%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SWV284-1 : 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 02:54:13 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 3.22s 0.90s
% Output : CNFRefutation 3.22s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 6
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 22 ( 6 unt; 2 nHn; 16 RR)
% Number of literals : 38 ( 0 equ; 22 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 13 ( 13 usr; 6 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 38 ( 9 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_Message_Omsg__Nonce__supply_0,axiom,
( ~ c_lessequals(v_sko__upX(X2),X1,tc_nat)
| ~ c_in(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce(X1),c_Message_Oparts(c_insert(X2,c_emptyset,tc_Message_Omsg)),tc_Message_Omsg) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_Message_Omsg__Nonce__supply_0) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_1,negated_conjecture,
( ~ c_lessequals(v_N,X1,tc_nat)
| ~ c_in(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce(X1),c_Event_Oused(v_list),tc_Message_Omsg) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_1) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_2,negated_conjecture,
( c_in(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce(v_x(X1)),c_Message_Oparts(c_insert(v_msg,c_emptyset,tc_Message_Omsg)),tc_Message_Omsg)
| c_in(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce(v_x(X1)),c_Event_Oused(v_list),tc_Message_Omsg) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_2) ).
cnf(cls_Nat_Oadd__leE_0,axiom,
( ~ c_lessequals(c_plus(X1,X2,tc_nat),X3,tc_nat)
| c_lessequals(X2,X3,tc_nat) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_Nat_Oadd__leE_0) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
c_lessequals(X1,v_x(X1),tc_nat),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_0) ).
cnf(cls_Nat_Oadd__leE_1,axiom,
( ~ c_lessequals(c_plus(X1,X2,tc_nat),X3,tc_nat)
| c_lessequals(X1,X3,tc_nat) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_Nat_Oadd__leE_1) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ c_lessequals(v_sko__upX(X2),X1,tc_nat)
| ~ c_in(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce(X1),c_Message_Oparts(c_insert(X2,c_emptyset,tc_Message_Omsg)),tc_Message_Omsg) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_Message_Omsg__Nonce__supply_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
( ~ c_lessequals(v_N,X1,tc_nat)
| ~ c_in(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce(X1),c_Event_Oused(v_list),tc_Message_Omsg) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_1]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ c_lessequals(v_sko__upX(X2),X1,tc_nat)
| ~ c_in(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce(X1),c_Message_Oparts(c_insert(X2,c_emptyset,tc_Message_Omsg)),tc_Message_Omsg) ),
c_0_6 ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
( c_in(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce(v_x(X1)),c_Message_Oparts(c_insert(v_msg,c_emptyset,tc_Message_Omsg)),tc_Message_Omsg)
| c_in(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce(v_x(X1)),c_Event_Oused(v_list),tc_Message_Omsg) ),
cls_conjecture_2 ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( ~ c_lessequals(c_plus(X1,X2,tc_nat),X3,tc_nat)
| c_lessequals(X2,X3,tc_nat) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_Nat_Oadd__leE_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
( ~ c_lessequals(v_N,X1,tc_nat)
| ~ c_in(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce(X1),c_Event_Oused(v_list),tc_Message_Omsg) ),
c_0_7 ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
( ~ c_lessequals(v_sko__upX(v_msg),v_x(X1),tc_nat)
| c_in(c_Message_Omsg_ONonce(v_x(X1)),c_Event_Oused(v_list),tc_Message_Omsg) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
( ~ c_lessequals(c_plus(X1,X2,tc_nat),X3,tc_nat)
| c_lessequals(X2,X3,tc_nat) ),
c_0_10 ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
c_lessequals(X1,v_x(X1),tc_nat),
cls_conjecture_0 ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
( ~ c_lessequals(c_plus(X1,X2,tc_nat),X3,tc_nat)
| c_lessequals(X1,X3,tc_nat) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_Nat_Oadd__leE_1]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
( ~ c_lessequals(v_N,v_x(X1),tc_nat)
| ~ c_lessequals(v_sko__upX(v_msg),v_x(X1),tc_nat) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
c_lessequals(X1,v_x(c_plus(X2,X1,tc_nat)),tc_nat),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,plain,
( ~ c_lessequals(c_plus(X1,X2,tc_nat),X3,tc_nat)
| c_lessequals(X1,X3,tc_nat) ),
c_0_15 ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
~ c_lessequals(v_N,v_x(c_plus(X1,v_sko__upX(v_msg),tc_nat)),tc_nat),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,negated_conjecture,
c_lessequals(X1,v_x(c_plus(X1,X2,tc_nat)),tc_nat),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_18,c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_19,c_0_20]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : SWV284-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.35 % Computer : n003.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.35 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/0.35 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.09/0.35 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 08:39:45 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.09/0.35 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.39 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.12/0.39 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
% 2.42/0.90 % Version: 3.5.1
% 2.42/0.90 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 2.42/0.90 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 2.42/0.90 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 2.42/0.90 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 2.42/0.90 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 2.42/0.90 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 2.42/0.90 % G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with pid 3883381 completed with status 0
