%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SWW383+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 : n009.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 03:10:25 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.46s 0.99s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.46s
% 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_6,conjecture,
hBOOL(hAPP(c_Com_OWT,v_y)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',conj_6) ).
fof(fact_WT__bodiesD,axiom,
! [X9,X10] :
( c_Com_OWT__bodies
=> ( hAPP(c_Com_Obody,X10) = hAPP(c_Option_Ooption_OSome(tc_Com_Ocom),X9)
=> hBOOL(hAPP(c_Com_OWT,X9)) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',fact_WT__bodiesD) ).
fof(conj_0,hypothesis,
c_Com_OWT__bodies,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',conj_0) ).
fof(conj_4,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_4) ).
fof(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ hBOOL(hAPP(c_Com_OWT,v_y)),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[conj_6]) ).
fof(c_0_5,plain,
! [X327,X328] :
( hBOOL(hAPP(c_Com_OWT,X327))
| hAPP(c_Com_Obody,X328) != hAPP(c_Option_Ooption_OSome(tc_Com_Ocom),X327)
| ~ 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_0]) ).
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_4]) ).
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
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SWW383+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v5.2.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.38 % Computer : n009.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.38 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.38 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.38 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.12/0.38 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.12/0.38 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.38 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.12/0.38 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 09:50:27 UTC 2026
% 0.12/0.38 % CPUTime :
% 0.12/0.38 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.43 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.12/0.43 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
% 0.46/0.99 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.46/0.99 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSLSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.46/0.99 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.46/0.99 % Starting SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.46/0.99 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.46/0.99 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.46/0.99 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.46/0.99 % new_bool_3 with pid 1454036 completed with status 0
% 0.46/0.99 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.46/0.99 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSLSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.46/0.99 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.46/0.99 % Starting SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.46/0.99 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.46/0.99 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.46/0.99 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.46/0.99 % Search class: FGHSM-SMLM33-DFFFFFNN
% 0.46/0.99 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.46/0.99 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.46/0.99 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1454043 completed with status 0
% 0.46/0.99 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.46/0.99 % Preprocessing class: FMLMSLSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.46/0.99 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.46/0.99 % Starting SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.46/0.99 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.46/0.99 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.46/0.99 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.46/0.99 % Search class: FGHSM-SMLM33-DFFFFFNN
% 0.46/0.99 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.46/0.99 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 28s (1) cores
% 0.46/0.99 % Preprocessing time : 0.046 s
% 0.46/0.99
% 0.46/0.99 % Proof found!
% 0.46/0.99 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.46/0.99 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.46/0.99 % Parsed axioms : 5248
% 0.46/0.99 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 3098
% 0.46/0.99 % Initial clauses : 3288
% 0.46/0.99 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 95
% 0.46/0.99 % Initial clauses in saturation : 3193
% 0.46/0.99 % Processed clauses : 683
% 0.46/0.99 % ...of these trivial : 36
% 0.46/0.99 % ...subsumed : 136
% 0.46/0.99 % ...remaining for further processing : 511
% 0.46/0.99 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 72
% 0.46/0.99 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.46/0.99 % Backward-subsumed : 6
% 0.46/0.99 % Backward-rewritten : 34
% 0.46/0.99 % Generated clauses : 1382
% 0.46/0.99 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 1188
% 0.46/0.99 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.46/0.99 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.46/0.99 % Paramodulations : 1303
% 0.46/0.99 % Factorizations : 2
% 0.46/0.99 % NegExts : 0
% 0.46/0.99 % Equation resolutions : 84
% 0.46/0.99 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.46/0.99 % Total rewrite steps : 559
% 0.46/0.99 % ...of those cached : 348
% 0.46/0.99 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.46/0.99 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.46/0.99 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.46/0.99 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.46/0.99 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.46/0.99 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.46/0.99 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.46/0.99 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.46/0.99 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.46/0.99 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.46/0.99 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.46/0.99 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.46/0.99 % Current number of processed clauses : 420
% 0.46/0.99 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 199
% 0.46/0.99 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 2
% 0.46/0.99 % Negative unit clauses : 82
% 0.46/0.99 % Non-unit-clauses : 137
% 0.46/0.99 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 3041
% 0.46/0.99 % ...number of literals in the above : 7283
% 0.46/0.99 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.46/0.99 % Current number of archived clauses : 40
% 0.46/0.99 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 7414
% 0.46/0.99 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3129
% 0.46/0.99 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 39
% 0.46/0.99 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 685
% 0.46/0.99 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.46/0.99 % BW rewrite match attempts : 292
% 0.46/0.99 % BW rewrite match successes : 36
% 0.46/0.99 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.46/0.99 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.46/0.99 % Termbank termtop insertions : 490603
% 0.46/0.99 % Search garbage collected termcells : 71401
% 0.46/0.99
% 0.46/0.99 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.46/0.99 % User time : 0.238 s
% 0.46/0.99 % System time : 0.033 s
% 0.46/0.99 % Total time : 0.271 s
% 0.46/0.99 % Maximum resident set size: 20936 pages
% 0.46/0.99
% 0.46/0.99 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.46/0.99 % User time : 0.499 s
% 0.46/0.99 % System time : 0.052 s
% 0.46/0.99 % Total time : 0.551 s
% 0.46/0.99 % Maximum resident set size: 12288 pages
% 0.46/0.99 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------