%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SWW302+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 : n013.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 0.53s 0.89s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.53s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 11 ( 3 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 25 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 22 ( 8 ~; 5 |; 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 : 17 ( 0 sgn 13 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(conj_1,conjecture,
! [X282,X283] :
( v_P(X282,X283)
=> ! [X284] :
( ! [X285] :
( v_P(X285,X283)
=> v_Q_H(X285,X284) )
=> v_Q(X282,X284) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',conj_1) ).
fof(conj_0,hypothesis,
! [X282,X283] :
( v_Q_H(X282,X283)
=> v_Q(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(X285,X283)
=> v_Q_H(X285,X284) )
=> v_Q(X282,X284) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[conj_1]) ).
fof(c_0_3,hypothesis,
! [X286,X287] :
( v_Q(X286,X287)
| ~ v_Q_H(X286,X287) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[conj_0])])]) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
! [X291] :
( ~ v_Q(esk1_0,esk3_0)
& ( v_Q_H(X291,esk3_0)
| ~ v_P(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_5,hypothesis,
( ~ v_Q_H(X1,X2)
| v_Q(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( ~ v_P(X1,esk2_0)
| v_Q_H(X1,esk3_0) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
~ v_Q(esk1_0,esk3_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
( ~ v_P(X1,esk2_0)
| v_Q(X1,esk3_0) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
v_P(esk1_0,esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
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
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : SWW302+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v5.2.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.18/0.45 % Computer : n013.cluster.edu
% 0.18/0.45 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.18/0.45 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.18/0.45 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.18/0.45 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.18/0.45 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.18/0.45 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.18/0.45 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 09:45:51 UTC 2026
% 0.18/0.46 % CPUTime :
% 0.18/0.46 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.24/0.54 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.24/0.55 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
% 0.53/0.89 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.53/0.89 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.53/0.89 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.53/0.89 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.53/0.89 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.53/0.89 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.53/0.89 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.53/0.89 % new_bool_1 with pid 478360 completed with status 0
% 0.53/0.89 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.53/0.89 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.53/0.89 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.53/0.89 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.53/0.89 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.53/0.89 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.53/0.89 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.53/0.89 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.53/0.89 % Search class: FHUNF-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.53/0.89 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.53/0.89 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.53/0.89 % SubtermCWHack with pid 478364 completed with status 0
% 0.53/0.89 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.53/0.89 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.53/0.89 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.53/0.89 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.53/0.89 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.53/0.89 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.53/0.89 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.53/0.89 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.53/0.89 % Search class: FHUNF-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.53/0.89 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.53/0.89 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.53/0.89 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.53/0.89
% 0.53/0.89 % Proof found!
% 0.53/0.89 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.53/0.89 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.53/0.89 % Parsed axioms : 5242
% 0.53/0.89 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 5240
% 0.53/0.89 % Initial clauses : 4
% 0.53/0.89 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.53/0.89 % Initial clauses in saturation : 4
% 0.53/0.89 % Processed clauses : 5
% 0.53/0.89 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.53/0.89 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.53/0.89 % ...remaining for further processing : 5
% 0.53/0.89 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.53/0.89 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.53/0.89 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.53/0.89 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.53/0.89 % Generated clauses : 2
% 0.53/0.89 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1
% 0.53/0.89 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.53/0.89 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.53/0.89 % Paramodulations : 2
% 0.53/0.89 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.53/0.89 % NegExts : 0
% 0.53/0.89 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.53/0.89 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.53/0.89 % Total rewrite steps : 1
% 0.53/0.89 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.53/0.89 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.53/0.89 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.53/0.89 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.53/0.89 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.53/0.89 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.53/0.89 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.53/0.89 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.53/0.89 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.53/0.89 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.53/0.89 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.53/0.89 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.53/0.89 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.53/0.89 % Current number of processed clauses : 5
% 0.53/0.89 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 1
% 0.53/0.89 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.53/0.89 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.53/0.89 % Non-unit-clauses : 3
% 0.53/0.89 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.53/0.89 % ...number of literals in the above : 0
% 0.53/0.89 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.53/0.89 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.53/0.89 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.53/0.89 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.53/0.89 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.53/0.89 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.53/0.89 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.53/0.89 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.53/0.89 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.53/0.89 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.53/0.89 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.53/0.89 % Termbank termtop insertions : 130387
% 0.53/0.89 % Search garbage collected termcells : 50209
% 0.53/0.89
% 0.53/0.89 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.53/0.89 % User time : 0.035 s
% 0.53/0.89 % System time : 0.026 s
% 0.53/0.89 % Total time : 0.060 s
% 0.53/0.89 % Maximum resident set size: 12332 pages
% 0.53/0.89
% 0.53/0.89 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.53/0.89 % User time : 0.285 s
% 0.53/0.89 % System time : 0.041 s
% 0.53/0.89 % Total time : 0.325 s
% 0.53/0.89 % Maximum resident set size: 12288 pages
% 0.53/0.89 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------