% 2.42/0.90 % Result found by G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
% 2.42/0.90 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 2.42/0.90 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 2.42/0.90 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 2.42/0.90 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 2.42/0.90 % No SInE strategy applied
% 2.42/0.90 % Search class: FGHSM-SSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 2.42/0.90 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 2.42/0.90 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 2.42/0.90 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 151s (1) cores
% 2.42/0.90 % Starting G-E--_208_C12_11_nc_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 136s (1) cores
% 2.42/0.90 % Starting G-E--_208_C12_02_nc_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S070I with 136s (1) cores
% 2.42/0.90 % Starting G-E--_208_C47_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 2.42/0.90 % G-E--_208_C47_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with pid 3883400 completed with status 0
% 2.42/0.90 % Result found by G-E--_208_C47_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y
% 2.42/0.90 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 2.42/0.90 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 2.42/0.90 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 2.42/0.90 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 2.42/0.90 % No SInE strategy applied
% 2.42/0.90 % Search class: FGHSM-SSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 2.42/0.90 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 2.42/0.90 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 2.42/0.90 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 151s (1) cores
% 2.42/0.90 % Starting G-E--_208_C12_11_nc_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 136s (1) cores
% 2.42/0.90 % Starting G-E--_208_C12_02_nc_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S070I with 136s (1) cores
% 2.42/0.90 % Starting G-E--_208_C47_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 3.22/0.90 % Preprocessing time : 0.020 s
% 3.22/0.90 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 3.22/0.90
% 3.22/0.90 % Proof found!
% 3.22/0.90 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 3.22/0.90 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 3.22/0.90 % Parsed axioms : 1448
% 3.22/0.90 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 3.22/0.90 % Initial clauses : 1448
% 3.22/0.90 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 3
% 3.22/0.90 % Initial clauses in saturation : 1445
% 3.22/0.90 % Processed clauses : 3164
% 3.22/0.90 % ...of these trivial : 28
% 3.22/0.90 % ...subsumed : 316
% 3.22/0.90 % ...remaining for further processing : 2820
% 3.22/0.90 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 4
% 3.22/0.90 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 3.22/0.90 % Backward-subsumed : 2
% 3.22/0.90 % Backward-rewritten : 26
% 3.22/0.90 % Generated clauses : 1898
% 3.22/0.90 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 826
% 3.22/0.90 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 3.22/0.90 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 1
% 3.22/0.90 % Paramodulations : 1845
% 3.22/0.90 % Factorizations : 0
% 3.22/0.90 % NegExts : 0
% 3.22/0.90 % Equation resolutions : 53
% 3.22/0.90 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 3.22/0.90 % Total rewrite steps : 1162
% 3.22/0.90 % ...of those cached : 973
% 3.22/0.90 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 3.22/0.90 % Propositional check models : 0
% 3.22/0.90 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 3.22/0.90 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 3.22/0.90 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 3.22/0.90 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 3.22/0.90 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 3.22/0.90 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 3.22/0.90 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 3.22/0.90 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 3.22/0.90 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 3.22/0.90 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 3.22/0.90 % Current number of processed clauses : 1401
% 3.22/0.90 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 200
% 3.22/0.90 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 3.22/0.90 % Negative unit clauses : 48
% 3.22/0.90 % Non-unit-clauses : 1153
% 3.22/0.90 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 476
% 3.22/0.90 % ...number of literals in the above : 1162
% 3.22/0.90 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 3.22/0.90 % Current number of archived clauses : 1420
% 3.22/0.90 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 978906
% 3.22/0.90 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 946244
% 3.22/0.90 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 264
% 3.22/0.90 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 16103
% 3.22/0.90 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 3.22/0.90 % BW rewrite match attempts : 90
% 3.22/0.90 % BW rewrite match successes : 20
% 3.22/0.90 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 3.22/0.90 % Condensation successes : 0
% 3.22/0.90 % Termbank termtop insertions : 59400
% 3.22/0.90 % Search garbage collected termcells : 1782
% 3.22/0.90
% 3.22/0.90 % -------------------------------------------------
% 3.22/0.90 % User time : 0.371 s
% 3.22/0.90 % System time : 0.017 s
% 3.22/0.90 % Total time : 0.388 s
% 3.22/0.90 % Maximum resident set size: 5944 pages
% 3.22/0.90
% 3.22/0.90 % -------------------------------------------------
% 3.22/0.90 % User time : 1.626 s
% 3.22/0.90 % System time : 0.077 s
% 3.22/0.90 % Total time : 1.703 s
% 3.22/0.90 % Maximum resident set size: 5632 pages
% 3.22/0.90 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------