%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SWV320-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.2.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n006.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 02:54:22 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.74s 0.59s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.74s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 3
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 11 ( 8 unt; 0 nHn; 11 RR)
% Number of literals : 17 ( 0 equ; 9 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 13 ( 13 usr; 8 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 6 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_OtwayRees_OSpy__see__shrK_0,axiom,
( ~ c_in(c_Message_Omsg_OKey(c_Public_OshrK(X2)),c_Message_Oparts(c_Event_Oknows(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy,X1)),tc_Message_Omsg)
| ~ c_in(X1,c_OtwayRees_Ootway,tc_List_Olist(tc_Event_Oevent))
| c_in(X2,c_Event_Obad,tc_Message_Oagent) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_OtwayRees_OSpy__see__shrK_0) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_2,negated_conjecture,
~ c_in(v_A,c_Event_Obad,tc_Message_Oagent),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_2) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
c_in(c_Message_Omsg_OKey(c_Public_OshrK(v_A)),c_Message_Oparts(c_Event_Oknows(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy,v_evs)),tc_Message_Omsg),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_0) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_1,negated_conjecture,
c_in(v_evs,c_OtwayRees_Ootway,tc_List_Olist(tc_Event_Oevent)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_1) ).
cnf(c_0_4,plain,
( ~ c_in(c_Message_Omsg_OKey(c_Public_OshrK(X2)),c_Message_Oparts(c_Event_Oknows(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy,X1)),tc_Message_Omsg)
| ~ c_in(X1,c_OtwayRees_Ootway,tc_List_Olist(tc_Event_Oevent))
| c_in(X2,c_Event_Obad,tc_Message_Oagent) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_OtwayRees_OSpy__see__shrK_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ c_in(v_A,c_Event_Obad,tc_Message_Oagent),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ c_in(c_Message_Omsg_OKey(c_Public_OshrK(X2)),c_Message_Oparts(c_Event_Oknows(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy,X1)),tc_Message_Omsg)
| ~ c_in(X1,c_OtwayRees_Ootway,tc_List_Olist(tc_Event_Oevent))
| c_in(X2,c_Event_Obad,tc_Message_Oagent) ),
c_0_4 ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
c_in(c_Message_Omsg_OKey(c_Public_OshrK(v_A)),c_Message_Oparts(c_Event_Oknows(c_Message_Oagent_OSpy,v_evs)),tc_Message_Omsg),
cls_conjecture_0 ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
c_in(v_evs,c_OtwayRees_Ootway,tc_List_Olist(tc_Event_Oevent)),
cls_conjecture_1 ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
~ c_in(v_A,c_Event_Obad,tc_Message_Oagent),
c_0_5 ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]),c_0_8])]),c_0_9]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SWV320-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.2.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.36 % Computer : n006.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 08:40:29 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.09/0.36 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.13/0.40 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.13/0.40 Running: /export/starexec/sandbox2/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/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.74/0.59 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.74/0.59 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.74/0.59 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.74/0.59 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.74/0.59 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.74/0.59 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.74/0.59 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.74/0.59 % new_bool_3 with pid 2456663 completed with status 0
% 0.74/0.59 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.74/0.59 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.74/0.59 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.74/0.59 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.74/0.59 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.74/0.59 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.74/0.59 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.74/0.59 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.74/0.59 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.74/0.59 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.74/0.59 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2456666 completed with status 0
% 0.74/0.59 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.74/0.59 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.74/0.59 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.74/0.59 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.74/0.59 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.74/0.59 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.74/0.59 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.74/0.59 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.74/0.59 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.74/0.59 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.74/0.59 % Preprocessing time : 0.004 s
% 0.74/0.59
% 0.74/0.59 % Proof found!
% 0.74/0.59 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.74/0.59 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.74/0.59 % Parsed axioms : 2943
% 0.74/0.59 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 2374
% 0.74/0.59 % Initial clauses : 569
% 0.74/0.59 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.74/0.59 % Initial clauses in saturation : 569
% 0.74/0.59 % Processed clauses : 2574
% 0.74/0.59 % ...of these trivial : 83
% 0.74/0.59 % ...subsumed : 1635
% 0.74/0.59 % ...remaining for further processing : 856
% 0.74/0.59 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 154
% 0.74/0.59 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.74/0.59 % Backward-subsumed : 26
% 0.74/0.59 % Backward-rewritten : 33
% 0.74/0.59 % Generated clauses : 8709
% 0.74/0.59 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 6000
% 0.74/0.59 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.74/0.59 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.74/0.59 % Paramodulations : 8518
% 0.74/0.59 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.74/0.59 % NegExts : 0
% 0.74/0.59 % Equation resolutions : 191
% 0.74/0.59 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.74/0.59 % Total rewrite steps : 4514
% 0.74/0.59 % ...of those cached : 3772
% 0.74/0.59 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.74/0.59 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.74/0.59 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.74/0.59 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.74/0.59 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.74/0.59 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.74/0.59 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.74/0.59 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.74/0.59 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.74/0.59 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.74/0.59 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.74/0.59 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.74/0.59 % Current number of processed clauses : 797
% 0.74/0.59 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 242
% 0.74/0.59 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 8
% 0.74/0.59 % Negative unit clauses : 172
% 0.74/0.59 % Non-unit-clauses : 375
% 0.74/0.59 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 3969
% 0.74/0.59 % ...number of literals in the above : 7716
% 0.74/0.59 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.74/0.59 % Current number of archived clauses : 59
% 0.74/0.59 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 40653
% 0.74/0.59 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 32382
% 0.74/0.59 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 360
% 0.74/0.59 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 11000
% 0.74/0.59 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 2
% 0.74/0.59 % BW rewrite match attempts : 459
% 0.74/0.59 % BW rewrite match successes : 68
% 0.74/0.59 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.74/0.59 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.74/0.59 % Termbank termtop insertions : 120547
% 0.74/0.59 % Search garbage collected termcells : 7657
% 0.74/0.59
% 0.74/0.59 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.74/0.59 % User time : 0.096 s
% 0.74/0.59 % System time : 0.010 s
% 0.74/0.59 % Total time : 0.106 s
% 0.74/0.59 % Maximum resident set size: 6560 pages
% 0.74/0.59
% 0.74/0.59 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.74/0.59 % User time : 0.150 s
% 0.74/0.59 % System time : 0.017 s
% 0.74/0.59 % Total time : 0.167 s
% 0.74/0.59 % Maximum resident set size: 6656 pages
% 0.74/0.59 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------