%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SWV366+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n019.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 02:54:34 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.12s 0.43s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.12s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 9 ( 6 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 12 ( 11 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 6 ( 3 ~; 0 |; 1 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 2 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 10 ( 5 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 5 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 0 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 12 ( 12 usr; 7 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 45 ( 5 sgn 36 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(l2_co,conjecture,
! [X1] :
( ! [X2,X3,X4,X5] : i(triple(X2,X1,X4)) = i(triple(X3,X1,X5))
=> ! [X6,X7,X8,X9,X10,X11] : i(triple(X6,insert_slb(X1,pair(X10,X11)),X8)) = i(triple(X7,insert_slb(X1,pair(X10,X11)),X9)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',l2_co) ).
fof(ax55,axiom,
! [X1,X2,X3,X4,X5] : i(triple(X1,insert_slb(X2,pair(X4,X5)),X3)) = insert_pq(i(triple(X1,X2,X3)),X4),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SWV007+4.ax',ax55) ).
fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1] :
( ! [X2,X3,X4,X5] : i(triple(X2,X1,X4)) = i(triple(X3,X1,X5))
=> ! [X6,X7,X8,X9,X10,X11] : i(triple(X6,insert_slb(X1,pair(X10,X11)),X8)) = i(triple(X7,insert_slb(X1,pair(X10,X11)),X9)) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[l2_co]) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
! [X13,X14,X15,X16] :
( i(triple(esk2_0,insert_slb(esk1_0,pair(esk6_0,esk7_0)),esk4_0)) != i(triple(esk3_0,insert_slb(esk1_0,pair(esk6_0,esk7_0)),esk5_0))
& i(triple(X13,esk1_0,X15)) = i(triple(X14,esk1_0,X16)) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_4,plain,
! [X23,X24,X25,X26,X27] : i(triple(X23,insert_slb(X24,pair(X26,X27)),X25)) = insert_pq(i(triple(X23,X24,X25)),X26),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[ax55]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
i(triple(esk2_0,insert_slb(esk1_0,pair(esk6_0,esk7_0)),esk4_0)) != i(triple(esk3_0,insert_slb(esk1_0,pair(esk6_0,esk7_0)),esk5_0)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
i(triple(X1,insert_slb(X2,pair(X3,X4)),X5)) = insert_pq(i(triple(X1,X2,X5)),X3),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
i(triple(X1,esk1_0,X2)) = i(triple(X3,esk1_0,X4)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]),c_0_6]),c_0_7]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SWV366+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.37 % Computer : n019.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.12/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.12/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.12/0.37 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 08:43:34 UTC 2026
% 0.12/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.12/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.41 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.12/0.41 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
% 0.12/0.43 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.12/0.43 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.43 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.43 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.43 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.43 % new_bool_1 with pid 2180925 completed with status 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.12/0.43 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.43 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.43 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.43 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.12/0.43 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.12/0.43 % Search class: FGUSS-FFSF32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.12/0.43 % partial match(1): FGUSS-FFSF22-MFFFFFNN
% 0.12/0.43 % Scheduled 6 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.12/0.43 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.43 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2180928 completed with status 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.12/0.43 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.43 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.43 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.43 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.12/0.43 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.12/0.43 % Search class: FGUSS-FFSF32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.12/0.43 % partial match(1): FGUSS-FFSF22-MFFFFFNN
% 0.12/0.43 % Scheduled 6 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.12/0.43 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.43 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.12/0.43
% 0.12/0.43 % Proof found!
% 0.12/0.43 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.12/0.43 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.12/0.43 % Parsed axioms : 63
% 0.12/0.43 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 57
% 0.12/0.43 % Initial clauses : 11
% 0.12/0.43 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Initial clauses in saturation : 11
% 0.12/0.43 % Processed clauses : 44
% 0.12/0.43 % ...of these trivial : 6
% 0.12/0.43 % ...subsumed : 14
% 0.12/0.43 % ...remaining for further processing : 23
% 0.12/0.43 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 2
% 0.12/0.43 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Generated clauses : 189
% 0.12/0.43 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 98
% 0.12/0.43 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Paramodulations : 187
% 0.12/0.43 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % NegExts : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Equation resolutions : 2
% 0.12/0.43 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Total rewrite steps : 96
% 0.12/0.43 % ...of those cached : 32
% 0.12/0.43 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.43 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.43 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.43 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.43 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.43 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.43 % Current number of processed clauses : 21
% 0.12/0.43 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 8
% 0.12/0.43 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 3
% 0.12/0.43 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.12/0.43 % Non-unit-clauses : 9
% 0.12/0.43 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 65
% 0.12/0.43 % ...number of literals in the above : 118
% 0.12/0.43 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 38
% 0.12/0.43 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 32
% 0.12/0.43 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 6
% 0.12/0.43 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 20
% 0.12/0.43 % BW rewrite match attempts : 19
% 0.12/0.43 % BW rewrite match successes : 6
% 0.12/0.43 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Termbank termtop insertions : 2942
% 0.12/0.43 % Search garbage collected termcells : 562
% 0.12/0.43
% 0.12/0.43 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.12/0.43 % User time : 0.003 s
% 0.12/0.43 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.12/0.43 % Total time : 0.006 s
% 0.12/0.43 % Maximum resident set size: 3712 pages
% 0.12/0.43
% 0.12/0.43 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.12/0.43 % User time : 0.005 s
% 0.12/0.43 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.12/0.43 % Total time : 0.010 s
% 0.12/0.43 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.12/0.43 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------