%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SWV232+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v3.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/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 02:54:00 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.07s 0.53s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.07s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 8
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 20 ( 11 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 160 ( 102 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 29 ( 8 avg)
% Number of connectives : 206 ( 66 ~; 24 |; 102 &)
% ( 1 <=>; 13 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 17 ( 6 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 10 ( 10 usr; 8 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 28 ( 2 sgn 23 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(quaternion_ds1_symm_0841,conjecture,
( ! [X14,X18] :
( ( leq(X18,n5)
& leq(X14,n5)
& leq(n0,X18)
& leq(n0,X14) )
=> a_select3(q_ds1_filter,X14,X18) = a_select3(q_ds1_filter,X18,X14) )
=> ! [X4,X20] :
( ( leq(X20,n2)
& leq(X4,n2)
& leq(n0,X20)
& leq(n0,X4) )
=> ( ( n2 = X4
& n1 = X20
& n1 = X4
& n0 = X20
& ~ ( n2 = X20
& n2 = X4 )
& ~ ( n2 = X4
& n1 = X20 )
& ~ ( n2 = X20
& n1 = X4 )
& ~ ( n1 = X20
& n1 = X4 )
& ~ ( n2 = X4
& n0 = X20 )
& ~ ( n2 = X20
& n0 = X4 )
& ~ ( n1 = X20
& n0 = X4 ) )
=> a_select2(rho,n1) = n0 ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',quaternion_ds1_symm_0841) ).
fof(irreflexivity_gt,axiom,
! [X1] : ~ gt(X1,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SWV003+0.ax',irreflexivity_gt) ).
fof(gt_1_0,axiom,
gt(n1,n0),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',gt_1_0) ).
fof(c_0_3,plain,
! [X20,X4] :
( epred1_2(X4,X20)
<=> ( n2 = X4
& n1 = X20
& n1 = X4
& n0 = X20
& ~ ( n2 = X20
& n2 = X4 )
& ~ ( n2 = X4
& n1 = X20 )
& ~ ( n2 = X20
& n1 = X4 )
& ~ ( n1 = X20
& n1 = X4 )
& ~ ( n2 = X4
& n0 = X20 )
& ~ ( n2 = X20
& n0 = X4 )
& ~ ( n1 = X20
& n0 = X4 ) ) ),
introduced(definition) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ( ! [X14,X18] :
( ( leq(X18,n5)
& leq(X14,n5)
& leq(n0,X18)
& leq(n0,X14) )
=> a_select3(q_ds1_filter,X14,X18) = a_select3(q_ds1_filter,X18,X14) )
=> ! [X4,X20] :
( ( leq(X20,n2)
& leq(X4,n2)
& leq(n0,X20)
& leq(n0,X4) )
=> ( ( n2 = X4
& n1 = X20
& n1 = X4
& n0 = X20
& ~ ( n2 = X20
& n2 = X4 )
& ~ ( n2 = X4
& n1 = X20 )
& ~ ( n2 = X20
& n1 = X4 )
& ~ ( n1 = X20
& n1 = X4 )
& ~ ( n2 = X4
& n0 = X20 )
& ~ ( n2 = X20
& n0 = X4 )
& ~ ( n1 = X20
& n0 = X4 ) )
=> a_select2(rho,n1) = n0 ) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[quaternion_ds1_symm_0841]) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X20,X4] :
( epred1_2(X4,X20)
=> ( n2 = X4
& n1 = X20
& n1 = X4
& n0 = X20
& ~ ( n2 = X20
& n2 = X4 )
& ~ ( n2 = X4
& n1 = X20 )
& ~ ( n2 = X20
& n1 = X4 )
& ~ ( n1 = X20
& n1 = X4 )
& ~ ( n2 = X4
& n0 = X20 )
& ~ ( n2 = X20
& n0 = X4 )
& ~ ( n1 = X20
& n0 = X4 ) ) ),
inference(split_equiv,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
fof(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
~ ( ! [X14,X18] :
( ( leq(X18,n5)
& leq(X14,n5)
& leq(n0,X18)
& leq(n0,X14) )
=> a_select3(q_ds1_filter,X14,X18) = a_select3(q_ds1_filter,X18,X14) )
=> ! [X4,X20] :
( ( leq(X20,n2)
& leq(X4,n2)
& leq(n0,X20)
& leq(n0,X4) )
=> ( epred1_2(X4,X20)
=> a_select2(rho,n1) = n0 ) ) ),
inference(apply_def,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_3]) ).
