%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SWW342+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 : n006.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 03:10:20 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.87s 1.04s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.87s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 11 ( 5 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 20 ( 4 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 14 ( 5 ~; 2 |; 2 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 5 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 7 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-4 aty)
% Number of functors : 5 ( 5 usr; 5 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 15 ( 1 sgn 12 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(conj_1,conjecture,
! [X14,X15] :
( v_P(X14,X15)
=> ! [X16] :
( c_Natural_Oevaln(c_Com_Ocom_OSKIP,X15,v_n,X16)
=> v_P(X14,X16) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',conj_1) ).
fof(fact_evaln__elim__cases_I1_J,axiom,
! [X6,X4,X5] :
( c_Natural_Oevaln(c_Com_Ocom_OSKIP,X5,X4,X6)
=> X6 = X5 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',fact_evaln__elim__cases_I1_J) ).
fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X14,X15] :
( v_P(X14,X15)
=> ! [X16] :
( c_Natural_Oevaln(c_Com_Ocom_OSKIP,X15,v_n,X16)
=> v_P(X14,X16) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[conj_1]) ).
fof(c_0_3,plain,
! [X472,X473,X474] :
( X472 = X474
| ~ c_Natural_Oevaln(c_Com_Ocom_OSKIP,X474,X473,X472) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[fact_evaln__elim__cases_I1_J])])]) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
( ~ v_P(esk1_0,esk3_0)
& c_Natural_Oevaln(c_Com_Ocom_OSKIP,esk2_0,v_n,esk3_0)
& v_P(esk1_0,esk2_0) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,plain,
( ~ c_Natural_Oevaln(c_Com_Ocom_OSKIP,X1,X2,X3)
| X3 = X1 ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
c_Natural_Oevaln(c_Com_Ocom_OSKIP,esk2_0,v_n,esk3_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
~ v_P(esk1_0,esk3_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
esk3_0 = esk2_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(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]),c_0_9])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SWW342+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v5.2.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.56 % Computer : n006.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.56 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.56 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.56 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.12/0.56 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.12/0.56 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.56 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.12/0.56 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 09:48:13 UTC 2026
% 0.12/0.56 % CPUTime :
% 0.12/0.56 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.60 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.12/0.60 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
% 0.87/1.04 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.87/1.04 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.87/1.04 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.87/1.04 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.87/1.04 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.87/1.04 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.87/1.04 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.87/1.04 % new_bool_1 with pid 2552827 completed with status 0
% 0.87/1.04 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.87/1.04 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.87/1.04 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.87/1.04 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.87/1.04 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.87/1.04 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.87/1.04 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.87/1.04 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.87/1.04 % Search class: FGHSM-SSLM32-DFFFFFNN
% 0.87/1.04 % Scheduled 13 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.87/1.04 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.87/1.04 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2552829 completed with status 0
% 0.87/1.04 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.87/1.04 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.87/1.04 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.87/1.04 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.87/1.04 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.87/1.04 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.87/1.04 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.87/1.04 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.87/1.04 % Search class: FGHSM-SSLM32-DFFFFFNN
% 0.87/1.04 % Scheduled 13 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.87/1.04 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.87/1.04 % Preprocessing time : 0.028 s
% 0.87/1.04
% 0.87/1.04 % Proof found!
% 0.87/1.04 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.87/1.04 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.87/1.04 % Parsed axioms : 5206
% 0.87/1.04 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 4444
% 0.87/1.04 % Initial clauses : 1149
% 0.87/1.04 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 56
% 0.87/1.04 % Initial clauses in saturation : 1093
% 0.87/1.04 % Processed clauses : 104
% 0.87/1.04 % ...of these trivial : 9
% 0.87/1.04 % ...subsumed : 37
% 0.87/1.04 % ...remaining for further processing : 58
% 0.87/1.04 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 2
% 0.87/1.04 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.87/1.04 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.87/1.04 % Backward-rewritten : 2
% 0.87/1.04 % Generated clauses : 8
% 0.87/1.04 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 4
% 0.87/1.04 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.87/1.04 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.87/1.04 % Paramodulations : 5
% 0.87/1.04 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.87/1.04 % NegExts : 0
% 0.87/1.04 % Equation resolutions : 3
% 0.87/1.04 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.87/1.04 % Total rewrite steps : 13
% 0.87/1.04 % ...of those cached : 1
% 0.87/1.04 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.87/1.04 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.87/1.04 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.87/1.04 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.87/1.04 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.87/1.04 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.87/1.04 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.87/1.04 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.87/1.04 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.87/1.04 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.87/1.04 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.87/1.04 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.87/1.04 % Current number of processed clauses : 56
% 0.87/1.04 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 21
% 0.87/1.04 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.87/1.04 % Negative unit clauses : 32
% 0.87/1.04 % Non-unit-clauses : 3
% 0.87/1.04 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 993
% 0.87/1.04 % ...number of literals in the above : 2205
% 0.87/1.04 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.87/1.04 % Current number of archived clauses : 2
% 0.87/1.04 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1
% 0.87/1.04 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.87/1.04 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 1
% 0.87/1.04 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 184
% 0.87/1.04 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.87/1.04 % BW rewrite match attempts : 9
% 0.87/1.04 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.87/1.04 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.87/1.04 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.87/1.04 % Termbank termtop insertions : 236124
% 0.87/1.04 % Search garbage collected termcells : 57894
% 0.87/1.04
% 0.87/1.04 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.87/1.04 % User time : 0.110 s
% 0.87/1.04 % System time : 0.034 s
% 0.87/1.04 % Total time : 0.144 s
% 0.87/1.04 % Maximum resident set size: 13760 pages
% 0.87/1.04
% 0.87/1.04 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.87/1.04 % User time : 0.378 s
% 0.87/1.04 % System time : 0.049 s
% 0.87/1.04 % Total time : 0.427 s
% 0.87/1.04 % Maximum resident set size: 12288 pages
% 0.87/1.04 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------