%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SWV267-1 : 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 : n013.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 02:54:09 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.19s 0.49s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.19s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 12 ( 8 unt; 0 nHn; 10 RR)
% Number of literals : 19 ( 0 equ; 10 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 3 con; 0-1 aty)
% Number of variables : 16 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_Set_Osubset__trans_0,axiom,
( ~ c_lessequals(X4,X1,tc_set(X3))
| ~ c_lessequals(X1,X2,tc_set(X3))
| c_lessequals(X4,X2,tc_set(X3)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_Set_Osubset__trans_0) ).
cnf(cls_Message_Oparts__increasing_0,axiom,
c_lessequals(X1,c_Message_Oparts(X1),tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_Message_Oparts__increasing_0) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_1,negated_conjecture,
~ c_lessequals(v_G,c_Message_Oparts(v_H),tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_1) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
c_lessequals(c_Message_Oparts(v_G),c_Message_Oparts(v_H),tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_0) ).
cnf(c_0_4,plain,
( ~ c_lessequals(X4,X1,tc_set(X3))
| ~ c_lessequals(X1,X2,tc_set(X3))
| c_lessequals(X4,X2,tc_set(X3)) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_Set_Osubset__trans_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,plain,
( ~ c_lessequals(X4,X1,tc_set(X3))
| ~ c_lessequals(X1,X2,tc_set(X3))
| c_lessequals(X4,X2,tc_set(X3)) ),
c_0_4 ).
cnf(c_0_6,axiom,
c_lessequals(X1,c_Message_Oparts(X1),tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)),
cls_Message_Oparts__increasing_0 ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
~ c_lessequals(v_G,c_Message_Oparts(v_H),tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_1]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ c_lessequals(c_Message_Oparts(X1),X2,tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg))
| c_lessequals(X1,X2,tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
c_lessequals(c_Message_Oparts(v_G),c_Message_Oparts(v_H),tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)),
cls_conjecture_0 ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
~ c_lessequals(v_G,c_Message_Oparts(v_H),tc_set(tc_Message_Omsg)),
c_0_7 ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]),c_0_10]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SWV267-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.36 % Computer : n013.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.36 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/0.36 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.09/0.36 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 08:36:36 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.09/0.36 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.40 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.09/0.40 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
% 0.19/0.49 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.19/0.49 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.19/0.49 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.19/0.49 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.19/0.49 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.19/0.49 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.19/0.49 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.19/0.49 % new_bool_3 with pid 380910 completed with status 0
% 0.19/0.49 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.19/0.49 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.19/0.49 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.19/0.49 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.19/0.49 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.19/0.49 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.19/0.49 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.19/0.49 % Search class: FGHSM-FFLS32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.19/0.49 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.19/0.49 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.19/0.49 % SubtermCWHack with pid 380917 completed with status 0
% 0.19/0.49 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.19/0.49 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.19/0.49 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.19/0.49 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.19/0.49 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.19/0.49 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.19/0.49 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.19/0.49 % Search class: FGHSM-FFLS32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.19/0.49 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.19/0.49 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.19/0.49 % Preprocessing time : 0.003 s
% 0.19/0.49
% 0.19/0.49 % Proof found!
% 0.19/0.49 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.19/0.49 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.19/0.49 % Parsed axioms : 2780
% 0.19/0.49 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 2583
% 0.19/0.49 % Initial clauses : 197
% 0.19/0.49 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.19/0.49 % Initial clauses in saturation : 197
% 0.19/0.49 % Processed clauses : 515
% 0.19/0.49 % ...of these trivial : 18
% 0.19/0.49 % ...subsumed : 259
% 0.19/0.49 % ...remaining for further processing : 238
% 0.19/0.49 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 15
% 0.19/0.49 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.19/0.49 % Backward-subsumed : 8
% 0.19/0.49 % Backward-rewritten : 19
% 0.19/0.49 % Generated clauses : 1225
% 0.19/0.49 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 714
% 0.19/0.49 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.19/0.49 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 1
% 0.19/0.49 % Paramodulations : 1201
% 0.19/0.49 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.19/0.49 % NegExts : 0
% 0.19/0.49 % Equation resolutions : 24
% 0.19/0.49 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.19/0.49 % Total rewrite steps : 678
% 0.19/0.49 % ...of those cached : 420
% 0.19/0.49 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.19/0.49 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.19/0.49 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.19/0.49 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.19/0.49 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.19/0.49 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.19/0.49 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.19/0.49 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.19/0.49 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.19/0.49 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.19/0.49 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.19/0.49 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.19/0.49 % Current number of processed clauses : 211
% 0.19/0.49 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 88
% 0.19/0.49 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.19/0.49 % Negative unit clauses : 28
% 0.19/0.49 % Non-unit-clauses : 95
% 0.19/0.49 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 381
% 0.19/0.49 % ...number of literals in the above : 803
% 0.19/0.49 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.19/0.49 % Current number of archived clauses : 27
% 0.19/0.49 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1401
% 0.19/0.49 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1259
% 0.19/0.49 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 91
% 0.19/0.49 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 373
% 0.19/0.49 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.19/0.49 % BW rewrite match attempts : 68
% 0.19/0.49 % BW rewrite match successes : 14
% 0.19/0.49 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.19/0.49 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.19/0.49 % Termbank termtop insertions : 37411
% 0.19/0.49 % Search garbage collected termcells : 7795
% 0.19/0.49
% 0.19/0.49 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.19/0.49 % User time : 0.024 s
% 0.19/0.49 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.19/0.49 % Total time : 0.030 s
% 0.19/0.49 % Maximum resident set size: 6192 pages
% 0.19/0.49
% 0.19/0.49 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.19/0.49 % User time : 0.072 s
% 0.19/0.49 % System time : 0.015 s
% 0.19/0.49 % Total time : 0.088 s
% 0.19/0.49 % Maximum resident set size: 6656 pages
% 0.19/0.49 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------