%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SWC289-1 : 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 : n020.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 02:43:48 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.24s 0.60s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.24s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 3
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 8 ( 8 unt; 0 nHn; 8 RR)
% Number of literals : 8 ( 2 equ; 3 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 2 ( 2 usr; 2 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 0 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(co1_8,negated_conjecture,
~ strictorderedP(sk1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',co1_8) ).
cnf(co1_7,negated_conjecture,
strictorderedP(sk3),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',co1_7) ).
cnf(co1_6,negated_conjecture,
sk1 = sk3,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',co1_6) ).
cnf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ strictorderedP(sk1),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[co1_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
strictorderedP(sk3),
co1_7 ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
sk1 = sk3,
co1_6 ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
~ strictorderedP(sk1),
c_0_3 ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_5]),c_0_6]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : SWC289-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.4.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.20/0.45 % Computer : n020.cluster.edu
% 0.20/0.45 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.20/0.45 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.20/0.45 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.20/0.45 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.20/0.45 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.20/0.45 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.20/0.45 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 08:13:33 UTC 2026
% 0.20/0.46 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.46 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.24/0.55 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.24/0.55 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
% 0.24/0.60 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.24/0.60 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.60 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % new_bool_1 with pid 2459687 completed with status 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.24/0.60 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.60 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.24/0.60 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.24/0.60 % Search class: FGHSF-FFMM21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.24/0.60 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2459690 completed with status 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.24/0.60 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.60 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.24/0.60 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.24/0.60 % Search class: FGHSF-FFMM21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.24/0.60 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.24/0.60 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.60 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.24/0.60
% 0.24/0.60 % Proof found!
% 0.24/0.60 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.24/0.60 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.24/0.60 % Parsed axioms : 193
% 0.24/0.60 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 139
% 0.24/0.60 % Initial clauses : 54
% 0.24/0.60 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Initial clauses in saturation : 54
% 0.24/0.60 % Processed clauses : 10
% 0.24/0.60 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % ...remaining for further processing : 10
% 0.24/0.60 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Backward-rewritten : 2
% 0.24/0.60 % Generated clauses : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Paramodulations : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % NegExts : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Total rewrite steps : 3
% 0.24/0.60 % ...of those cached : 1
% 0.24/0.60 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.60 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.60 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.60 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.60 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.60 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.60 % Current number of processed clauses : 8
% 0.24/0.60 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 7
% 0.24/0.60 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.24/0.60 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 44
% 0.24/0.60 % ...number of literals in the above : 187
% 0.24/0.60 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Current number of archived clauses : 2
% 0.24/0.60 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.24/0.60 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.24/0.60 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.24/0.60 % Termbank termtop insertions : 3446
% 0.24/0.60 % Search garbage collected termcells : 859
% 0.24/0.60
% 0.24/0.60 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/0.60 % User time : 0.006 s
% 0.24/0.60 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.24/0.60 % Total time : 0.008 s
% 0.24/0.60 % Maximum resident set size: 4064 pages
% 0.24/0.60
% 0.24/0.60 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/0.60 % User time : 0.014 s
% 0.24/0.60 % System time : 0.009 s
% 0.24/0.60 % Total time : 0.022 s
% 0.24/0.60 % Maximum resident set size: 5120 pages
% 0.24/0.60 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------