%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : SWV823-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n007.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 03:06:58 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 50.55s 7.85s
% Output : CNFRefutation 50.55s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 13 ( 13 unt; 0 nHn; 6 RR)
% Number of literals : 13 ( 12 equ; 5 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 6 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 0 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 1 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 56 ( 33 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_n__not__Suc__n_0,axiom,
X1 != hAPP(c_Suc,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_n__not__Suc__n_0) ).
cnf(cls_COMBB__def_0,axiom,
hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_COMBB(X1,X2,X3),X4),X5),X6) = hAPP(X4,hAPP(X5,X6)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_COMBB__def_0) ).
cnf(cls_COMBS__def_0,axiom,
hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_COMBS(X1,X2,X3),X4),X5),X6) = hAPP(hAPP(X4,X6),hAPP(X5,X6)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_COMBS__def_0) ).
cnf(cls_Collect__def_0,axiom,
hAPP(c_Collect(X1),X2) = X2,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_Collect__def_0) ).
cnf(c_0_4,plain,
X1 != hAPP(c_Suc,X1),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_n__not__Suc__n_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,axiom,
hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_COMBB(X1,X2,X3),X4),X5),X6) = hAPP(X4,hAPP(X5,X6)),
cls_COMBB__def_0 ).
cnf(c_0_6,axiom,
hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_COMBS(X1,X2,X3),X4),X5),X6) = hAPP(hAPP(X4,X6),hAPP(X5,X6)),
cls_COMBS__def_0 ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
X1 != hAPP(c_Suc,X1),
c_0_4 ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_COMBS(X1,X2,X3),hAPP(c_COMBB(X4,X5,X6),X7)),X8),X9) = hAPP(X7,hAPP(X9,hAPP(X8,X9))),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_COMBS(X1,X2,X3),hAPP(c_COMBB(X4,X5,X6),c_Suc)),X7),X8) != hAPP(X8,hAPP(X7,X8)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,axiom,
hAPP(c_Collect(X1),X2) = X2,
cls_Collect__def_0 ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
hAPP(hAPP(hAPP(c_COMBS(X1,X2,X3),hAPP(c_COMBB(X4,X5,X6),c_Suc)),c_Collect(X7)),X8) != hAPP(X8,X8),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
$false,
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_11]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SWV823-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.36 % Computer : n007.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.36 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.12/0.36 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.12/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.12/0.36 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 09:25:35 UTC 2026
% 0.12/0.36 % 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
% 50.55/7.85 % Version: 3.5.1
% 50.55/7.85 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 50.55/7.85 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 50.55/7.85 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_AE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2S with 1200s (4) cores
% 50.55/7.85 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 50.55/7.85 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 50.55/7.85 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 50.55/7.85 % new_bool_3 with pid 744028 completed with status 0
% 50.55/7.85 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 50.55/7.85 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 50.55/7.85 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 50.55/7.85 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_AE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2S with 1200s (4) cores
% 50.55/7.85 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 50.55/7.85 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 50.55/7.85 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 50.55/7.85 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM31-DFFFFFNN
% 50.55/7.85 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 2 cores with 600 seconds (600 total)
% 50.55/7.85 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 55s (1) cores
% 50.55/7.85 % Starting new_bool_3 with 61s (1) cores
% 50.55/7.85 % new_bool_3 with pid 744036 completed with status 0
% 50.55/7.85 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 50.55/7.85 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 50.55/7.85 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 50.55/7.85 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_AE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2S with 1200s (4) cores
% 50.55/7.85 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 50.55/7.85 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 50.55/7.85 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 50.55/7.85 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM31-DFFFFFNN
% 50.55/7.85 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 2 cores with 600 seconds (600 total)
% 50.55/7.85 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 55s (1) cores
% 50.55/7.85 % Starting new_bool_3 with 61s (1) cores
% 50.55/7.85 % Preprocessing time : 0.004 s
% 50.55/7.85 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 50.55/7.85
% 50.55/7.85 % Proof found!
% 50.55/7.85 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 50.55/7.85 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 50.55/7.85 % Parsed axioms : 997
% 50.55/7.85 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 717
% 50.55/7.85 % Initial clauses : 280
% 50.55/7.85 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 50.55/7.85 % Initial clauses in saturation : 280
% 50.55/7.85 % Processed clauses : 10986
% 50.55/7.85 % ...of these trivial : 563
% 50.55/7.85 % ...subsumed : 7313
% 50.55/7.85 % ...remaining for further processing : 3110
% 50.55/7.85 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 229
% 50.55/7.85 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 50.55/7.85 % Backward-subsumed : 146
% 50.55/7.85 % Backward-rewritten : 70
% 50.55/7.85 % Generated clauses : 312969
% 50.55/7.85 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 303311
% 50.55/7.85 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 50.55/7.85 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 1
% 50.55/7.85 % Paramodulations : 312697
% 50.55/7.85 % Factorizations : 6
% 50.55/7.85 % NegExts : 0
% 50.55/7.85 % Equation resolutions : 266
% 50.55/7.85 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 50.55/7.85 % Total rewrite steps : 52506
% 50.55/7.85 % ...of those cached : 43018
% 50.55/7.85 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 50.55/7.85 % Propositional check models : 0
% 50.55/7.85 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 50.55/7.85 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 50.55/7.85 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 50.55/7.85 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 50.55/7.85 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 50.55/7.85 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 50.55/7.85 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 50.55/7.85 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 50.55/7.85 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 50.55/7.85 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 50.55/7.85 % Current number of processed clauses : 2688
% 50.55/7.85 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 276
% 50.55/7.85 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 78
% 50.55/7.85 % Negative unit clauses : 752
% 50.55/7.85 % Non-unit-clauses : 1582
% 50.55/7.85 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 292351
% 50.55/7.85 % ...number of literals in the above : 490085
% 50.55/7.85 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 50.55/7.85 % Current number of archived clauses : 422
% 50.55/7.85 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 322522
% 50.55/7.85 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 195254
% 50.55/7.85 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 2217
% 50.55/7.85 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 35148
% 50.55/7.85 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 2843
% 50.55/7.85 % BW rewrite match attempts : 94196
% 50.55/7.85 % BW rewrite match successes : 637
% 50.55/7.85 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 50.55/7.85 % Condensation successes : 0
% 50.55/7.85 % Termbank termtop insertions : 9688923
% 50.55/7.85 % Search garbage collected termcells : 4198
% 50.55/7.85
% 50.55/7.85 % -------------------------------------------------
% 50.55/7.85 % User time : 6.945 s
% 50.55/7.85 % System time : 0.291 s
% 50.55/7.85 % Total time : 7.236 s
% 50.55/7.85 % Maximum resident set size: 5064 pages
% 50.55/7.85
% 50.55/7.85 % -------------------------------------------------
% 50.55/7.85 % User time : 13.990 s
% 50.55/7.85 % System time : 0.543 s
% 50.55/7.85 % Total time : 14.533 s
% 50.55/7.85 % Maximum resident set size: 5632 pages
% 50.55/7.85 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------