%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SWV925-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 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 03:00:12 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.26s 5.68s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.26s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 3
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 12 ( 9 unt; 0 nHn; 10 RR)
% Number of literals : 15 ( 14 equ; 6 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 0 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 10 ( 10 usr; 5 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 17 ( 6 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_length__0__conv_0,axiom,
( c_Nat_Osize__class_Osize(X1,tc_List_Olist(X2)) != c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)
| X1 = c_List_Olist_ONil(X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_length__0__conv_0) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_1,negated_conjecture,
c_Nat_Osize__class_Osize(c_List_Olist_OCons(v_aj,v_ak,tc_Value_Oval),tc_List_Olist(tc_Value_Oval)) = c_Nat_Osize__class_Osize(c_List_Olist_ONil(tc_Type_Oty),tc_List_Olist(tc_Type_Oty)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_1) ).
cnf(cls_length__0__conv_1,axiom,
c_Nat_Osize__class_Osize(c_List_Olist_ONil(X1),tc_List_Olist(X1)) = c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_length__0__conv_1) ).
cnf(cls_list_Osimps_I2_J_0,axiom,
c_List_Olist_ONil(X1) != c_List_Olist_OCons(X2,X3,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_list_Osimps_I2_J_0) ).
cnf(c_0_4,plain,
( c_Nat_Osize__class_Osize(X1,tc_List_Olist(X2)) != c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)
| X1 = c_List_Olist_ONil(X2) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_length__0__conv_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
c_Nat_Osize__class_Osize(c_List_Olist_OCons(v_aj,v_ak,tc_Value_Oval),tc_List_Olist(tc_Value_Oval)) = c_Nat_Osize__class_Osize(c_List_Olist_ONil(tc_Type_Oty),tc_List_Olist(tc_Type_Oty)),
cls_conjecture_1 ).
cnf(c_0_6,axiom,
c_Nat_Osize__class_Osize(c_List_Olist_ONil(X1),tc_List_Olist(X1)) = c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat),
cls_length__0__conv_1 ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
c_List_Olist_ONil(X1) != c_List_Olist_OCons(X2,X3,X1),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_list_Osimps_I2_J_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( c_Nat_Osize__class_Osize(X1,tc_List_Olist(X2)) != c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat)
| X1 = c_List_Olist_ONil(X2) ),
c_0_4 ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
c_Nat_Osize__class_Osize(c_List_Olist_OCons(v_aj,v_ak,tc_Value_Oval),tc_List_Olist(tc_Value_Oval)) = c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_nat),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
c_List_Olist_ONil(X1) != c_List_Olist_OCons(X2,X3,X1),
c_0_7 ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]),c_0_10]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : SWV925-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.06/5.50 % Computer : n009.cluster.edu
% 0.06/5.50 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.06/5.50 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.06/5.50 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.06/5.50 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.06/5.50 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.06/5.50 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.06/5.50 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 09:32:03 UTC 2026
% 0.06/5.50 % CPUTime :
% 0.06/5.50 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.06/5.57 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.06/5.57 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
% 0.26/5.68 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.26/5.68 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/5.68 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/5.68 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/5.68 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/5.68 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/5.68 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/5.68 % sh5l with pid 1421758 completed with status 0
% 0.26/5.68 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.26/5.68 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/5.68 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/5.68 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/5.68 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/5.68 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/5.68 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/5.68 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.26/5.68 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.26/5.68 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-DFFFFFNN
% 0.26/5.68 % Scheduled 13 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.26/5.68 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.26/5.68 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1421766 completed with status 0
% 0.26/5.68 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.26/5.68 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/5.68 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/5.68 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/5.68 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/5.68 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/5.68 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/5.68 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000)
% 0.26/5.68 % SinE strategy is gf500_gu_R04_F100_L20000
% 0.26/5.68 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-DFFFFFNN
% 0.26/5.68 % Scheduled 13 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.26/5.68 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.26/5.68 % Preprocessing time : 0.012 s
% 0.26/5.68
% 0.26/5.68 % Proof found!
% 0.26/5.68 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.26/5.68 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.26/5.68 % Parsed axioms : 614
% 0.26/5.68 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 38
% 0.26/5.68 % Initial clauses : 576
% 0.26/5.68 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.26/5.68 % Initial clauses in saturation : 576
% 0.26/5.68 % Processed clauses : 275
% 0.26/5.68 % ...of these trivial : 25
% 0.26/5.68 % ...subsumed : 100
% 0.26/5.68 % ...remaining for further processing : 150
% 0.26/5.68 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 4
% 0.26/5.68 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.26/5.68 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.26/5.68 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.26/5.68 % Generated clauses : 124
% 0.26/5.68 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 64
% 0.26/5.68 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.26/5.68 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.26/5.68 % Paramodulations : 112
% 0.26/5.68 % Factorizations : 2
% 0.26/5.68 % NegExts : 0
% 0.26/5.68 % Equation resolutions : 10
% 0.26/5.68 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.26/5.68 % Total rewrite steps : 70
% 0.26/5.68 % ...of those cached : 37
% 0.26/5.68 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.26/5.68 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.26/5.68 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.26/5.68 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.26/5.68 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.26/5.68 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.26/5.68 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.26/5.68 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.26/5.68 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.26/5.68 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.26/5.68 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.26/5.68 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.26/5.68 % Current number of processed clauses : 149
% 0.26/5.68 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 41
% 0.26/5.68 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.26/5.68 % Negative unit clauses : 69
% 0.26/5.68 % Non-unit-clauses : 39
% 0.26/5.68 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 365
% 0.26/5.68 % ...number of literals in the above : 695
% 0.26/5.68 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.26/5.68 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.26/5.68 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 711
% 0.26/5.68 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 421
% 0.26/5.68 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 20
% 0.26/5.68 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1507
% 0.26/5.68 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.26/5.68 % BW rewrite match attempts : 10
% 0.26/5.68 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.26/5.68 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.26/5.68 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.26/5.68 % Termbank termtop insertions : 18689
% 0.26/5.68 % Search garbage collected termcells : 1220
% 0.26/5.68
% 0.26/5.68 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/5.68 % User time : 0.038 s
% 0.26/5.68 % System time : 0.010 s
% 0.26/5.68 % Total time : 0.048 s
% 0.26/5.68 % Maximum resident set size: 4820 pages
% 0.26/5.68
% 0.26/5.68 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/5.68 % User time : 0.057 s
% 0.26/5.68 % System time : 0.014 s
% 0.26/5.68 % Total time : 0.071 s
% 0.26/5.68 % Maximum resident set size: 5376 pages
% 0.26/5.68 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------