%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SWW970+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v7.4.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/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 03:11:29 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.14s 0.44s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.14s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 6
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 24 ( 13 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 38 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 28 ( 14 ~; 10 |; 1 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 3 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 5 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 3 ( 2 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 8 ( 8 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 20 ( 5 sgn 12 !; 0 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(ax135,axiom,
! [X141] :
( ( pred_attacker(tuple_client_B_in_1(X141))
& pred_eq_bitstring_bitstring(name_A,constr_tuple_3_get_0x30(constr_cbc_dec_3(X141,name_Kbs))) )
=> pred_attacker(tuple_client_B_out_2(name_objective)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',ax135) ).
fof(ax79,axiom,
! [X50,X51] : pred_eq_bitstring_bitstring(X50,X51),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',ax79) ).
fof(ax94,axiom,
! [X67] :
( pred_attacker(X67)
=> pred_attacker(tuple_client_B_in_1(X67)) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',ax94) ).
fof(co0,conjecture,
pred_attacker(name_objective),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',co0) ).
fof(ax134,axiom,
! [X140] : pred_attacker(name_new0x2Dname(X140)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',ax134) ).
fof(ax93,axiom,
! [X66] :
( pred_attacker(tuple_client_B_out_2(X66))
=> pred_attacker(X66) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',ax93) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
! [X284] :
( pred_attacker(tuple_client_B_out_2(name_objective))
| ~ pred_attacker(tuple_client_B_in_1(X284))
| ~ pred_eq_bitstring_bitstring(name_A,constr_tuple_3_get_0x30(constr_cbc_dec_3(X284,name_Kbs))) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[ax135])])]) ).
fof(c_0_7,plain,
! [X193,X194] : pred_eq_bitstring_bitstring(X193,X194),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[ax79]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ pred_attacker(tuple_client_B_in_1(X1))
| ~ pred_eq_bitstring_bitstring(name_A,constr_tuple_3_get_0x30(constr_cbc_dec_3(X1,name_Kbs)))
| pred_attacker(tuple_client_B_out_2(name_objective)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
pred_eq_bitstring_bitstring(X1,X2),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
fof(c_0_10,plain,
! [X210] :
( pred_attacker(tuple_client_B_in_1(X210))
| ~ pred_attacker(X210) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[ax94])])]) ).
fof(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
~ pred_attacker(name_objective),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[co0]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( ~ pred_attacker(tuple_client_B_in_1(X1))
| pred_attacker(tuple_client_B_out_2(name_objective)) ),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9])]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
( ~ pred_attacker(X1)
| pred_attacker(tuple_client_B_in_1(X1)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
fof(c_0_14,plain,
! [X283] : pred_attacker(name_new0x2Dname(X283)),
inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[ax134]) ).
fof(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
~ pred_attacker(name_objective),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_11]) ).
fof(c_0_16,plain,
! [X209] :
( pred_attacker(X209)
| ~ pred_attacker(tuple_client_B_out_2(X209)) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[ax93])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,plain,
( ~ pred_attacker(X1)
| pred_attacker(tuple_client_B_out_2(name_objective)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_12,c_0_13]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,plain,
pred_attacker(name_new0x2Dname(X1)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_14]) ).
fof(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
~ pred_attacker(name_objective),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,plain,
( ~ pred_attacker(tuple_client_B_out_2(X1))
| pred_attacker(X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_16]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,plain,
pred_attacker(tuple_client_B_out_2(name_objective)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_18]) ).
cnf(c_0_22,negated_conjecture,
~ pred_attacker(name_objective),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_19]) ).
cnf(c_0_23,plain,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_20,c_0_21]),c_0_22]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SWW970+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v7.4.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.36 % Computer : n019.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.36 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.36 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.36 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 10:21:07 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/0.36 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.14/0.40 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.14/0.40 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
% 0.14/0.44 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.14/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.44 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.44 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.44 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.44 % C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with pid 2324672 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Result found by C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr
% 0.14/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.44 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.44 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.14/0.44 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.14/0.44 % Search class: FHUSM-FFMM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.44 % partial match(1): FHUSM-FFMF31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.44 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.14/0.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.44 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 151s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.44 % Starting SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.44 % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.44 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2324681 completed with status 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.14/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.14/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.14/0.44 % Starting C07_19_nc_SOS_SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.14/0.44 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.14/0.44 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.14/0.44 % Search class: FHUSM-FFMM31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.44 % partial match(1): FHUSM-FFMF31-MFFFFFNN
% 0.14/0.44 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.14/0.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.14/0.44 % Preprocessing time : 0.003 s
% 0.14/0.44
% 0.14/0.44 % Proof found!
% 0.14/0.44 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.14/0.44 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.14/0.44 % Parsed axioms : 139
% 0.14/0.44 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Initial clauses : 139
% 0.14/0.44 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 1
% 0.14/0.44 % Initial clauses in saturation : 138
% 0.14/0.44 % Processed clauses : 101
% 0.14/0.44 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % ...remaining for further processing : 101
% 0.14/0.44 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.14/0.44 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.14/0.44 % Generated clauses : 31
% 0.14/0.44 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 26
% 0.14/0.44 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Paramodulations : 31
% 0.14/0.44 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % NegExts : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Total rewrite steps : 1
% 0.14/0.44 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.44 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.44 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.44 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.44 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.44 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.14/0.44 % Current number of processed clauses : 99
% 0.14/0.44 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 14
% 0.14/0.44 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Negative unit clauses : 67
% 0.14/0.44 % Non-unit-clauses : 18
% 0.14/0.44 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 63
% 0.14/0.44 % ...number of literals in the above : 124
% 0.14/0.44 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Current number of archived clauses : 3
% 0.14/0.44 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 207
% 0.14/0.44 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 206
% 0.14/0.44 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 1
% 0.14/0.44 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 377
% 0.14/0.44 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.14/0.44 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.14/0.44 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.14/0.44 % Termbank termtop insertions : 5814
% 0.14/0.44 % Search garbage collected termcells : 945
% 0.14/0.44
% 0.14/0.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.44 % User time : 0.010 s
% 0.14/0.44 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.14/0.44 % Total time : 0.014 s
% 0.14/0.44 % Maximum resident set size: 4068 pages
% 0.14/0.44
% 0.14/0.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.14/0.44 % User time : 0.042 s
% 0.14/0.44 % System time : 0.018 s
% 0.14/0.44 % Total time : 0.060 s
% 0.14/0.44 % Maximum resident set size: 5120 pages
% 0.14/0.44 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------