%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SWV256-1 : 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 : n001.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 02:54:06 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.20s 0.49s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.20s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 3
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 9 ( 6 unt; 0 nHn; 7 RR)
% Number of literals : 12 ( 0 equ; 6 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 2 con; 0-1 aty)
% Number of variables : 8 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
~ c_lessequals(c_Message_Oparts(c_Message_Oanalz(v_H)),c_Message_Oparts(v_H),tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_0) ).
cnf(cls_Message_Oparts__subset__iff_1,axiom,
( ~ c_lessequals(X1,c_Message_Oparts(X2),tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg))
| c_lessequals(c_Message_Oparts(X1),c_Message_Oparts(X2),tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_Message_Oparts__subset__iff_1) ).
cnf(cls_Message_Oanalz__subset__parts_0,axiom,
c_lessequals(c_Message_Oanalz(X1),c_Message_Oparts(X1),tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_Message_Oanalz__subset__parts_0) ).
cnf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ c_lessequals(c_Message_Oparts(c_Message_Oanalz(v_H)),c_Message_Oparts(v_H),tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_4,plain,
( ~ c_lessequals(X1,c_Message_Oparts(X2),tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg))
| c_lessequals(c_Message_Oparts(X1),c_Message_Oparts(X2),tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_Message_Oparts__subset__iff_1]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ c_lessequals(c_Message_Oparts(c_Message_Oanalz(v_H)),c_Message_Oparts(v_H),tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)),
c_0_3 ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ c_lessequals(X1,c_Message_Oparts(X2),tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg))
| c_lessequals(c_Message_Oparts(X1),c_Message_Oparts(X2),tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)) ),
c_0_4 ).
cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
c_lessequals(c_Message_Oanalz(X1),c_Message_Oparts(X1),tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)),
cls_Message_Oanalz__subset__parts_0 ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]),c_0_7])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SWV256-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.37 % Computer : n001.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/0.38 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 08:42:00 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.38 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/0.38 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.42 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.11/0.42 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
% 0.20/0.49 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.20/0.49 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.20/0.49 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.20/0.49 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.20/0.49 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.20/0.49 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.20/0.49 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.20/0.49 % new_bool_3 with pid 2706107 completed with status 0
% 0.20/0.49 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.20/0.49 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.20/0.49 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.20/0.49 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.20/0.49 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.20/0.49 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.20/0.49 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.20/0.49 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.20/0.49 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.20/0.49 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.20/0.49 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2706110 completed with status 0
% 0.20/0.49 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.20/0.49 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.20/0.49 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.20/0.49 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.20/0.49 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.20/0.49 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.20/0.49 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.20/0.49 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.20/0.49 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.20/0.49 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.20/0.49 % Preprocessing time : 0.005 s
% 0.20/0.49
% 0.20/0.49 % Proof found!
% 0.20/0.49 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.20/0.49 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.20/0.49 % Parsed axioms : 2793
% 0.20/0.49 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 2528
% 0.20/0.49 % Initial clauses : 265
% 0.20/0.49 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.20/0.49 % Initial clauses in saturation : 265
% 0.20/0.49 % Processed clauses : 275
% 0.20/0.49 % ...of these trivial : 6
% 0.20/0.49 % ...subsumed : 104
% 0.20/0.49 % ...remaining for further processing : 165
% 0.20/0.49 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 7
% 0.20/0.49 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.20/0.49 % Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.20/0.49 % Backward-rewritten : 10
% 0.20/0.49 % Generated clauses : 332
% 0.20/0.49 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 186
% 0.20/0.49 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.20/0.49 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.20/0.49 % Paramodulations : 318
% 0.20/0.49 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.20/0.49 % NegExts : 0
% 0.20/0.49 % Equation resolutions : 14
% 0.20/0.49 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.20/0.49 % Total rewrite steps : 162
% 0.20/0.49 % ...of those cached : 85
% 0.20/0.49 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.20/0.49 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.20/0.49 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.20/0.49 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.20/0.49 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.20/0.49 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.20/0.49 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.20/0.49 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.20/0.49 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.20/0.49 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.20/0.49 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.20/0.49 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.20/0.49 % Current number of processed clauses : 154
% 0.20/0.49 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 69
% 0.20/0.49 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.20/0.49 % Negative unit clauses : 30
% 0.20/0.49 % Non-unit-clauses : 55
% 0.20/0.49 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 176
% 0.20/0.49 % ...number of literals in the above : 329
% 0.20/0.49 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.20/0.49 % Current number of archived clauses : 11
% 0.20/0.49 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 632
% 0.20/0.49 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 325
% 0.20/0.49 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 19
% 0.20/0.49 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 178
% 0.20/0.49 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.20/0.49 % BW rewrite match attempts : 48
% 0.20/0.49 % BW rewrite match successes : 10
% 0.20/0.49 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.20/0.49 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.20/0.49 % Termbank termtop insertions : 29886
% 0.20/0.49 % Search garbage collected termcells : 7723
% 0.20/0.49
% 0.20/0.49 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.49 % User time : 0.022 s
% 0.20/0.49 % System time : 0.010 s
% 0.20/0.49 % Total time : 0.031 s
% 0.20/0.49 % Maximum resident set size: 6456 pages
% 0.20/0.49
% 0.20/0.49 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.20/0.49 % User time : 0.042 s
% 0.20/0.49 % System time : 0.019 s
% 0.20/0.49 % Total time : 0.060 s
% 0.20/0.49 % Maximum resident set size: 6656 pages
% 0.20/0.49 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------