fof(c_0_7,plain,
! [X71,X72] :
( ( ~ epred1_2(X72,X71)
| n2 = X72 )
& ( ~ epred1_2(X72,X71)
| n1 = X71 )
& ( ~ epred1_2(X72,X71)
| n1 = X72 )
& ( ~ epred1_2(X72,X71)
| n0 = X71 )
& ( ~ epred1_2(X72,X71)
| n2 != X71
| n2 != X72 )
& ( ~ epred1_2(X72,X71)
| n2 != X72
| n1 != X71 )
& ( ~ epred1_2(X72,X71)
| n2 != X71
| n1 != X72 )
& ( ~ epred1_2(X72,X71)
| n1 != X71
| n1 != X72 )
& ( ~ epred1_2(X72,X71)
| n2 != X72
| n0 != X71 )
& ( ~ epred1_2(X72,X71)
| n2 != X71
| n0 != X72 )
& ( ~ epred1_2(X72,X71)
| n1 != X71
| n0 != X72 ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_5])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
! [X28,X29] :
( a_select2(rho,n1) != n0
& epred1_2(esk1_0,esk2_0)
& leq(esk2_0,n2)
& leq(esk1_0,n2)
& leq(n0,esk2_0)
& leq(n0,esk1_0)
& ( a_select3(q_ds1_filter,X28,X29) = a_select3(q_ds1_filter,X29,X28)
| ~ leq(X29,n5)
| ~ leq(X28,n5)
| ~ leq(n0,X29)
| ~ leq(n0,X28) ) ),
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_6])])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ epred1_2(X2,X1)
| n0 = X1 ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
epred1_2(esk1_0,esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
esk2_0 = n0,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
fof(c_0_12,plain,
! [X1] : ~ gt(X1,X1),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[irreflexivity_gt]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
( ~ epred1_2(X2,X1)
| n1 = X1 ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
epred1_2(esk1_0,n0),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).
fof(c_0_15,plain,
! [X63] : ~ gt(X63,X63),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[c_0_12])]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
gt(n1,n0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[gt_1_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
n1 = n0,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,plain,
~ gt(X1,X1),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,plain,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]),c_0_18]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.01 % Problem : SWV232+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.02 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.05/0.49 % Computer : n012.cluster.edu
% 0.05/0.49 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.05/0.49 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.05/0.49 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.05/0.49 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.05/0.49 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.05/0.49 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.05/0.49 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 08:35:07 UTC 2026
% 0.05/0.50 % CPUTime :
% 0.05/0.50 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.05/0.52 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.05/0.52 Running: /export/starexec/sandbox/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/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.07/0.53 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.07/0.53 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.07/0.53 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.07/0.53 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.07/0.53 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.07/0.53 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.07/0.53 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.07/0.53 % new_bool_3 with pid 2002184 completed with status 0
% 0.07/0.53 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.07/0.53 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.07/0.53 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.07/0.53 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.07/0.53 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.07/0.53 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.07/0.53 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.07/0.53 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.07/0.53 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.07/0.53 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.07/0.53 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2002187 completed with status 0
% 0.07/0.53 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.07/0.53 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.07/0.53 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.07/0.53 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.07/0.53 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.07/0.53 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.07/0.53 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.07/0.53 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.07/0.53 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.07/0.53 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.07/0.53 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.07/0.53
% 0.07/0.53 % Proof found!
% 0.07/0.53 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.07/0.53 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.07/0.53 % Parsed axioms : 85
% 0.07/0.53 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 29
% 0.07/0.53 % Initial clauses : 75
% 0.07/0.53 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.07/0.53 % Initial clauses in saturation : 75
% 0.07/0.53 % Processed clauses : 42
% 0.07/0.53 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.07/0.53 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.07/0.53 % ...remaining for further processing : 42
% 0.07/0.53 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.07/0.53 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.07/0.53 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.07/0.53 % Backward-rewritten : 15
% 0.07/0.53 % Generated clauses : 6
% 0.07/0.53 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 8
% 0.07/0.53 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.07/0.53 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.07/0.53 % Paramodulations : 6
% 0.07/0.53 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.07/0.53 % NegExts : 0
% 0.07/0.53 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.07/0.53 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.07/0.53 % Total rewrite steps : 26
% 0.07/0.53 % ...of those cached : 13
% 0.07/0.53 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.07/0.53 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.07/0.53 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.07/0.53 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.07/0.53 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.07/0.53 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.07/0.53 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.07/0.53 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.07/0.53 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.07/0.53 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.07/0.53 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.07/0.53 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.07/0.53 % Current number of processed clauses : 27
% 0.07/0.53 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 25
% 0.07/0.53 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.07/0.53 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.07/0.53 % Non-unit-clauses : 1
% 0.07/0.53 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 37
% 0.07/0.53 % ...number of literals in the above : 99
% 0.07/0.53 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.07/0.53 % Current number of archived clauses : 15
% 0.07/0.53 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.07/0.53 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.07/0.53 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.07/0.53 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.07/0.53 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.07/0.53 % BW rewrite match attempts : 6
% 0.07/0.53 % BW rewrite match successes : 2
% 0.07/0.53 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.07/0.53 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.07/0.53 % Termbank termtop insertions : 4081
% 0.07/0.53 % Search garbage collected termcells : 804
% 0.07/0.53
% 0.07/0.53 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.07/0.53 % User time : 0.004 s
% 0.07/0.53 % System time : 0.001 s
% 0.07/0.53 % Total time : 0.005 s
% 0.07/0.53 % Maximum resident set size: 3744 pages
% 0.07/0.53
% 0.07/0.53 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.07/0.53 % User time : 0.005 s
% 0.07/0.53 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.07/0.53 % Total time : 0.009 s
% 0.07/0.53 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.07/0.53 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------