%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SWV152+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 : n012.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 02:53:50 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.09s 0.38s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.09s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 6
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 25 ( 12 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 46 ( 9 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 37 ( 16 ~; 10 |; 6 &)
% ( 1 <=>; 4 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 6 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 10 ( 10 usr; 7 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 22 ( 0 sgn 15 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(leq_succ,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( leq(X1,X2)
=> leq(X1,succ(X2)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SWV003+0.ax',leq_succ) ).
fof(cl5_nebula_norm_0002,conjecture,
! [X14] :
( ( leq(X14,tptp_minus_1)
& leq(n0,X14) )
=> sum(n0,n4,a_select3(q,X14,tptp_sum_index)) = n1 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cl5_nebula_norm_0002) ).
fof(succ_tptp_minus_1,axiom,
succ(tptp_minus_1) = n0,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SWV003+0.ax',succ_tptp_minus_1) ).
fof(leq_succ_gt_equiv,axiom,
! [X1,X2] :
( leq(X1,X2)
<=> gt(succ(X2),X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SWV003+0.ax',leq_succ_gt_equiv) ).
fof(finite_domain_0,axiom,
! [X1] :
( ( leq(X1,n0)
& leq(n0,X1) )
=> X1 = n0 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',finite_domain_0) ).
fof(irreflexivity_gt,axiom,
! [X1] : ~ gt(X1,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SWV003+0.ax',irreflexivity_gt) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X46,X47] :
( leq(X46,succ(X47))
| ~ leq(X46,X47) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[leq_succ])])]) ).
fof(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X14] :
( ( leq(X14,tptp_minus_1)
& leq(n0,X14) )
=> sum(n0,n4,a_select3(q,X14,tptp_sum_index)) = n1 ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[cl5_nebula_norm_0002]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ leq(X1,X2)
| leq(X1,succ(X2)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
succ(tptp_minus_1) = n0,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[succ_tptp_minus_1]) ).
fof(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
( sum(n0,n4,a_select3(q,esk1_0,tptp_sum_index)) != n1
& leq(esk1_0,tptp_minus_1)
& leq(n0,esk1_0) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_7])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_11,plain,
! [X48,X49] :
( ( leq(X48,X49)
| ~ gt(succ(X49),X48) )
& ( gt(succ(X49),X48)
| ~ leq(X48,X49) ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[leq_succ_gt_equiv])])]) ).
fof(c_0_12,plain,
! [X37] :
( X37 = n0
| ~ leq(X37,n0)
| ~ leq(n0,X37) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[finite_domain_0])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
( ~ leq(X1,tptp_minus_1)
| leq(X1,n0) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
leq(esk1_0,tptp_minus_1),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
fof(c_0_15,plain,
! [X1] : ~ gt(X1,X1),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[irreflexivity_gt]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
( ~ leq(X1,X2)
| gt(succ(X2),X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,plain,
( ~ leq(X1,n0)
| ~ leq(n0,X1)
| X1 = n0 ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
leq(esk1_0,n0),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
leq(n0,esk1_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
fof(c_0_20,plain,
! [X59] : ~ gt(X59,X59),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[c_0_15])]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,negated_conjecture,
gt(n0,esk1_0),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_14]),c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_22,negated_conjecture,
esk1_0 = n0,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_18]),c_0_19])]) ).
cnf(c_0_23,plain,
~ gt(X1,X1),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_20]) ).
cnf(c_0_24,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_21,c_0_22]),c_0_23]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.01 % Problem : SWV152+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.02 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.03/0.30 % Computer : n012.cluster.edu
% 0.03/0.30 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.03/0.30 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.03/0.30 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.03/0.30 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.03/0.30 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.03/0.30 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.03/0.30 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 08:33:06 UTC 2026
% 0.03/0.30 % CPUTime :
% 0.03/0.30 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.03/0.34 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.03/0.34 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
% 0.09/0.38 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.09/0.38 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.09/0.38 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.09/0.38 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.09/0.38 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.38 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.38 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.38 % new_bool_3 with pid 1995699 completed with status 0
% 0.09/0.38 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.09/0.38 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.09/0.38 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.09/0.38 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.09/0.38 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.38 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.09/0.38 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.09/0.38 % Search class: FGUSM-FFMM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.09/0.38 % partial match(1): FGHSM-FFMM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.09/0.38 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.09/0.38 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.38 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1995702 completed with status 0
% 0.09/0.38 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.09/0.38 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.09/0.38 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.09/0.38 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.09/0.38 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.38 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.09/0.38 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.09/0.38 % Search class: FGUSM-FFMM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.09/0.38 % partial match(1): FGHSM-FFMM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.09/0.38 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.09/0.38 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.38 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.09/0.38
% 0.09/0.38 % Proof found!
% 0.09/0.38 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.09/0.38 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.09/0.38 % Parsed axioms : 85
% 0.09/0.38 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 28
% 0.09/0.38 % Initial clauses : 61
% 0.09/0.38 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.09/0.38 % Initial clauses in saturation : 61
% 0.09/0.38 % Processed clauses : 93
% 0.09/0.38 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.09/0.38 % ...subsumed : 4
% 0.09/0.38 % ...remaining for further processing : 89
% 0.09/0.38 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.09/0.38 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.09/0.38 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.09/0.38 % Backward-rewritten : 10
% 0.09/0.38 % Generated clauses : 121
% 0.09/0.38 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 85
% 0.09/0.38 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.09/0.38 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.09/0.38 % Paramodulations : 119
% 0.09/0.38 % Factorizations : 2
% 0.09/0.38 % NegExts : 0
% 0.09/0.38 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.09/0.38 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.09/0.38 % Total rewrite steps : 72
% 0.09/0.38 % ...of those cached : 44
% 0.09/0.38 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.09/0.38 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.09/0.38 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.09/0.38 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.09/0.38 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.09/0.38 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.09/0.38 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.38 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.38 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.38 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.38 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.38 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.38 % Current number of processed clauses : 79
% 0.09/0.38 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 38
% 0.09/0.38 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.09/0.38 % Negative unit clauses : 11
% 0.09/0.38 % Non-unit-clauses : 30
% 0.09/0.38 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 52
% 0.09/0.38 % ...number of literals in the above : 134
% 0.09/0.38 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.09/0.38 % Current number of archived clauses : 10
% 0.09/0.38 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 19
% 0.09/0.38 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 19
% 0.09/0.38 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.09/0.38 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 61
% 0.09/0.38 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.09/0.38 % BW rewrite match attempts : 3
% 0.09/0.38 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.09/0.38 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.09/0.38 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.09/0.38 % Termbank termtop insertions : 4277
% 0.09/0.38 % Search garbage collected termcells : 590
% 0.09/0.38
% 0.09/0.38 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.09/0.38 % User time : 0.008 s
% 0.09/0.38 % System time : 0.001 s
% 0.09/0.38 % Total time : 0.009 s
% 0.09/0.38 % Maximum resident set size: 3736 pages
% 0.09/0.38
% 0.09/0.38 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.09/0.38 % User time : 0.011 s
% 0.09/0.38 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.09/0.38 % Total time : 0.016 s
% 0.09/0.38 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.09/0.38 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------