axiom,
! [X1] :
( ssItem(X1)
=> strictorderedP(cons(X1,nil)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SWC001+0.ax',ax68) ).
fof(ax69,axiom,
strictorderedP(nil),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SWC001+0.ax',ax69) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1] :
( ssList(X1)
=> ! [X2] :
( ssList(X2)
=> ! [X3] :
( ssList(X3)
=> ! [X4] :
( ( ( nil != X3
| nil != X4 )
& ! [X5] :
( ssItem(X5)
=> ! [X6] :
( ssList(X6)
=> ! [X7] :
( ? [X9] :
( lt(X9,X5)
& memberP(X7,X9)
& ssItem(X9) )
| ? [X8] :
( lt(X5,X8)
& memberP(X6,X8)
& ssItem(X8) )
| app(app(X6,X3),X7) != X4
| cons(X5,nil) != X3
| ~ ssList(X7) ) ) ) )
| strictorderedP(X1)
| X1 != X3
| X2 != X4
| ~ ssList(X4) ) ) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[co1]) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1] :
( ssList(X1)
=> ! [X2] :
( ssList(X2)
=> ! [X3] :
( ssList(X3)
=> ! [X4] :
( ( ( nil != X3
| nil != X4 )
& ! [X5] :
( ssItem(X5)
=> ! [X6] :
( ssList(X6)
=> ! [X7] :
( ? [X9] :
( lt(X9,X5)
& memberP(X7,X9)
& ssItem(X9) )
| ? [X8] :
( lt(X5,X8)
& memberP(X6,X8)
& ssItem(X8) )
| app(app(X6,X3),X7) != X4
| cons(X5,nil) != X3
| ~ ssList(X7) ) ) ) )
| strictorderedP(X1)
| X1 != X3
| X2 != X4
| ~ ssList(X4) ) ) ) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
! [X17,X18] :
( ( ~ lt(X18,esk5_0)
| ~ memberP(esk7_0,X18)
| ~ ssItem(X18)
| nil = esk3_0 )
& ( ~ lt(X18,esk5_0)
| ~ memberP(esk7_0,X18)
| ~ ssItem(X18)
| nil = esk4_0 )
& ( ~ lt(esk5_0,X17)
| ~ memberP(esk6_0,X17)
| ~ ssItem(X17)
| nil = esk3_0 )
& ( ~ lt(esk5_0,X17)
| ~ memberP(esk6_0,X17)
| ~ ssItem(X17)
| nil = esk4_0 )
& ( app(app(esk6_0,esk3_0),esk7_0) = esk4_0
| nil = esk3_0 )
& ( app(app(esk6_0,esk3_0),esk7_0) = esk4_0
| nil = esk4_0 )
& ( cons(esk5_0,nil) = esk3_0
| nil = esk3_0 )
& ( cons(esk5_0,nil) = esk3_0
| nil = esk4_0 )
& ( ssList(esk7_0)
| nil = esk3_0 )
& ( ssList(esk7_0)
| nil = esk4_0 )
& ( ssList(esk6_0)
| nil = esk3_0 )
& ( ssList(esk6_0)
| nil = esk4_0 )
& ( ssItem(esk5_0)
| nil = esk3_0 )
& ( ssItem(esk5_0)
| nil = esk4_0 )
& ~ strictorderedP(esk1_0)
& 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(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X91] :
( strictorderedP(cons(X91,nil))
| ~ ssItem(X91) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[ax68])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
~ strictorderedP(esk1_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
esk1_0 = esk3_0,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ ssItem(X1)
| strictorderedP(cons(X1,nil)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
( cons(esk5_0,nil) = esk3_0
| nil = esk3_0 ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
~ strictorderedP(esk3_0),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
( ssItem(esk5_0)
| nil = esk3_0 ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
esk3_0 = nil,
inference(csr,[status(thm)],[inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_11]),c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
strictorderedP(nil),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[ax69]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_13]),c_0_14])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : SWC288+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.4.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.36 % Computer : n011.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.36 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/0.36 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.09/0.36 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 08:12:25 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.09/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.14/0.41 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.14/0.41 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
% 0.14/0.44 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.14/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.44 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.44 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.44 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.44 % new_bool_1 with pid 1428428 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.14/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.44 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.44 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.44 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.14/0.44 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.14/0.44 % Search class: FGHSF-FFMM21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.44 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.14/0.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.44 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1428431 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.14/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.44 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.44 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.44 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.14/0.44 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.14/0.44 % Search class: FGHSF-FFMM21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.44 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.14/0.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.44 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.14/0.44
% 0.14/0.44 % Proof found!
% 0.14/0.44 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.14/0.44 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.14/0.44 % Parsed axioms : 96
% 0.14/0.44 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 52
% 0.14/0.44 % Initial clauses : 93
% 0.14/0.44 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 1
% 0.14/0.44 % Initial clauses in saturation : 92
% 0.14/0.44 % Processed clauses : 25
% 0.14/0.44 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % ...remaining for further processing : 25
% 0.14/0.44 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Backward-rewritten : 10
% 0.14/0.44 % Generated clauses : 1
% 0.14/0.44 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 2
% 0.14/0.44 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 1
% 0.14/0.44 % Paramodulations : 1
% 0.14/0.44 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % NegExts : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Total rewrite steps : 7
% 0.14/0.44 % ...of those cached : 1
% 0.14/0.44 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.44 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.44 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.44 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.44 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.44 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.44 % Current number of processed clauses : 15
% 0.14/0.44 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 7
% 0.14/0.44 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.14/0.44 % Non-unit-clauses : 7
% 0.14/0.44 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 69
% 0.14/0.44 % ...number of literals in the above : 280
% 0.14/0.44 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Current number of archived clauses : 10
% 0.14/0.44 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 6
% 0.14/0.44 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 6
% 0.14/0.44 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 1
% 0.14/0.44 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % BW rewrite match attempts : 3
% 0.14/0.44 % BW rewrite match successes : 3
% 0.14/0.44 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Termbank termtop insertions : 7860
% 0.14/0.44 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2242
% 0.14/0.44
% 0.14/0.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.44 % User time : 0.005 s
% 0.14/0.44 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.14/0.44 % Total time : 0.009 s
% 0.14/0.44 % Maximum resident set size: 4212 pages
% 0.14/0.44
% 0.14/0.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.44 % User time : 0.009 s
% 0.14/0.44 % System time : 0.009 s
% 0.14/0.44 % Total time : 0.018 s
% 0.14/0.44 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.14/0.44 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------