%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SWW288+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v5.2.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n001.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 03:10:14 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.25s 0.54s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.25s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 6
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 21 ( 12 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 33 ( 12 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 24 ( 12 ~; 8 |; 1 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 3 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 5 ( 2 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 5 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 5 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 9 ( 9 usr; 3 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 9 ( 1 sgn 6 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(conj_0,conjecture,
c_Polynomial_Odegree(t_a,v_p) = c_Groups_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Nat_Onat),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',conj_0) ).
fof(fact__096p_A_061_A_091_058poly_Ap_A_I0_058_058_Ha_J_058_093_096,axiom,
( ( class_Rings_Oidom(t_a)
& class_Int_Oring__char__0(t_a) )
=> v_p = c_Polynomial_OpCons(t_a,hAPP(c_Polynomial_Opoly(t_a,v_p),c_Groups_Ozero__class_Ozero(t_a)),c_Groups_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Polynomial_Opoly(t_a))) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',fact__096p_A_061_A_091_058poly_Ap_A_I0_058_058_Ha_J_058_093_096) ).
fof(clrel_Int_Oring__char__0__Groups_Ozero,axiom,
! [X89] :
( class_Int_Oring__char__0(X89)
=> class_Groups_Ozero(X89) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',clrel_Int_Oring__char__0__Groups_Ozero) ).
fof(fact_degree__pCons__0,axiom,
! [X9,X8] :
( class_Groups_Ozero(X8)
=> c_Polynomial_Odegree(X8,c_Polynomial_OpCons(X8,X9,c_Groups_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Polynomial_Opoly(X8)))) = c_Groups_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Nat_Onat) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',fact_degree__pCons__0) ).
fof(tfree_0,hypothesis,
class_Int_Oring__char__0(t_a),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',tfree_0) ).
fof(tfree_1,hypothesis,
class_Rings_Oidom(t_a),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',tfree_1) ).
fof(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
c_Polynomial_Odegree(t_a,v_p) != c_Groups_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Nat_Onat),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[conj_0]) ).
fof(c_0_7,plain,
( v_p = c_Polynomial_OpCons(t_a,hAPP(c_Polynomial_Opoly(t_a,v_p),c_Groups_Ozero__class_Ozero(t_a)),c_Groups_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Polynomial_Opoly(t_a)))
| ~ class_Rings_Oidom(t_a)
| ~ class_Int_Oring__char__0(t_a) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[fact__096p_A_061_A_091_058poly_Ap_A_I0_058_058_Ha_J_058_093_096])]) ).
fof(c_0_8,plain,
! [X347] :
( class_Groups_Ozero(X347)
| ~ class_Int_Oring__char__0(X347) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[clrel_Int_Oring__char__0__Groups_Ozero])])]) ).
fof(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
c_Polynomial_Odegree(t_a,v_p) != c_Groups_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Nat_Onat),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
fof(c_0_10,plain,
! [X308,X309] :
( c_Polynomial_Odegree(X309,c_Polynomial_OpCons(X309,X308,c_Groups_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Polynomial_Opoly(X309)))) = c_Groups_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Nat_Onat)
| ~ class_Groups_Ozero(X309) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[fact_degree__pCons__0])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( ~ class_Rings_Oidom(t_a)
| ~ class_Int_Oring__char__0(t_a)
| v_p = c_Polynomial_OpCons(t_a,hAPP(c_Polynomial_Opoly(t_a,v_p),c_Groups_Ozero__class_Ozero(t_a)),c_Groups_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Polynomial_Opoly(t_a))) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,hypothesis,
class_Int_Oring__char__0(t_a),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[tfree_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,hypothesis,
class_Rings_Oidom(t_a),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[tfree_1]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
( ~ class_Int_Oring__char__0(X1)
| class_Groups_Ozero(X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
fof(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
c_Polynomial_Odegree(t_a,v_p) != c_Groups_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Nat_Onat),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
( ~ class_Groups_Ozero(X1)
| c_Polynomial_Odegree(X1,c_Polynomial_OpCons(X1,X2,c_Groups_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Polynomial_Opoly(X1)))) = c_Groups_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Nat_Onat) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,plain,
c_Polynomial_OpCons(t_a,hAPP(c_Polynomial_Opoly(t_a,v_p),c_Groups_Ozero__class_Ozero(t_a)),c_Groups_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Polynomial_Opoly(t_a))) = v_p,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12]),c_0_13])]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,hypothesis,
class_Groups_Ozero(t_a),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_14,c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
c_Polynomial_Odegree(t_a,v_p) != c_Groups_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Nat_Onat),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,plain,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]),c_0_18])]),c_0_19]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : SWW288+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v5.2.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/0.34 % Computer : n001.cluster.edu
% 0.08/0.34 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.08/0.34 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.08/0.34 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.08/0.34 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.08/0.34 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.08/0.34 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.08/0.34 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 09:51:44 UTC 2026
