%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SWW421-1 : 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 : n019.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 03:10:29 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.26s 0.59s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.26s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 15 ( 11 unt; 4 nHn; 13 RR)
% Number of literals : 23 ( 9 equ; 10 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 7 ( 7 usr; 4 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 22 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(unfolding_2,axiom,
( ~ heap(sep(next(X1,X2),sep(lseg(X2,X3),X4)))
| heap(sep(lseg(X1,X3),X4))
| X1 = X2 ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SWV013-0.ax',unfolding_2) ).
cnf(associative_commutative,axiom,
sep(X1,sep(X2,X3)) = sep(X2,sep(X1,X3)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SWV013-0.ax',associative_commutative) ).
cnf(premise_2,hypothesis,
x2 != x1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',premise_2) ).
cnf(conclusion_1,negated_conjecture,
~ heap(sep(lseg(x1,x3),emp)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',conclusion_1) ).
cnf(premise_4,hypothesis,
heap(sep(lseg(x2,x3),sep(next(x1,x2),emp))),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',premise_4) ).
cnf(c_0_5,plain,
( ~ heap(sep(next(X1,X2),sep(lseg(X2,X3),X4)))
| heap(sep(lseg(X1,X3),X4))
| X1 = X2 ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[unfolding_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ heap(sep(next(X1,X2),sep(lseg(X2,X3),X4)))
| heap(sep(lseg(X1,X3),X4))
| X1 = X2 ),
c_0_5 ).
cnf(c_0_7,axiom,
sep(X1,sep(X2,X3)) = sep(X2,sep(X1,X3)),
associative_commutative ).
cnf(c_0_8,hypothesis,
x2 != x1,
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[premise_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
~ heap(sep(lseg(x1,x3),emp)),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[conclusion_1]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( ~ heap(sep(lseg(X2,X3),sep(next(X1,X2),X4)))
| heap(sep(lseg(X1,X3),X4))
| X1 = X2 ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,hypothesis,
heap(sep(lseg(x2,x3),sep(next(x1,x2),emp))),
premise_4 ).
cnf(c_0_12,hypothesis,
x2 != x1,
c_0_8 ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
~ heap(sep(lseg(x1,x3),emp)),
c_0_9 ).
cnf(c_0_14,hypothesis,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]),c_0_12]),c_0_13]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : SWW421-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v5.2.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.17/0.45 % Computer : n019.cluster.edu
% 0.17/0.45 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.17/0.45 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.17/0.45 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.17/0.45 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.17/0.45 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.17/0.45 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.17/0.45 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 09:52:52 UTC 2026
% 0.17/0.46 % CPUTime :
% 0.17/0.46 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.26/0.54 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.26/0.54 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
% 0.26/0.59 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.26/0.59 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.59 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.59 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.59 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.59 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.59 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.59 % new_bool_1 with pid 2279880 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.26/0.59 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.59 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.59 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.59 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.59 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.59 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.26/0.59 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.26/0.59 % Search class: FGUSS-FFSF22-MFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.59 % Scheduled 6 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.26/0.59 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.59 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2279885 completed with status 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.26/0.59 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.26/0.59 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.26/0.59 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.26/0.59 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.59 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.59 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.26/0.59 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.26/0.59 % Search class: FGUSS-FFSF22-MFFFFFNN
% 0.26/0.59 % Scheduled 6 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.26/0.59 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.26/0.59 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.26/0.59
% 0.26/0.59 % Proof found!
% 0.26/0.59 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.26/0.59 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.26/0.59 % Parsed axioms : 16
% 0.26/0.59 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Initial clauses : 16
% 0.26/0.59 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Initial clauses in saturation : 16
% 0.26/0.59 % Processed clauses : 253
% 0.26/0.59 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.26/0.59 % ...subsumed : 212
% 0.26/0.59 % ...remaining for further processing : 41
% 0.26/0.59 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Generated clauses : 657
% 0.26/0.59 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 641
% 0.26/0.59 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Paramodulations : 657
% 0.26/0.59 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.26/0.59 % NegExts : 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Total rewrite steps : 18
% 0.26/0.59 % ...of those cached : 5
% 0.26/0.59 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.59 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.59 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.59 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.59 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.59 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.26/0.59 % Current number of processed clauses : 41
% 0.26/0.59 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 2
% 0.26/0.59 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 3
% 0.26/0.59 % Negative unit clauses : 15
% 0.26/0.59 % Non-unit-clauses : 21
% 0.26/0.59 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 391
% 0.26/0.59 % ...number of literals in the above : 725
% 0.26/0.59 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 206
% 0.26/0.59 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 206
% 0.26/0.59 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 48
% 0.26/0.59 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 6
% 0.26/0.59 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.26/0.59 % BW rewrite match attempts : 63
% 0.26/0.59 % BW rewrite match successes : 62
% 0.26/0.59 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.26/0.59 % Termbank termtop insertions : 7011
% 0.26/0.59 % Search garbage collected termcells : 33
% 0.26/0.59
% 0.26/0.59 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.59 % User time : 0.011 s
% 0.26/0.59 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.26/0.59 % Total time : 0.015 s
% 0.26/0.59 % Maximum resident set size: 3648 pages
% 0.26/0.59
% 0.26/0.59 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.26/0.59 % User time : 0.015 s
% 0.26/0.59 % System time : 0.009 s
% 0.26/0.59 % Total time : 0.024 s
% 0.26/0.59 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.26/0.59 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------