%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SWV405+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 : n009.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 02:54:40 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.24s 5.57s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.24s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 12 ( 8 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 23 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 7 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 21 ( 10 ~; 5 |; 2 &)
% ( 2 <=>; 2 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 8 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 6 ( 6 usr; 5 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 24 ( 4 sgn 20 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(l41_co,conjecture,
! [X1,X2] :
( check_cpq(triple(X1,create_slb,X2))
<=> ! [X3,X4] :
( pair_in_list(create_slb,X3,X4)
=> less_than(X4,X3) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',l41_co) ).
fof(ax22,axiom,
! [X1,X2] : ~ pair_in_list(create_slb,X1,X2),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SWV007+2.ax',ax22) ).
fof(ax36,axiom,
! [X1,X2] : check_cpq(triple(X1,create_slb,X2)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SWV007+3.ax',ax36) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1,X2] :
( check_cpq(triple(X1,create_slb,X2))
<=> ! [X3,X4] :
( pair_in_list(create_slb,X3,X4)
=> less_than(X4,X3) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[l41_co]) ).
fof(c_0_4,plain,
! [X1,X2] : ~ pair_in_list(create_slb,X1,X2),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[ax22]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
! [X10,X11] :
( ( less_than(X11,X10)
| ~ pair_in_list(create_slb,X10,X11)
| check_cpq(triple(esk1_0,create_slb,esk2_0)) )
& ( ~ check_cpq(triple(esk1_0,create_slb,esk2_0))
| ~ less_than(esk4_0,esk3_0) )
& ( ~ check_cpq(triple(esk1_0,create_slb,esk2_0))
| pair_in_list(create_slb,esk3_0,esk4_0) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[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_3])])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X26,X27] : check_cpq(triple(X26,create_slb,X27)),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[ax36]) ).
fof(c_0_7,plain,
! [X18,X19] : ~ pair_in_list(create_slb,X18,X19),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[c_0_4])]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
( ~ check_cpq(triple(esk1_0,create_slb,esk2_0))
| pair_in_list(create_slb,esk3_0,esk4_0) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
check_cpq(triple(X1,create_slb,X2)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
~ pair_in_list(create_slb,X1,X2),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9])]),c_0_10]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.04 % Problem : SWV405+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.3.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.18/5.46 % Computer : n009.cluster.edu
% 0.18/5.46 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.18/5.46 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.18/5.46 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.18/5.46 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.18/5.46 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.18/5.46 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.18/5.46 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 08:44:47 UTC 2026
% 0.18/5.46 % CPUTime :
% 0.18/5.46 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.24/5.53 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.24/5.53 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
% 0.24/5.57 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.24/5.57 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/5.57 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/5.57 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/5.57 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/5.57 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/5.57 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/5.57 % new_bool_1 with pid 1354507 completed with status 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.24/5.57 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/5.57 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/5.57 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/5.57 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/5.57 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/5.57 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.24/5.57 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.24/5.57 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMF31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.24/5.57 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.24/5.57 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.24/5.57 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1354510 completed with status 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.24/5.57 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/5.57 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/5.57 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/5.57 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/5.57 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/5.57 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.24/5.57 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.24/5.57 % Search class: FGHSM-FFMF31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.24/5.57 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.24/5.57 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.24/5.57 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.24/5.57
% 0.24/5.57 % Proof found!
% 0.24/5.57 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.24/5.57 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.24/5.57 % Parsed axioms : 42
% 0.24/5.57 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 18
% 0.24/5.57 % Initial clauses : 35
% 0.24/5.57 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 1
% 0.24/5.57 % Initial clauses in saturation : 34
% 0.24/5.57 % Processed clauses : 18
% 0.24/5.57 % ...of these trivial : 1
% 0.24/5.57 % ...subsumed : 1
% 0.24/5.57 % ...remaining for further processing : 15
% 0.24/5.57 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Generated clauses : 11
% 0.24/5.57 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 7
% 0.24/5.57 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 1
% 0.24/5.57 % Paramodulations : 9
% 0.24/5.57 % Factorizations : 2
% 0.24/5.57 % NegExts : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Total rewrite steps : 5
% 0.24/5.57 % ...of those cached : 1
% 0.24/5.57 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.24/5.57 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/5.57 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/5.57 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.24/5.57 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/5.57 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/5.57 % Current number of processed clauses : 15
% 0.24/5.57 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 5
% 0.24/5.57 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Negative unit clauses : 3
% 0.24/5.57 % Non-unit-clauses : 7
% 0.24/5.57 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 23
% 0.24/5.57 % ...number of literals in the above : 61
% 0.24/5.57 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 8
% 0.24/5.57 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 8
% 0.24/5.57 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 2
% 0.24/5.57 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 4
% 0.24/5.57 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.24/5.57 % Termbank termtop insertions : 2866
% 0.24/5.57 % Search garbage collected termcells : 613
% 0.24/5.57
% 0.24/5.57 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/5.57 % User time : 0.008 s
% 0.24/5.57 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.24/5.57 % Total time : 0.011 s
% 0.24/5.57 % Maximum resident set size: 3688 pages
% 0.24/5.57
% 0.24/5.57 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/5.57 % User time : 0.012 s
% 0.24/5.57 % System time : 0.009 s
% 0.24/5.57 % Total time : 0.021 s
% 0.24/5.57 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.24/5.57 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------