%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : SWV388+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 : n014.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 03:01:29 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.26s 0.59s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.26s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 11 ( 3 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 23 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 3 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 31 ( 19 ~; 5 |; 2 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 5 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 8 ( 5 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-1 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 3 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 21 ( 0 sgn 18 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(l24_co,conjecture,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( ~ check_cpq(triple(X1,X2,X3))
=> ( ~ ok(findmin_cpq_eff(triple(X1,X2,X3)))
| ~ check_cpq(findmin_cpq_eff(triple(X1,X2,X3))) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',l24_co) ).
fof(l24_l34,lemma,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( ~ check_cpq(triple(X1,X2,X3))
=> ~ check_cpq(findmin_cpq_eff(triple(X1,X2,X3))) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',l24_l34) ).
fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2,X3] :
( ~ check_cpq(triple(X1,X2,X3))
=> ( ~ ok(findmin_cpq_eff(triple(X1,X2,X3)))
| ~ check_cpq(findmin_cpq_eff(triple(X1,X2,X3))) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[l24_co]) ).
fof(c_0_3,lemma,
! [X1,X2,X3] :
( ~ check_cpq(triple(X1,X2,X3))
=> ~ check_cpq(findmin_cpq_eff(triple(X1,X2,X3))) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[l24_l34]) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2,X3] :
( ~ check_cpq(triple(X1,X2,X3))
=> ( ~ ok(findmin_cpq_eff(triple(X1,X2,X3)))
| ~ check_cpq(findmin_cpq_eff(triple(X1,X2,X3))) ) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
fof(c_0_5,lemma,
! [X28,X29,X30] :
( ~ check_cpq(findmin_cpq_eff(triple(X28,X29,X30)))
| check_cpq(triple(X28,X29,X30)) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( ok(findmin_cpq_eff(triple(esk1_0,esk2_0,esk3_0)))
& check_cpq(findmin_cpq_eff(triple(esk1_0,esk2_0,esk3_0)))
& ~ check_cpq(triple(esk1_0,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_4])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,lemma,
( ~ check_cpq(findmin_cpq_eff(triple(X1,X2,X3)))
| check_cpq(triple(X1,X2,X3)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
check_cpq(findmin_cpq_eff(triple(esk1_0,esk2_0,esk3_0))),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
~ check_cpq(triple(esk1_0,esk2_0,esk3_0)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]),c_0_9]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : SWV388+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.18/0.45 % Computer : n014.cluster.edu
% 0.18/0.45 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.18/0.45 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.18/0.45 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.18/0.45 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.18/0.45 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.18/0.45 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.18/0.45 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 08:44:19 UTC 2026
% 0.18/0.45 % CPUTime :
% 0.18/0.45 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.18/0.55 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.18/0.55 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
% 0.26/0.59 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.26/0.59 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.59 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.59 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.59 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.59 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.59 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.59 % new_bool_1 with pid 3681351 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.26/0.59 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.59 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.59 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.59 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.59 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.59 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.26/0.59 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.26/0.59 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMF31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.59 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.26/0.59 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.59 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3681353 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.26/0.59 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.59 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.59 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.59 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.59 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.59 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.26/0.59 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.26/0.59 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMF31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.59 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.26/0.59 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.59 % Preprocessing time : 0.003 s
% 0.26/0.59
% 0.26/0.59 % Proof found!
% 0.26/0.59 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.26/0.59 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.26/0.59 % Parsed axioms : 43
% 0.26/0.59 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 18
% 0.26/0.59 % Initial clauses : 34
% 0.26/0.59 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 2
% 0.26/0.59 % Initial clauses in saturation : 32
% 0.26/0.59 % Processed clauses : 28
% 0.26/0.59 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.26/0.59 % ...subsumed : 4
% 0.26/0.59 % ...remaining for further processing : 24
% 0.26/0.59 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 1
% 0.26/0.59 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Generated clauses : 25
% 0.26/0.59 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 13
% 0.26/0.59 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 1
% 0.26/0.59 % Paramodulations : 16
% 0.26/0.59 % Factorizations : 8
% 0.26/0.59 % NegExts : 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Equation resolutions : 1
% 0.26/0.59 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Total rewrite steps : 10
% 0.26/0.59 % ...of those cached : 1
% 0.26/0.59 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.59 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.59 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.59 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.59 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.59 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.59 % Current number of processed clauses : 23
% 0.26/0.59 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 8
% 0.26/0.59 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Negative unit clauses : 3
% 0.26/0.59 % Non-unit-clauses : 12
% 0.26/0.59 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 17
% 0.26/0.59 % ...number of literals in the above : 55
% 0.26/0.59 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 26
% 0.26/0.59 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 26
% 0.26/0.59 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 5
% 0.26/0.59 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.26/0.59 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.26/0.59 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.26/0.59 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Termbank termtop insertions : 2924
% 0.26/0.59 % Search garbage collected termcells : 536
% 0.26/0.59
% 0.26/0.59 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.59 % User time : 0.011 s
% 0.26/0.59 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.26/0.59 % Total time : 0.015 s
% 0.26/0.59 % Maximum resident set size: 3688 pages
% 0.26/0.59
% 0.26/0.59 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.59 % User time : 0.014 s
% 0.26/0.59 % System time : 0.011 s
% 0.26/0.59 % Total time : 0.025 s
% 0.26/0.59 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.26/0.59 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------