%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SWV278-1 : 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 : n003.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 02:54:12 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.21s 0.50s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.21s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 12 ( 9 unt; 0 nHn; 10 RR)
% Number of literals : 15 ( 2 equ; 7 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 7 ( 7 usr; 3 con; 0-1 aty)
% Number of variables : 8 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_conjecture_1,negated_conjecture,
~ c_in(c_Message_Omsg_OKey(c_Message_OinvKey(c_Message_OinvKey(v_K_H))),c_Message_Oparts(v_H),tc_Message_Omsg),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_1) ).
cnf(cls_Message_OinvKey_A_IinvKey_Ay_J_A_61_61_Ay_0,axiom,
c_Message_OinvKey(c_Message_OinvKey(X1)) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SWV005-0.ax',cls_Message_OinvKey_A_IinvKey_Ay_J_A_61_61_Ay_0) ).
cnf(cls_Message_Oanalz__conj__parts_0,axiom,
( ~ c_in(X1,c_Message_Oanalz(X2),tc_Message_Omsg)
| c_in(X1,c_Message_Oparts(X2),tc_Message_Omsg) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SWV005-2.ax',cls_Message_Oanalz__conj__parts_0) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_3,negated_conjecture,
c_in(c_Message_Omsg_OKey(v_K_H),c_Message_Oanalz(v_H),tc_Message_Omsg),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_3) ).
cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ c_in(c_Message_Omsg_OKey(c_Message_OinvKey(c_Message_OinvKey(v_K_H))),c_Message_Oparts(v_H),tc_Message_Omsg),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_1]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ c_in(c_Message_Omsg_OKey(c_Message_OinvKey(c_Message_OinvKey(v_K_H))),c_Message_Oparts(v_H),tc_Message_Omsg),
c_0_4 ).
cnf(c_0_6,axiom,
c_Message_OinvKey(c_Message_OinvKey(X1)) = X1,
cls_Message_OinvKey_A_IinvKey_Ay_J_A_61_61_Ay_0 ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ c_in(X1,c_Message_Oanalz(X2),tc_Message_Omsg)
| c_in(X1,c_Message_Oparts(X2),tc_Message_Omsg) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_Message_Oanalz__conj__parts_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
~ c_in(c_Message_Omsg_OKey(v_K_H),c_Message_Oparts(v_H),tc_Message_Omsg),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ c_in(X1,c_Message_Oanalz(X2),tc_Message_Omsg)
| c_in(X1,c_Message_Oparts(X2),tc_Message_Omsg) ),
c_0_7 ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
c_in(c_Message_Omsg_OKey(v_K_H),c_Message_Oanalz(v_H),tc_Message_Omsg),
cls_conjecture_3 ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]),c_0_10])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : SWV278-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.35 % Computer : n003.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.35 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.35 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.35 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 08:39:31 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/0.35 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.13/0.40 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.13/0.40 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
% 0.21/0.50 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.21/0.50 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.21/0.50 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.50 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.50 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 % new_bool_3 with pid 3882548 completed with status 0
% 0.21/0.50 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.21/0.50 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.21/0.50 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.50 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.50 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.21/0.50 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.21/0.50 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.21/0.50 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.21/0.50 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3882551 completed with status 0
% 0.21/0.50 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.21/0.50 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.21/0.50 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.50 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.50 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.21/0.50 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.21/0.50 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.21/0.50 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.21/0.50 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.50 % Preprocessing time : 0.006 s
% 0.21/0.50
% 0.21/0.50 % Proof found!
% 0.21/0.50 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.21/0.50 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.21/0.50 % Parsed axioms : 2899
% 0.21/0.50 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 2544
% 0.21/0.50 % Initial clauses : 355
% 0.21/0.50 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.21/0.50 % Initial clauses in saturation : 355
% 0.21/0.50 % Processed clauses : 188
% 0.21/0.50 % ...of these trivial : 8
% 0.21/0.50 % ...subsumed : 37
% 0.21/0.50 % ...remaining for further processing : 143
% 0.21/0.50 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 7
% 0.21/0.50 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.21/0.50 % Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.21/0.50 % Backward-rewritten : 7
% 0.21/0.50 % Generated clauses : 152
% 0.21/0.50 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 51
% 0.21/0.50 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.21/0.50 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.21/0.50 % Paramodulations : 134
% 0.21/0.50 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.21/0.50 % NegExts : 0
% 0.21/0.50 % Equation resolutions : 18
% 0.21/0.50 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.21/0.50 % Total rewrite steps : 87
% 0.21/0.50 % ...of those cached : 43
% 0.21/0.50 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.21/0.50 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.21/0.50 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.21/0.50 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.21/0.50 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.21/0.50 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.21/0.50 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.50 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.50 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.50 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.50 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.50 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.50 % Current number of processed clauses : 135
% 0.21/0.50 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 64
% 0.21/0.50 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.21/0.50 % Negative unit clauses : 20
% 0.21/0.50 % Non-unit-clauses : 51
% 0.21/0.50 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 218
% 0.21/0.50 % ...number of literals in the above : 421
% 0.21/0.50 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.21/0.50 % Current number of archived clauses : 8
% 0.21/0.50 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 781
% 0.21/0.50 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 363
% 0.21/0.50 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 13
% 0.21/0.50 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 48
% 0.21/0.50 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.21/0.50 % BW rewrite match attempts : 35
% 0.21/0.50 % BW rewrite match successes : 7
% 0.21/0.50 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.21/0.50 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.21/0.50 % Termbank termtop insertions : 30652
% 0.21/0.50 % Search garbage collected termcells : 7905
% 0.21/0.50
% 0.21/0.50 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.50 % User time : 0.016 s
% 0.21/0.50 % System time : 0.009 s
% 0.21/0.50 % Total time : 0.025 s
% 0.21/0.50 % Maximum resident set size: 6276 pages
% 0.21/0.50
% 0.21/0.50 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.50 % User time : 0.071 s
% 0.21/0.50 % System time : 0.016 s
% 0.21/0.50 % Total time : 0.087 s
% 0.21/0.50 % Maximum resident set size: 6400 pages
% 0.21/0.50 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------