% 0.08/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.08/0.35 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.38 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.12/0.38 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
% 0.25/0.54 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.25/0.54 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.54 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.54 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.54 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.54 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.54 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.54 % new_bool_1 with pid 2822898 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.54 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.25/0.54 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.54 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.54 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.54 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.54 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.54 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.25/0.54 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.25/0.54 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-DFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.54 % Scheduled 13 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.54 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.54 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2822901 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.54 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.25/0.54 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.54 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.54 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.54 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.54 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.54 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.25/0.54 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.25/0.54 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-DFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.54 % Scheduled 13 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.54 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.54 % Preprocessing time : 0.007 s
% 0.25/0.54
% 0.25/0.54 % Proof found!
% 0.25/0.54 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.25/0.54 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.25/0.54 % Parsed axioms : 1218
% 0.25/0.54 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 597
% 0.25/0.54 % Initial clauses : 846
% 0.25/0.54 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 55
% 0.25/0.54 % Initial clauses in saturation : 791
% 0.25/0.54 % Processed clauses : 1892
% 0.25/0.54 % ...of these trivial : 168
% 0.25/0.54 % ...subsumed : 1172
% 0.25/0.54 % ...remaining for further processing : 552
% 0.25/0.54 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 146
% 0.25/0.54 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.25/0.54 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.54 % Backward-rewritten : 44
% 0.25/0.54 % Generated clauses : 4628
% 0.25/0.54 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 3389
% 0.25/0.54 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.54 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 2
% 0.25/0.54 % Paramodulations : 4469
% 0.25/0.54 % Factorizations : 12
% 0.25/0.54 % NegExts : 0
% 0.25/0.54 % Equation resolutions : 157
% 0.25/0.54 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.25/0.54 % Total rewrite steps : 2451
% 0.25/0.54 % ...of those cached : 2156
% 0.25/0.54 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.25/0.54 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.25/0.54 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.25/0.54 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.54 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.25/0.54 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.25/0.54 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.54 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.54 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.54 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.54 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.54 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.54 % Current number of processed clauses : 433
% 0.25/0.54 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 142
% 0.25/0.54 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 6
% 0.25/0.54 % Negative unit clauses : 63
% 0.25/0.54 % Non-unit-clauses : 222
% 0.25/0.54 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 2259
% 0.25/0.54 % ...number of literals in the above : 4918
% 0.25/0.54 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.25/0.54 % Current number of archived clauses : 44
% 0.25/0.54 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 9802
% 0.25/0.54 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 9425
% 0.25/0.54 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 326
% 0.25/0.54 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1207
% 0.25/0.54 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 2
% 0.25/0.54 % BW rewrite match attempts : 1874
% 0.25/0.54 % BW rewrite match successes : 59
% 0.25/0.54 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.25/0.54 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.25/0.54 % Termbank termtop insertions : 125318
% 0.25/0.54 % Search garbage collected termcells : 14677
% 0.25/0.54
% 0.25/0.54 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.54 % User time : 0.084 s
% 0.25/0.54 % System time : 0.015 s
% 0.25/0.54 % Total time : 0.099 s
% 0.25/0.54 % Maximum resident set size: 7360 pages
% 0.25/0.54
% 0.25/0.54 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.54 % User time : 0.123 s
% 0.25/0.54 % System time : 0.021 s
% 0.25/0.54 % Total time : 0.143 s
% 0.25/0.54 % Maximum resident set size: 5888 pages
% 0.25/0.54 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------