%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SWW469+5 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v5.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n018.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 03:10:45 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.23s 0.64s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.23s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 12 ( 8 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 18 ( 10 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 15 ( 9 ~; 3 |; 1 &)
% ( 2 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 6 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 6 ( 6 usr; 5 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 14 ( 3 sgn 7 !; 4 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(conj_1,conjecture,
! [X6] :
~ ! [X5] : ti(state,X5) = ti(state,X6),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',conj_1) ).
fof(fact_0_state__not__singleton__def,axiom,
( hBOOL(hoare_1883395792gleton)
<=> ? [X5,X6] : ti(state,X5) != ti(state,X6) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',fact_0_state__not__singleton__def) ).
fof(conj_0,hypothesis,
hBOOL(hoare_1883395792gleton),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',conj_0) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X6] :
~ ! [X5] : ti(state,X5) = ti(state,X6),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[conj_1]) ).
fof(c_0_4,plain,
( hBOOL(hoare_1883395792gleton)
<=> ? [X5,X6] : ti(state,X5) != ti(state,X6) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[fact_0_state__not__singleton__def]) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
! [X25] : ti(state,X25) = ti(state,esk1_0),
inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])])]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X28,X29] :
( ( hBOOL(hoare_1883395792gleton)
| ti(state,X28) = ti(state,X29) )
& ( ti(state,esk2_0) != ti(state,esk3_0)
| ~ hBOOL(hoare_1883395792gleton) ) ),
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_4])])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
ti(state,X1) = ti(state,esk1_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ti(state,esk2_0) != ti(state,esk3_0)
| ~ hBOOL(hoare_1883395792gleton) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,hypothesis,
hBOOL(hoare_1883395792gleton),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[conj_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
ti(state,X1) = ti(state,X2),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9])]),c_0_10]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : SWW469+5 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v5.3.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.19/0.45 % Computer : n018.cluster.edu
% 0.19/0.45 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.19/0.45 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.19/0.45 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.19/0.45 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.19/0.45 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.19/0.45 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.19/0.45 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 09:57:28 UTC 2026
% 0.19/0.46 % CPUTime :
% 0.19/0.46 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.23/0.56 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.23/0.56 Running: /export/starexec/sandbox2/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/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.23/0.64 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.23/0.64 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.23/0.64 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/0.64 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.23/0.64 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.64 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.64 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.64 % new_bool_1 with pid 1596060 completed with status 0
% 0.23/0.64 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.23/0.64 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.23/0.64 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/0.64 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.23/0.64 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.64 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.64 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.23/0.64 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.23/0.64 % Search class: FGHSM-FFSS32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.23/0.64 % partial match(1): FGHSM-FFMS32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.23/0.64 % Scheduled 6 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.23/0.64 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.64 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1596064 completed with status 0
% 0.23/0.64 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.23/0.64 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.23/0.64 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/0.64 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.23/0.64 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.64 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.64 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.23/0.64 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.23/0.64 % Search class: FGHSM-FFSS32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.23/0.64 % partial match(1): FGHSM-FFMS32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.23/0.64 % Scheduled 6 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.23/0.64 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.64 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.23/0.64
% 0.23/0.64 % Proof found!
% 0.23/0.64 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.23/0.64 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.23/0.64 % Parsed axioms : 63
% 0.23/0.64 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 48
% 0.23/0.64 % Initial clauses : 17
% 0.23/0.64 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.23/0.64 % Initial clauses in saturation : 17
% 0.23/0.64 % Processed clauses : 18
% 0.23/0.64 % ...of these trivial : 1
% 0.23/0.64 % ...subsumed : 5
% 0.23/0.64 % ...remaining for further processing : 11
% 0.23/0.64 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.23/0.64 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.23/0.64 % Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.23/0.64 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.23/0.64 % Generated clauses : 10
% 0.23/0.64 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 7
% 0.23/0.64 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.23/0.64 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.23/0.64 % Paramodulations : 10
% 0.23/0.64 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.23/0.64 % NegExts : 0
% 0.23/0.64 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.23/0.64 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.23/0.64 % Total rewrite steps : 6
% 0.23/0.64 % ...of those cached : 5
% 0.23/0.64 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.23/0.64 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.23/0.64 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.23/0.64 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.23/0.64 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.23/0.64 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.23/0.64 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.64 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.64 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.64 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.64 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.64 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.64 % Current number of processed clauses : 10
% 0.23/0.64 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 7
% 0.23/0.64 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 1
% 0.23/0.64 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.23/0.64 % Non-unit-clauses : 2
% 0.23/0.64 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 5
% 0.23/0.64 % ...number of literals in the above : 6
% 0.23/0.64 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.23/0.64 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.23/0.64 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.23/0.64 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.23/0.64 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.23/0.64 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.23/0.64 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 26
% 0.23/0.64 % BW rewrite match attempts : 4
% 0.23/0.64 % BW rewrite match successes : 4
% 0.23/0.64 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.23/0.64 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.23/0.64 % Termbank termtop insertions : 2696
% 0.23/0.64 % Search garbage collected termcells : 496
% 0.23/0.64
% 0.23/0.64 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.23/0.64 % User time : 0.006 s
% 0.23/0.64 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.23/0.64 % Total time : 0.008 s
% 0.23/0.64 % Maximum resident set size: 3672 pages
% 0.23/0.64
% 0.23/0.64 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.23/0.64 % User time : 0.013 s
% 0.23/0.64 % System time : 0.010 s
% 0.23/0.64 % Total time : 0.022 s
% 0.23/0.64 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.23/0.64 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------