%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SWV174+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 : 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 02:53:53 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.15s 0.44s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.15s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 17 ( 10 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 71 ( 14 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 16 ( 4 avg)
% Number of connectives : 71 ( 17 ~; 13 |; 28 &)
% ( 1 <=>; 12 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 14 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 12 ( 12 usr; 9 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 24 ( 0 sgn 19 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(cl5_nebula_init_0046,conjecture,
( ( ! [X4] :
( ( leq(X4,n4)
& leq(n0,X4) )
=> a_select3(center_init,X4,n0) = init )
& ! [X14] :
( ( leq(X14,pred(pv10))
& leq(n0,X14) )
=> ! [X18] :
( ( leq(X18,n4)
& leq(n0,X18) )
=> a_select3(q_init,X14,X18) = init ) )
& leq(pv10,n135299)
& leq(n0,pv10) )
=> ! [X20,X21] :
( ( leq(X21,n4)
& leq(X20,n135299)
& leq(n0,X21)
& leq(n0,X20) )
=> ( gt(pv10,X20)
=> a_select3(q_init,X20,X21) = init ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cl5_nebula_init_0046) ).
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(succ_pred,axiom,
! [X1] : succ(pred(X1)) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SWV003+0.ax',succ_pred) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ( ( ! [X4] :
( ( leq(X4,n4)
& leq(n0,X4) )
=> a_select3(center_init,X4,n0) = init )
& ! [X14] :
( ( leq(X14,pred(pv10))
& leq(n0,X14) )
=> ! [X18] :
( ( leq(X18,n4)
& leq(n0,X18) )
=> a_select3(q_init,X14,X18) = init ) )
& leq(pv10,n135299)
& leq(n0,pv10) )
=> ! [X20,X21] :
( ( leq(X21,n4)
& leq(X20,n135299)
& leq(n0,X21)
& leq(n0,X20) )
=> ( gt(pv10,X20)
=> a_select3(q_init,X20,X21) = init ) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[cl5_nebula_init_0046]) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
! [X28,X29,X30] :
( a_select3(q_init,esk1_0,esk2_0) != init
& gt(pv10,esk1_0)
& leq(esk2_0,n4)
& leq(esk1_0,n135299)
& leq(n0,esk2_0)
& leq(n0,esk1_0)
& ( a_select3(center_init,X30,n0) = init
| ~ leq(X30,n4)
| ~ leq(n0,X30) )
& ( a_select3(q_init,X28,X29) = init
| ~ leq(X29,n4)
| ~ leq(n0,X29)
| ~ leq(X28,pred(pv10))
| ~ leq(n0,X28) )
& leq(pv10,n135299)
& leq(n0,pv10) ),
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_3])])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
a_select3(q_init,esk1_0,esk2_0) != init,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( ~ leq(X2,n4)
| ~ leq(n0,X2)
| ~ leq(X1,pred(pv10))
| ~ leq(n0,X1)
| a_select3(q_init,X1,X2) = init ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
leq(esk2_0,n4),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
leq(n0,esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
leq(n0,esk1_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
fof(c_0_10,plain,
! [X49,X50] :
( ( leq(X49,X50)
| ~ gt(succ(X50),X49) )
& ( gt(succ(X50),X49)
| ~ leq(X49,X50) ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[leq_succ_gt_equiv])])]) ).
fof(c_0_11,plain,
! [X63] : succ(pred(X63)) = X63,
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[succ_pred]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
~ leq(esk1_0,pred(pv10)),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]),c_0_7]),c_0_8]),c_0_9])]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
( ~ gt(succ(X1),X2)
| leq(X2,X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
succ(pred(X1)) = X1,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
gt(pv10,esk1_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]),c_0_14]),c_0_15])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : SWV174+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.36 % Computer : n011.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.36 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.36 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.36 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 08:33:40 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.40 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/0.40 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
% 0.15/0.44 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.15/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % new_bool_3 with pid 1471674 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.15/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.15/0.44 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.15/0.44 % Search class: FGUSM-FFMM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.44 % partial match(1): FGHSM-FFMM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.44 % Scheduled 13 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1471678 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.15/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.15/0.44 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.15/0.44 % Search class: FGUSM-FFMM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.44 % partial match(1): FGHSM-FFMM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.44 % Scheduled 13 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.15/0.44
% 0.15/0.44 % Proof found!
% 0.15/0.44 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.15/0.44 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.15/0.44 % Parsed axioms : 92
% 0.15/0.44 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 26
% 0.15/0.44 % Initial clauses : 78
% 0.15/0.44 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Initial clauses in saturation : 78
% 0.15/0.44 % Processed clauses : 320
% 0.15/0.44 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % ...subsumed : 107
% 0.15/0.44 % ...remaining for further processing : 213
% 0.15/0.44 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.15/0.44 % Backward-rewritten : 6
% 0.15/0.44 % Generated clauses : 768
% 0.15/0.44 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 510
% 0.15/0.44 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Paramodulations : 766
% 0.15/0.44 % Factorizations : 2
% 0.15/0.44 % NegExts : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Total rewrite steps : 356
% 0.15/0.44 % ...of those cached : 305
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.44 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.44 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.44 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.44 % Current number of processed clauses : 206
% 0.15/0.44 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 88
% 0.15/0.44 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Negative unit clauses : 29
% 0.15/0.44 % Non-unit-clauses : 89
% 0.15/0.44 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 267
% 0.15/0.44 % ...number of literals in the above : 705
% 0.15/0.44 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Current number of archived clauses : 7
% 0.15/0.44 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 320
% 0.15/0.44 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 255
% 0.15/0.44 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 27
% 0.15/0.44 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 460
% 0.15/0.44 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % BW rewrite match attempts : 7
% 0.15/0.44 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.15/0.44 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Termbank termtop insertions : 10162
% 0.15/0.44 % Search garbage collected termcells : 780
% 0.15/0.44
% 0.15/0.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.44 % User time : 0.012 s
% 0.15/0.44 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.15/0.44 % Total time : 0.014 s
% 0.15/0.44 % Maximum resident set size: 3744 pages
% 0.15/0.44
% 0.15/0.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.44 % User time : 0.015 s
% 0.15/0.44 % System time : 0.008 s
% 0.15/0.44 % Total time : 0.023 s
% 0.15/0.44 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.15/0.44 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------