%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SWV367+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n005.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 0.13s 0.42s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.13s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 12 ( 9 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 15 ( 6 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 9 ( 6 ~; 0 |; 1 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 2 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 6 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 9 ( 9 usr; 5 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 16 ( 3 sgn 13 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(l3_co,conjecture,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( contains_pq(i(triple(X1,create_slb,X2)),X3)
=> i(remove_cpq(triple(X1,create_slb,X2),X3)) = remove_pq(i(triple(X1,create_slb,X2)),X3) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',l3_co) ).
fof(ax8,axiom,
! [X1] : ~ contains_pq(create_pq,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SWV007+1.ax',ax8) ).
fof(ax54,axiom,
! [X1,X2] : i(triple(X1,create_slb,X2)) = create_pq,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SWV007+4.ax',ax54) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2,X3] :
( contains_pq(i(triple(X1,create_slb,X2)),X3)
=> i(remove_cpq(triple(X1,create_slb,X2),X3)) = remove_pq(i(triple(X1,create_slb,X2)),X3) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[l3_co]) ).
fof(c_0_4,plain,
! [X1] : ~ contains_pq(create_pq,X1),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[ax8]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
( i(remove_cpq(triple(esk1_0,create_slb,esk2_0),esk3_0)) != remove_pq(i(triple(esk1_0,create_slb,esk2_0)),esk3_0)
& contains_pq(i(triple(esk1_0,create_slb,esk2_0)),esk3_0) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X16,X17] : i(triple(X16,create_slb,X17)) = create_pq,
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[ax54]) ).
fof(c_0_7,plain,
! [X69] : ~ contains_pq(create_pq,X69),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
contains_pq(i(triple(esk1_0,create_slb,esk2_0)),esk3_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
i(triple(X1,create_slb,X2)) = create_pq,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
~ contains_pq(create_pq,X1),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]),c_0_10]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SWV367+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/0.35 % Computer : n005.cluster.edu
% 0.08/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.08/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.08/0.35 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.08/0.35 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.08/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.08/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.08/0.35 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 08:43:18 UTC 2026
% 0.08/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.08/0.36 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
% 0.13/0.42 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.13/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % sh5l with pid 3059947 completed with status 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.13/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.13/0.42 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.13/0.42 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMF31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.13/0.42 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3059950 completed with status 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.13/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.13/0.42 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.13/0.42 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMF31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.13/0.42 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.13/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.42 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.13/0.42
% 0.13/0.42 % Proof found!
% 0.13/0.42 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.13/0.42 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.13/0.42 % Parsed axioms : 63
% 0.13/0.42 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 11
% 0.13/0.42 % Initial clauses : 71
% 0.13/0.42 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 2
% 0.13/0.42 % Initial clauses in saturation : 69
% 0.13/0.42 % Processed clauses : 32
% 0.13/0.42 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % ...remaining for further processing : 31
% 0.13/0.42 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Generated clauses : 14
% 0.13/0.42 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 9
% 0.13/0.42 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Paramodulations : 12
% 0.13/0.42 % Factorizations : 2
% 0.13/0.42 % NegExts : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Total rewrite steps : 3
% 0.13/0.42 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.42 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.42 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.42 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.42 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.42 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.42 % Current number of processed clauses : 31
% 0.13/0.42 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 11
% 0.13/0.42 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Negative unit clauses : 4
% 0.13/0.42 % Non-unit-clauses : 16
% 0.13/0.42 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 46
% 0.13/0.42 % ...number of literals in the above : 105
% 0.13/0.42 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 67
% 0.13/0.42 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 62
% 0.13/0.42 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% 0.13/0.42 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.13/0.42 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Termbank termtop insertions : 4928
% 0.13/0.42 % Search garbage collected termcells : 895
% 0.13/0.42
% 0.13/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.13/0.42 % User time : 0.006 s
% 0.13/0.42 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.13/0.42 % Total time : 0.010 s
% 0.13/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 3916 pages
% 0.13/0.42
% 0.13/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.13/0.42 % User time : 0.007 s
% 0.13/0.42 % System time : 0.007 s
% 0.13/0.42 % Total time : 0.014 s
% 0.13/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.13/0.42 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------