%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SWV284-2 : 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 : n011.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 0.15s 0.44s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.15s
% 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
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SWV284-2 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.13/0.37 % Computer : n011.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.13/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.13/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.13/0.37 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 08:38:10 UTC 2026
% 0.13/0.38 % CPUTime :
% 0.13/0.38 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.41 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/0.41 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
% 0.15/0.44 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.15/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with pid 1485645 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Result found by G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN
% 0.15/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.15/0.44 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.15/0.44 % Search class: FGHNF-FFSF31-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.44 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1485649 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.15/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.15/0.44 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.15/0.44 % Search class: FGHNF-FFSF31-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.44 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.15/0.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.44 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.15/0.44
% 0.15/0.44 % Proof found!
% 0.15/0.44 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.15/0.44 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.15/0.44 % Parsed axioms : 6
% 0.15/0.44 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Initial clauses : 6
% 0.15/0.44 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Initial clauses in saturation : 6
% 0.15/0.44 % Processed clauses : 16
% 0.15/0.44 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % ...remaining for further processing : 16
% 0.15/0.44 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Generated clauses : 26
% 0.15/0.44 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 23
% 0.15/0.44 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Paramodulations : 26
% 0.15/0.44 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % NegExts : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Total rewrite steps : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.44 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.44 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.44 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.44 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.44 % Current number of processed clauses : 16
% 0.15/0.44 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 7
% 0.15/0.44 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.15/0.44 % Non-unit-clauses : 7
% 0.15/0.44 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 13
% 0.15/0.44 % ...number of literals in the above : 13
% 0.15/0.44 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 4
% 0.15/0.44 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 4
% 0.15/0.44 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 8
% 0.15/0.44 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % BW rewrite match attempts : 15
% 0.15/0.44 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.15/0.44 % Termbank termtop insertions : 626
% 0.15/0.44 % Search garbage collected termcells : 14
% 0.15/0.44
% 0.15/0.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.44 % User time : 0.001 s
% 0.15/0.44 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.15/0.44 % Total time : 0.006 s
% 0.15/0.44 % Maximum resident set size: 3636 pages
% 0.15/0.44
% 0.15/0.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.44 % User time : 0.016 s
% 0.15/0.44 % System time : 0.012 s
% 0.15/0.44 % Total time : 0.027 s
% 0.15/0.44 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.15/0.44 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------