%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SWW300+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 : n011.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 0.44s 0.76s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.44s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 11 ( 4 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 24 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 21 ( 8 ~; 4 |; 2 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 7 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 9 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 3 ( 3 usr; 3 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 16 ( 0 sgn 13 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(conj_1,conjecture,
! [X282,X283] :
( v_P(X282,X283)
=> ! [X284] :
( ! [X285] :
( v_P_H(X285,X283)
=> v_Q(X285,X284) )
=> v_Q(X282,X284) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',conj_1) ).
fof(conj_0,hypothesis,
! [X282,X283] :
( v_P(X282,X283)
=> v_P_H(X282,X283) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',conj_0) ).
fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X282,X283] :
( v_P(X282,X283)
=> ! [X284] :
( ! [X285] :
( v_P_H(X285,X283)
=> v_Q(X285,X284) )
=> v_Q(X282,X284) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[conj_1]) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
! [X291] :
( ~ v_Q(esk1_0,esk3_0)
& ( v_Q(X291,esk3_0)
| ~ v_P_H(X291,esk2_0) )
& v_P(esk1_0,esk2_0) ),
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])])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ v_Q(esk1_0,esk3_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
( ~ v_P_H(X1,esk2_0)
| v_Q(X1,esk3_0) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
fof(c_0_6,hypothesis,
! [X286,X287] :
( v_P_H(X286,X287)
| ~ v_P(X286,X287) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[conj_0])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
~ v_P_H(esk1_0,esk2_0),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,hypothesis,
( ~ v_P(X1,X2)
| v_P_H(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
v_P(esk1_0,esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]),c_0_9])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SWW300+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v5.2.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.37 % Computer : n011.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.37 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 09:46:25 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.42 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.10/0.42 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
% 0.44/0.76 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.44/0.76 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.44/0.76 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.44/0.76 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.44/0.76 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.44/0.76 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.44/0.76 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.44/0.76 % new_bool_3 with pid 1594012 completed with status 0
% 0.44/0.76 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.44/0.76 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.44/0.76 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.44/0.76 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.44/0.76 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.44/0.76 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.44/0.76 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.44/0.76 % Search class: FHUNF-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.44/0.76 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.44/0.76 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.44/0.76 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1594016 completed with status 0
% 0.44/0.76 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.44/0.76 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.44/0.76 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.44/0.76 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.44/0.76 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.44/0.76 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.44/0.76 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.44/0.76 % Search class: FHUNF-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.44/0.76 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.44/0.76 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.44/0.76 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.44/0.76
% 0.44/0.76 % Proof found!
% 0.44/0.76 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.44/0.76 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.44/0.76 % Parsed axioms : 5242
% 0.44/0.76 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 5240
% 0.44/0.76 % Initial clauses : 4
% 0.44/0.76 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.44/0.76 % Initial clauses in saturation : 4
% 0.44/0.76 % Processed clauses : 5
% 0.44/0.76 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.44/0.76 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.44/0.76 % ...remaining for further processing : 5
% 0.44/0.76 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.44/0.76 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.44/0.76 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.44/0.76 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.44/0.76 % Generated clauses : 2
% 0.44/0.76 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1
% 0.44/0.76 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.44/0.76 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.44/0.76 % Paramodulations : 2
% 0.44/0.76 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.44/0.76 % NegExts : 0
% 0.44/0.76 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.44/0.76 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.44/0.76 % Total rewrite steps : 1
% 0.44/0.76 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.44/0.76 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.44/0.76 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.44/0.76 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.44/0.76 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.44/0.76 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.44/0.76 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.44/0.76 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.44/0.76 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.44/0.76 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.44/0.76 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.44/0.76 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.44/0.76 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.44/0.76 % Current number of processed clauses : 5
% 0.44/0.76 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 1
% 0.44/0.76 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.44/0.76 % Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.44/0.76 % Non-unit-clauses : 2
% 0.44/0.76 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.44/0.76 % ...number of literals in the above : 0
% 0.44/0.76 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.44/0.76 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.44/0.76 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.44/0.76 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.44/0.76 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.44/0.76 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.44/0.76 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.44/0.76 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.44/0.76 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.44/0.76 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.44/0.76 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.44/0.76 % Termbank termtop insertions : 130384
% 0.44/0.76 % Search garbage collected termcells : 50209
% 0.44/0.76
% 0.44/0.76 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.44/0.76 % User time : 0.032 s
% 0.44/0.76 % System time : 0.018 s
% 0.44/0.76 % Total time : 0.050 s
% 0.44/0.76 % Maximum resident set size: 12384 pages
% 0.44/0.76
% 0.44/0.76 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.44/0.76 % User time : 0.289 s
% 0.44/0.76 % System time : 0.037 s
% 0.44/0.76 % Total time : 0.325 s
% 0.44/0.76 % Maximum resident set size: 12544 pages
% 0.44/0.76 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------