%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SWW297+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 : n005.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 03:10:15 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.30s 1.21s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.30s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 13 ( 4 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 36 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 6 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 35 ( 12 ~; 9 |; 3 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 11 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 8 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-4 aty)
% Number of functors : 7 ( 7 usr; 6 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 34 ( 0 sgn 23 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(conj_0,conjecture,
( ! [X298,X299] :
( v_fun1(X298,X299)
=> ! [X300] :
( c_Natural_Oevaln(v_com,X299,hAPP(c_Nat_OSuc,v_n),X300)
=> v_fun2(X298,X300) ) )
=> ! [X298,X299] :
( v_fun1(X298,X299)
=> ! [X300] :
( c_Natural_Oevaln(v_com,X299,v_n,X300)
=> v_fun2(X298,X300) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',conj_0) ).
fof(fact_evaln__Suc,axiom,
! [X4,X5,X6,X7] :
( c_Natural_Oevaln(X7,X6,X5,X4)
=> c_Natural_Oevaln(X7,X6,hAPP(c_Nat_OSuc,X5),X4) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',fact_evaln__Suc) ).
fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ ( ! [X298,X299] :
( v_fun1(X298,X299)
=> ! [X300] :
( c_Natural_Oevaln(v_com,X299,hAPP(c_Nat_OSuc,v_n),X300)
=> v_fun2(X298,X300) ) )
=> ! [X298,X299] :
( v_fun1(X298,X299)
=> ! [X300] :
( c_Natural_Oevaln(v_com,X299,v_n,X300)
=> v_fun2(X298,X300) ) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[conj_0]) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
! [X301,X302,X303] :
( ~ v_fun2(esk1_0,esk3_0)
& c_Natural_Oevaln(v_com,esk2_0,v_n,esk3_0)
& v_fun1(esk1_0,esk2_0)
& ( v_fun2(X301,X303)
| ~ c_Natural_Oevaln(v_com,X302,hAPP(c_Nat_OSuc,v_n),X303)
| ~ v_fun1(X301,X302) ) ),
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_2])])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_4,plain,
! [X307,X308,X309,X310] :
( c_Natural_Oevaln(X310,X309,hAPP(c_Nat_OSuc,X308),X307)
| ~ c_Natural_Oevaln(X310,X309,X308,X307) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[fact_evaln__Suc])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
( ~ c_Natural_Oevaln(v_com,X2,hAPP(c_Nat_OSuc,v_n),X3)
| ~ v_fun1(X1,X2)
| v_fun2(X1,X3) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ c_Natural_Oevaln(X1,X2,X3,X4)
| c_Natural_Oevaln(X1,X2,hAPP(c_Nat_OSuc,X3),X4) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,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_5,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
c_Natural_Oevaln(v_com,esk2_0,v_n,esk3_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
~ v_fun2(esk1_0,esk3_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
( ~ v_fun1(X1,esk2_0)
| v_fun2(X1,esk3_0) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
v_fun1(esk1_0,esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_11])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : SWW297+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v5.2.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.20/0.46 % Computer : n005.cluster.edu
% 0.20/0.46 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.20/0.46 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.20/0.46 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.20/0.46 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.20/0.46 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.20/0.46 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.20/0.46 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 09:46:03 UTC 2026
% 0.20/0.47 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/0.47 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.24/0.54 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.24/0.54 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
% 0.30/1.21 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.30/1.21 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.30/1.21 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.30/1.21 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.30/1.21 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.30/1.21 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.30/1.21 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.30/1.21 % new_bool_3 with pid 3151368 completed with status 0
% 0.30/1.21 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.30/1.21 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.30/1.21 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.30/1.21 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.30/1.21 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.30/1.21 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.30/1.21 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.30/1.21 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-DFFFFFNN
% 0.30/1.21 % Scheduled 13 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.30/1.21 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.30/1.21 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3151371 completed with status 0
% 0.30/1.21 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.30/1.21 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.30/1.21 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.30/1.21 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.30/1.21 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.30/1.21 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.30/1.21 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.30/1.21 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-DFFFFFNN
% 0.30/1.21 % Scheduled 13 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.30/1.21 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.30/1.21 % Preprocessing time : 0.027 s
% 0.30/1.21
% 0.30/1.21 % Proof found!
% 0.30/1.21 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.30/1.21 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.30/1.21 % Parsed axioms : 5225
% 0.30/1.21 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 4683
% 0.30/1.21 % Initial clauses : 835
% 0.30/1.21 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 43
% 0.30/1.21 % Initial clauses in saturation : 792
% 0.30/1.21 % Processed clauses : 270
% 0.30/1.21 % ...of these trivial : 7
% 0.30/1.21 % ...subsumed : 82
% 0.30/1.21 % ...remaining for further processing : 181
% 0.30/1.21 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 48
% 0.30/1.21 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.30/1.21 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.30/1.21 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.30/1.21 % Generated clauses : 257
% 0.30/1.21 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 122
% 0.30/1.21 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.30/1.21 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.30/1.21 % Paramodulations : 203
% 0.30/1.21 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.30/1.21 % NegExts : 0
% 0.30/1.21 % Equation resolutions : 59
% 0.30/1.21 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.30/1.21 % Total rewrite steps : 142
% 0.30/1.21 % ...of those cached : 88
% 0.30/1.21 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.30/1.21 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.30/1.21 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.30/1.21 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.30/1.21 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.30/1.21 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.30/1.21 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.30/1.21 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.30/1.21 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.30/1.21 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.30/1.21 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.30/1.21 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.30/1.21 % Current number of processed clauses : 141
% 0.30/1.21 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 60
% 0.30/1.21 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 5
% 0.30/1.21 % Negative unit clauses : 31
% 0.30/1.21 % Non-unit-clauses : 45
% 0.30/1.21 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 644
% 0.30/1.21 % ...number of literals in the above : 1518
% 0.30/1.21 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.30/1.21 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.30/1.21 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1219
% 0.30/1.21 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1180
% 0.30/1.21 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 21
% 0.30/1.21 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 72
% 0.30/1.21 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 6
% 0.30/1.21 % BW rewrite match attempts : 199
% 0.30/1.21 % BW rewrite match successes : 40
% 0.30/1.21 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.30/1.21 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.30/1.21 % Termbank termtop insertions : 210150
% 0.30/1.21 % Search garbage collected termcells : 55092
% 0.30/1.21
% 0.30/1.21 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.30/1.21 % User time : 0.092 s
% 0.30/1.21 % System time : 0.034 s
% 0.30/1.21 % Total time : 0.126 s
% 0.30/1.21 % Maximum resident set size: 12884 pages
% 0.30/1.21
% 0.30/1.21 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.30/1.21 % User time : 0.554 s
% 0.30/1.21 % System time : 0.056 s
% 0.30/1.21 % Total time : 0.610 s
% 0.30/1.21 % Maximum resident set size: 12032 pages
% 0.30/1.21 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------