%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SWV824-1 : 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 : 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 03:00:01 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.24s 0.99s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.24s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 16 ( 8 unt; 0 nHn; 16 RR)
% Number of literals : 28 ( 0 equ; 15 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-4 aty)
% Number of functors : 6 ( 6 usr; 5 con; 0-1 aty)
% Number of variables : 25 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_conjecture_3,negated_conjecture,
( ~ v_fun1(X1,X3)
| ~ c_Natural_Oevaln(v_com,X3,c_Suc(v_n),X2)
| v_fun2(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_3) ).
cnf(cls_evaln__Suc_0,axiom,
( ~ c_Natural_Oevaln(X1,X2,X3,X4)
| c_Natural_Oevaln(X1,X2,c_Suc(X3),X4) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_evaln__Suc_0) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_1,negated_conjecture,
c_Natural_Oevaln(v_com,v_xa,v_n,v_xb),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_1) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_2,negated_conjecture,
~ v_fun2(v_x,v_xb),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_2) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
v_fun1(v_x,v_xa),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_0) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
( ~ v_fun1(X1,X3)
| ~ c_Natural_Oevaln(v_com,X3,c_Suc(v_n),X2)
| v_fun2(X1,X2) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ c_Natural_Oevaln(X1,X2,X3,X4)
| c_Natural_Oevaln(X1,X2,c_Suc(X3),X4) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_evaln__Suc_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
( ~ v_fun1(X1,X3)
| ~ c_Natural_Oevaln(v_com,X3,c_Suc(v_n),X2)
| v_fun2(X1,X2) ),
c_0_5 ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ c_Natural_Oevaln(X1,X2,X3,X4)
| c_Natural_Oevaln(X1,X2,c_Suc(X3),X4) ),
c_0_6 ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
( ~ c_Natural_Oevaln(v_com,X3,v_n,X2)
| ~ v_fun1(X1,X3)
| v_fun2(X1,X2) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
c_Natural_Oevaln(v_com,v_xa,v_n,v_xb),
cls_conjecture_1 ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
~ v_fun2(v_x,v_xb),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
( ~ v_fun1(X1,v_xa)
| v_fun2(X1,v_xb) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
v_fun1(v_x,v_xa),
cls_conjecture_0 ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
~ v_fun2(v_x,v_xb),
c_0_11 ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]),c_0_14]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : SWV824-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.19/0.66 % Computer : n014.cluster.edu
% 0.19/0.66 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.19/0.66 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.19/0.66 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.19/0.66 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.19/0.66 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.19/0.66 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.19/0.66 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 09:27:19 UTC 2026
% 0.19/0.67 % CPUTime :
% 0.19/0.67 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.24/0.74 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.24/0.74 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
% 0.24/0.99 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.24/0.99 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.99 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.99 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.99 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.99 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.99 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.99 % C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with pid 3733277 completed with status 0
% 0.24/0.99 % Result found by C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr
% 0.24/0.99 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.99 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.99 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.99 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.24/0.99 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.24/0.99 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.24/0.99 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.24/0.99 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.99 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.99 % Starting G-E--_107_B42_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 123s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.99 % Starting U----_100_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_ND_S04AN with 123s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.99 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S032N with 123s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.99 % U----_100_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_ND_S04AN with pid 3733287 completed with status 0
% 0.24/0.99 % Result found by U----_100_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_ND_S04AN
% 0.24/0.99 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/0.99 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/0.99 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/0.99 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.24/0.99 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.24/0.99 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.24/0.99 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.24/0.99 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.99 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.99 % Starting G-E--_107_B42_F1_PI_SE_Q4_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 123s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.99 % Starting U----_100_C09_12_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_ND_S04AN with 123s (1) cores
% 0.24/0.99 % Preprocessing time : 0.014 s
% 0.24/0.99 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.24/0.99
% 0.24/0.99 % Proof found!
% 0.24/0.99 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.24/0.99 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.24/0.99 % Parsed axioms : 701
% 0.24/0.99 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.24/0.99 % Initial clauses : 701
% 0.24/0.99 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 2
% 0.24/0.99 % Initial clauses in saturation : 699
% 0.24/0.99 % Processed clauses : 1471
% 0.24/0.99 % ...of these trivial : 54
% 0.24/0.99 % ...subsumed : 570
% 0.24/0.99 % ...remaining for further processing : 847
% 0.24/0.99 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 4
% 0.24/0.99 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.24/0.99 % Backward-subsumed : 4
% 0.24/0.99 % Backward-rewritten : 48
% 0.24/0.99 % Generated clauses : 2352
% 0.24/0.99 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1789
% 0.24/0.99 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.24/0.99 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 2
% 0.24/0.99 % Paramodulations : 2341
% 0.24/0.99 % Factorizations : 2
% 0.24/0.99 % NegExts : 0
% 0.24/0.99 % Equation resolutions : 9
% 0.24/0.99 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.24/0.99 % Total rewrite steps : 2386
% 0.24/0.99 % ...of those cached : 2048
% 0.24/0.99 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.24/0.99 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.24/0.99 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.24/0.99 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.24/0.99 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.24/0.99 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.24/0.99 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.99 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.99 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.99 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.99 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.99 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/0.99 % Current number of processed clauses : 238
% 0.24/0.99 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 103
% 0.24/0.99 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 5
% 0.24/0.99 % Negative unit clauses : 61
% 0.24/0.99 % Non-unit-clauses : 69
% 0.24/0.99 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 1536
% 0.24/0.99 % ...number of literals in the above : 2632
% 0.24/0.99 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.24/0.99 % Current number of archived clauses : 610
% 0.24/0.99 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 18097
% 0.24/0.99 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 12376
% 0.24/0.99 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 137
% 0.24/0.99 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 824
% 0.24/0.99 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.24/0.99 % BW rewrite match attempts : 263
% 0.24/0.99 % BW rewrite match successes : 140
% 0.24/0.99 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.24/0.99 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.24/0.99 % Termbank termtop insertions : 53730
% 0.24/0.99 % Search garbage collected termcells : 1281
% 0.24/0.99
% 0.24/0.99 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/0.99 % User time : 0.174 s
% 0.24/0.99 % System time : 0.014 s
% 0.24/0.99 % Total time : 0.188 s
% 0.24/0.99 % Maximum resident set size: 4860 pages
% 0.24/0.99
% 0.24/0.99 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/0.99 % User time : 0.821 s
% 0.24/0.99 % System time : 0.063 s
% 0.24/0.99 % Total time : 0.884 s
% 0.24/0.99 % Maximum resident set size: 5376 pages
% 0.24/0.99 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------