%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SWV243-2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.2.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n005.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 02:54:03 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.14s 10.46s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.14s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 3
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 9 ( 9 unt; 0 nHn; 4 RR)
% Number of literals : 9 ( 8 equ; 3 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 0 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 6 ( 6 usr; 3 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 9 ( 2 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
c_Message_Oanalz(c_Message_Osynth(v_H)) != c_union(c_Message_Oanalz(v_H),c_Message_Osynth(v_H),tc_Message_Omsg),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_0) ).
cnf(cls_Message_Oanalz__synth__Un_0,axiom,
c_Message_Oanalz(c_union(c_Message_Osynth(X1),X2,tc_Message_Omsg)) = c_union(c_Message_Oanalz(c_union(X1,X2,tc_Message_Omsg)),c_Message_Osynth(X1),tc_Message_Omsg),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_Message_Oanalz__synth__Un_0) ).
cnf(cls_Set_OUn__empty__right_0,axiom,
c_union(X1,c_emptyset,X2) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_Set_OUn__empty__right_0) ).
cnf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
c_Message_Oanalz(c_Message_Osynth(v_H)) != c_union(c_Message_Oanalz(v_H),c_Message_Osynth(v_H),tc_Message_Omsg),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_4,axiom,
c_Message_Oanalz(c_union(c_Message_Osynth(X1),X2,tc_Message_Omsg)) = c_union(c_Message_Oanalz(c_union(X1,X2,tc_Message_Omsg)),c_Message_Osynth(X1),tc_Message_Omsg),
cls_Message_Oanalz__synth__Un_0 ).
cnf(c_0_5,axiom,
c_union(X1,c_emptyset,X2) = X1,
cls_Set_OUn__empty__right_0 ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
c_Message_Oanalz(c_Message_Osynth(v_H)) != c_union(c_Message_Oanalz(v_H),c_Message_Osynth(v_H),tc_Message_Omsg),
c_0_3 ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
c_union(c_Message_Oanalz(X1),c_Message_Osynth(X1),tc_Message_Omsg) = c_Message_Oanalz(c_Message_Osynth(X1)),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_5]),c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SWV243-2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/10.38 % Computer : n005.cluster.edu
% 0.10/10.38 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/10.38 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/10.38 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/10.38 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/10.38 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/10.38 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/10.38 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 08:35:59 UTC 2026
% 0.10/10.38 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/10.38 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.14/10.42 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.14/10.42 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
% 0.14/10.46 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.14/10.46 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/10.46 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/10.46 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/10.46 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/10.46 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/10.46 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/10.46 % sh5l with pid 3039847 completed with status 0
% 0.14/10.46 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.14/10.46 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/10.46 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/10.46 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/10.46 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/10.46 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/10.46 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/10.46 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.14/10.46 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.14/10.46 % Search class: FUUPS-FFSF31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.14/10.46 % partial match(1): FUUPS-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.14/10.46 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.14/10.46 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.14/10.46 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3039849 completed with status 0
% 0.14/10.46 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.14/10.46 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/10.46 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/10.46 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/10.46 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/10.46 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/10.46 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/10.46 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.14/10.46 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.14/10.46 % Search class: FUUPS-FFSF31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.14/10.46 % partial match(1): FUUPS-FFSF21-MFFFFFNN
% 0.14/10.46 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.14/10.46 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.14/10.46 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.14/10.46
% 0.14/10.46 % Proof found!
% 0.14/10.46 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.14/10.46 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.14/10.46 % Parsed axioms : 3
% 0.14/10.46 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.14/10.46 % Initial clauses : 3
% 0.14/10.46 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.14/10.46 % Initial clauses in saturation : 3
% 0.14/10.46 % Processed clauses : 4
% 0.14/10.46 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.14/10.46 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.14/10.46 % ...remaining for further processing : 4
% 0.14/10.46 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.14/10.46 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.14/10.46 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.14/10.46 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.14/10.46 % Generated clauses : 3
% 0.14/10.46 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 2
% 0.14/10.46 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.14/10.46 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.14/10.46 % Paramodulations : 3
% 0.14/10.46 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.14/10.46 % NegExts : 0
% 0.14/10.46 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.14/10.46 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.14/10.46 % Total rewrite steps : 2
% 0.14/10.46 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.14/10.46 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.14/10.46 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.14/10.46 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.14/10.46 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.14/10.46 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.14/10.46 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.14/10.46 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.14/10.46 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/10.46 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/10.46 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.14/10.46 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/10.46 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/10.46 % Current number of processed clauses : 3
% 0.14/10.46 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 3
% 0.14/10.46 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.14/10.46 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.14/10.46 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.14/10.46 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 1
% 0.14/10.46 % ...number of literals in the above : 1
% 0.14/10.46 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.14/10.46 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.14/10.46 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.14/10.46 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.14/10.46 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.14/10.46 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.14/10.46 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.14/10.46 % BW rewrite match attempts : 2
% 0.14/10.46 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.14/10.46 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.14/10.46 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.14/10.46 % Termbank termtop insertions : 140
% 0.14/10.46 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2
% 0.14/10.46
% 0.14/10.46 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/10.46 % User time : 0.001 s
% 0.14/10.46 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.14/10.46 % Total time : 0.004 s
% 0.14/10.46 % Maximum resident set size: 3628 pages
% 0.14/10.46
% 0.14/10.46 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/10.46 % User time : 0.004 s
% 0.14/10.46 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.14/10.46 % Total time : 0.009 s
% 0.14/10.46 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.14/10.46 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------