%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : SWW375+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 : n003.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 03:12:03 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 2.22s 1.47s
% Output : CNFRefutation 2.22s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 4
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 15 ( 11 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 22 ( 7 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 17 ( 10 ~; 5 |; 0 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 2 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 6 ( 2 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 2 usr; 2 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 7 ( 7 usr; 5 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 9 ( 3 sgn 4 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(conj_4,conjecture,
hBOOL(hAPP(c_Com_OWT,v_y)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',conj_4) ).
fof(fact_WT__bodiesD,axiom,
! [X4,X5] :
( c_Com_OWT__bodies
=> ( hAPP(c_Com_Obody,X5) = hAPP(c_Option_Ooption_OSome(tc_Com_Ocom),X4)
=> hBOOL(hAPP(c_Com_OWT,X4)) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',fact_WT__bodiesD) ).
fof(conj_1,hypothesis,
c_Com_OWT__bodies,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',conj_1) ).
fof(conj_3,hypothesis,
hAPP(c_Com_Obody,v_pn) = hAPP(c_Option_Ooption_OSome(tc_Com_Ocom),v_y),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',conj_3) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ hBOOL(hAPP(c_Com_OWT,v_y)),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[conj_4]) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X343,X344] :
( hBOOL(hAPP(c_Com_OWT,X343))
| hAPP(c_Com_Obody,X344) != hAPP(c_Option_Ooption_OSome(tc_Com_Ocom),X343)
| ~ c_Com_OWT__bodies ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[fact_WT__bodiesD])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
~ hBOOL(hAPP(c_Com_OWT,v_y)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( hAPP(c_Com_Obody,X1) != hAPP(c_Option_Ooption_OSome(tc_Com_Ocom),X2)
| ~ c_Com_OWT__bodies
| hBOOL(hAPP(c_Com_OWT,X2)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,hypothesis,
c_Com_OWT__bodies,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[conj_1]) ).
fof(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
~ hBOOL(hAPP(c_Com_OWT,v_y)),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( hAPP(c_Com_Obody,X2) != hAPP(c_Option_Ooption_OSome(tc_Com_Ocom),X1)
| hBOOL(hAPP(c_Com_OWT,X1)) ),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8])]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,hypothesis,
hAPP(c_Com_Obody,v_pn) = hAPP(c_Option_Ooption_OSome(tc_Com_Ocom),v_y),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[conj_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
~ hBOOL(hAPP(c_Com_OWT,v_y)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,hypothesis,
hAPP(c_Com_Obody,X1) != hAPP(c_Com_Obody,v_pn),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]),c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,hypothesis,
$false,
inference(er,[status(thm)],[c_0_13]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : SWW375+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v5.2.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.16/0.43 % Computer : n003.cluster.edu
% 0.16/0.43 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.16/0.43 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.16/0.43 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.16/0.43 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.16/0.44 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.16/0.44 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.16/0.44 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 09:51:46 UTC 2026
% 0.16/0.44 % CPUTime :
% 0.16/0.44 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.27/0.52 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.27/0.52 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
% 2.22/1.47 % Version: 3.5.1
% 2.22/1.47 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSLSMSSSNFFN.
% 2.22/1.47 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 2.22/1.47 % Starting SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with 1500s (5) cores
% 2.22/1.47 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 2.22/1.47 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 2.22/1.47 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 2.22/1.47 % new_bool_3 with pid 3995933 completed with status 0
% 2.22/1.47 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 2.22/1.47 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSLSMSSSNFFN.
% 2.22/1.47 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 2.22/1.47 % Starting SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with 1500s (5) cores
% 2.22/1.47 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 2.22/1.47 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 2.22/1.47 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 2.22/1.47 % Search class: FGHSM-SMLM32-DFFFFFNN
% 2.22/1.47 % Scheduled 13 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 2.22/1.47 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 2.22/1.47 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3995936 completed with status 0
% 2.22/1.47 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 2.22/1.47 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSLSMSSSNFFN.
% 2.22/1.47 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 2.22/1.47 % Starting SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with 1500s (5) cores
% 2.22/1.47 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 2.22/1.47 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 2.22/1.47 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 2.22/1.47 % Search class: FGHSM-SMLM32-DFFFFFNN
% 2.22/1.47 % Scheduled 13 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 2.22/1.47 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 2.22/1.47 % Preprocessing time : 0.078 s
% 2.22/1.47
% 2.22/1.47 % Proof found!
% 2.22/1.47 % SZS status Theorem
% 2.22/1.47 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 2.22/1.47 % Parsed axioms : 5230
% 2.22/1.47 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 3599
% 2.22/1.47 % Initial clauses : 2391
% 2.22/1.47 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 84
% 2.22/1.47 % Initial clauses in saturation : 2307
% 2.22/1.47 % Processed clauses : 452
% 2.22/1.47 % ...of these trivial : 30
% 2.22/1.47 % ...subsumed : 77
% 2.22/1.47 % ...remaining for further processing : 345
% 2.22/1.47 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 48
% 2.22/1.47 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 2.22/1.47 % Backward-subsumed : 5
% 2.22/1.47 % Backward-rewritten : 39
% 2.22/1.47 % Generated clauses : 746
% 2.22/1.47 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 642
% 2.22/1.47 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 2.22/1.47 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 2.22/1.47 % Paramodulations : 690
% 2.22/1.47 % Factorizations : 2
% 2.22/1.47 % NegExts : 0
% 2.22/1.47 % Equation resolutions : 59
% 2.22/1.47 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 2.22/1.47 % Total rewrite steps : 322
% 2.22/1.47 % ...of those cached : 212
% 2.22/1.47 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 2.22/1.47 % Propositional check models : 0
% 2.22/1.47 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 2.22/1.47 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 2.22/1.47 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 2.22/1.47 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 2.22/1.47 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 2.22/1.47 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 2.22/1.47 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 2.22/1.47 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 2.22/1.47 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 2.22/1.47 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 2.22/1.47 % Current number of processed clauses : 272
% 2.22/1.47 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 136
% 2.22/1.47 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 2.22/1.47 % Negative unit clauses : 58
% 2.22/1.47 % Non-unit-clauses : 77
% 2.22/1.47 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 2154
% 2.22/1.47 % ...number of literals in the above : 4917
% 2.22/1.47 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 2.22/1.47 % Current number of archived clauses : 44
% 2.22/1.47 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1700
% 2.22/1.47 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1147
% 2.22/1.47 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 22
% 2.22/1.47 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 508
% 2.22/1.47 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 2.22/1.47 % BW rewrite match attempts : 149
% 2.22/1.47 % BW rewrite match successes : 24
% 2.22/1.47 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 2.22/1.47 % Condensation successes : 0
% 2.22/1.47 % Termbank termtop insertions : 397091
% 2.22/1.47 % Search garbage collected termcells : 64788
% 2.22/1.47
% 2.22/1.47 % -------------------------------------------------
% 2.22/1.47 % User time : 0.421 s
% 2.22/1.47 % System time : 0.055 s
% 2.22/1.47 % Total time : 0.476 s
% 2.22/1.47 % Maximum resident set size: 18880 pages
% 2.22/1.47
% 2.22/1.47 % -------------------------------------------------
% 2.22/1.47 % User time : 0.822 s
% 2.22/1.47 % System time : 0.082 s
% 2.22/1.47 % Total time : 0.904 s
% 2.22/1.47 % Maximum resident set size: 12288 pages
% 2.22/1.47 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------