%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SWV134+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v3.3.0.
% 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 02:53:47 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.26s 0.56s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.26s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 22 ( 9 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 75 ( 5 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 12 ( 3 avg)
% Number of connectives : 68 ( 15 ~; 7 |; 41 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 5 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 13 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 11 ( 11 usr; 9 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 16 ( 0 sgn 8 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(leq_gt1,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( gt(X2,X1)
=> leq(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SWV003+0.ax',leq_gt1) ).
fof(leq_succ_gt,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( leq(succ(X1),X2)
=> gt(X2,X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SWV003+0.ax',leq_succ_gt) ).
fof(gauss_array_0004,conjecture,
( ( leq(a_select2(s_values7,pv1325),a_select2(s_values7,s_sworst7))
& leq(a_select2(s_values7,pv1325),a_select2(s_values7,s_best7))
& leq(pv1325,n3)
& leq(s_worst7,n3)
& leq(s_sworst7,n3)
& leq(s_best7,n3)
& leq(n2,pv1325)
& leq(n0,s_worst7)
& leq(n0,s_sworst7)
& leq(n0,s_best7)
& ~ leq(a_select2(s_values7,pv1325),a_select2(s_values7,s_worst7)) )
=> leq(n0,pv1325) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',gauss_array_0004) ).
fof(successor_2,axiom,
succ(succ(n0)) = n2,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',successor_2) ).
fof(successor_1,axiom,
succ(n0) = n1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',successor_1) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X32,X33] :
( leq(X32,X33)
| ~ gt(X33,X32) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[leq_gt1])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X42,X43] :
( gt(X43,X42)
| ~ leq(succ(X42),X43) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[leq_succ_gt])])]) ).
fof(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
~ ( ( leq(a_select2(s_values7,pv1325),a_select2(s_values7,s_sworst7))
& leq(a_select2(s_values7,pv1325),a_select2(s_values7,s_best7))
& leq(pv1325,n3)
& leq(s_worst7,n3)
& leq(s_sworst7,n3)
& leq(s_best7,n3)
& leq(n2,pv1325)
& leq(n0,s_worst7)
& leq(n0,s_sworst7)
& leq(n0,s_best7)
& ~ leq(a_select2(s_values7,pv1325),a_select2(s_values7,s_worst7)) )
=> leq(n0,pv1325) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[gauss_array_0004]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ gt(X1,X2)
| leq(X2,X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ leq(succ(X1),X2)
| gt(X2,X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
succ(succ(n0)) = n2,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[successor_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
succ(n0) = n1,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[successor_1]) ).
fof(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
~ ( ( leq(a_select2(s_values7,pv1325),a_select2(s_values7,s_sworst7))
& leq(a_select2(s_values7,pv1325),a_select2(s_values7,s_best7))
& leq(pv1325,n3)
& leq(s_worst7,n3)
& leq(s_sworst7,n3)
& leq(s_best7,n3)
& leq(n2,pv1325)
& leq(n0,s_worst7)
& leq(n0,s_sworst7)
& leq(n0,s_best7)
& ~ leq(a_select2(s_values7,pv1325),a_select2(s_values7,s_worst7)) )
=> leq(n0,pv1325) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
( ~ leq(succ(X1),X2)
| leq(X1,X2) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
succ(n1) = n2,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).
fof(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
( ~ leq(n0,pv1325)
& leq(a_select2(s_values7,pv1325),a_select2(s_values7,s_sworst7))
& leq(a_select2(s_values7,pv1325),a_select2(s_values7,s_best7))
& leq(pv1325,n3)
& leq(s_worst7,n3)
& leq(s_sworst7,n3)
& leq(s_best7,n3)
& leq(n2,pv1325)
& leq(n0,s_worst7)
& leq(n0,s_sworst7)
& leq(n0,s_best7)
& ~ leq(a_select2(s_values7,pv1325),a_select2(s_values7,s_worst7)) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_12])]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
( ~ leq(n2,X1)
| leq(n1,X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
leq(n2,pv1325),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,plain,
( ~ leq(n1,X1)
| leq(n0,X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
leq(n1,pv1325),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,negated_conjecture,
~ leq(n0,pv1325),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_18,c_0_19]),c_0_20]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : SWV134+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.44 % Computer : n004.cluster.edu
% 0.16/0.44 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.16/0.44 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.16/0.44 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.16/0.44 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.16/0.44 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.16/0.44 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.16/0.44 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 08:32:21 UTC 2026
% 0.16/0.45 % CPUTime :
% 0.16/0.45 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.26/0.51 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.26/0.52 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
% 0.26/0.56 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.26/0.56 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.56 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.56 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.56 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.56 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.56 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.56 % new_bool_1 with pid 2719304 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.56 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.26/0.56 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.56 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.56 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.56 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.56 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.56 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.26/0.56 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.26/0.56 % Search class: FGUSM-FFMM21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.56 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.26/0.56 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.56 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2719306 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.56 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.26/0.56 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.56 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.56 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.56 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.56 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.56 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.26/0.56 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.26/0.56 % Search class: FGUSM-FFMM21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.56 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.26/0.56 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.56 % Preprocessing time : 0.003 s
% 0.26/0.56
% 0.26/0.56 % Proof found!
% 0.26/0.56 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.26/0.56 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.26/0.56 % Parsed axioms : 85
% 0.26/0.56 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 29
% 0.26/0.56 % Initial clauses : 69
% 0.26/0.56 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.26/0.56 % Initial clauses in saturation : 69
% 0.26/0.56 % Processed clauses : 183
% 0.26/0.56 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.26/0.56 % ...subsumed : 45
% 0.26/0.56 % ...remaining for further processing : 138
% 0.26/0.56 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.26/0.56 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.26/0.56 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.26/0.56 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.26/0.56 % Generated clauses : 280
% 0.26/0.56 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 194
% 0.26/0.56 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.26/0.56 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.26/0.56 % Paramodulations : 278
% 0.26/0.56 % Factorizations : 2
% 0.26/0.56 % NegExts : 0
% 0.26/0.56 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.26/0.56 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.26/0.56 % Total rewrite steps : 158
% 0.26/0.56 % ...of those cached : 121
% 0.26/0.56 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.26/0.56 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.26/0.56 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.26/0.56 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.26/0.56 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.26/0.56 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.26/0.56 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.56 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.56 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.56 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.56 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.56 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.56 % Current number of processed clauses : 138
% 0.26/0.56 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 70
% 0.26/0.56 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.26/0.56 % Negative unit clauses : 31
% 0.26/0.56 % Non-unit-clauses : 37
% 0.26/0.56 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 79
% 0.26/0.56 % ...number of literals in the above : 224
% 0.26/0.56 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.26/0.56 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.26/0.56 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 160
% 0.26/0.56 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 87
% 0.26/0.56 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 6
% 0.26/0.56 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 225
% 0.26/0.56 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.26/0.56 % BW rewrite match attempts : 8
% 0.26/0.56 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.26/0.56 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.26/0.56 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.26/0.56 % Termbank termtop insertions : 6162
% 0.26/0.56 % Search garbage collected termcells : 646
% 0.26/0.56
% 0.26/0.56 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.56 % User time : 0.012 s
% 0.26/0.56 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.26/0.56 % Total time : 0.018 s
% 0.26/0.56 % Maximum resident set size: 3740 pages
% 0.26/0.56
% 0.26/0.56 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.56 % User time : 0.017 s
% 0.26/0.56 % System time : 0.013 s
% 0.26/0.56 % Total time : 0.030 s
% 0.26/0.56 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.26/0.56 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------