%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SWX228-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v9.3.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n006.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 03:14:20 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.24s 11.62s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.24s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 8
% Number of leaves : 12
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 34 ( 31 unt; 0 nHn; 11 RR)
% Number of literals : 37 ( 36 equ; 11 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 5 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 0 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 14 ( 14 usr; 4 con; 0-4 aty)
% Number of variables : 61 ( 15 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(goal,negated_conjecture,
eq3(prop_union_comm(X1,X2),bfalse) != btrue,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',goal) ).
cnf(axiom_009,axiom,
elem(X1,cons(X2,X3)) = barbar(eqNat(X1,X2),elem(X1,X3)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',axiom_009) ).
cnf(axiom_007,axiom,
eqNat(z,z) = btrue,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',axiom_007) ).
cnf(axiom_002,axiom,
barbar(btrue,X1) = btrue,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',axiom_002) ).
cnf(axiom_012,axiom,
prop_union_comm(X1,X2) = eq(union(X1,X2),union(X2,X1)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',axiom_012) ).
cnf(axiom_011,axiom,
union(cons(X1,X2),X3) = aux(X3,X1,X2,elem(X1,X3)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',axiom_011) ).
cnf(axiom,axiom,
aux(X1,X2,X3,btrue) = union(X3,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',axiom) ).
cnf(axiom_010,axiom,
union(nil,X1) = X1,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',axiom_010) ).
cnf(axiom_022,axiom,
( eq2(X1,X2) != btrue
| eq(cons(X1,X3),cons(X2,X4)) = eq(X3,X4) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',axiom_022) ).
cnf(axiom_023,axiom,
eq(nil,cons(X1,X2)) = bfalse,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',axiom_023) ).
cnf(axiom_020,axiom,
eq3(X1,X1) = btrue,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',axiom_020) ).
cnf(axiom_019,axiom,
eq2(X1,X1) = btrue,
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',axiom_019) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
eq3(prop_union_comm(X1,X2),bfalse) != btrue,
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[goal]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,axiom,
elem(X1,cons(X2,X3)) = barbar(eqNat(X1,X2),elem(X1,X3)),
axiom_009 ).
cnf(c_0_14,axiom,
eqNat(z,z) = btrue,
axiom_007 ).
cnf(c_0_15,axiom,
barbar(btrue,X1) = btrue,
axiom_002 ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
eq3(prop_union_comm(X1,X2),bfalse) != btrue,
c_0_12 ).
cnf(c_0_17,axiom,
prop_union_comm(X1,X2) = eq(union(X1,X2),union(X2,X1)),
axiom_012 ).
cnf(c_0_18,axiom,
union(cons(X1,X2),X3) = aux(X3,X1,X2,elem(X1,X3)),
axiom_011 ).
cnf(c_0_19,plain,
elem(z,cons(z,X1)) = btrue,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]),c_0_15]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,axiom,
aux(X1,X2,X3,btrue) = union(X3,X1),
axiom ).
cnf(c_0_21,negated_conjecture,
eq3(eq(union(X1,X2),union(X2,X1)),bfalse) != btrue,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]) ).
cnf(c_0_22,plain,
union(cons(z,X1),cons(z,X2)) = union(X1,cons(z,X2)),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_18,c_0_19]),c_0_20]) ).
cnf(c_0_23,negated_conjecture,
eq3(eq(union(X1,cons(z,X2)),union(X2,cons(z,X1))),bfalse) != btrue,
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_21,c_0_22]),c_0_22]) ).
cnf(c_0_24,axiom,
union(nil,X1) = X1,
axiom_010 ).
cnf(c_0_25,negated_conjecture,
eq3(eq(union(X1,cons(z,nil)),cons(z,X1)),bfalse) != btrue,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_23,c_0_24]) ).
cnf(c_0_26,negated_conjecture,
eq3(eq(union(X1,cons(z,nil)),cons(z,cons(z,X1))),bfalse) != btrue,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_25,c_0_22]) ).
cnf(c_0_27,plain,
( eq2(X1,X2) != btrue
| eq(cons(X1,X3),cons(X2,X4)) = eq(X3,X4) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[axiom_022]) ).
cnf(c_0_28,negated_conjecture,
eq3(eq(cons(z,nil),cons(z,cons(z,nil))),bfalse) != btrue,
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_26,c_0_24]) ).
cnf(c_0_29,plain,
( eq2(X1,X2) != btrue
| eq(cons(X1,X3),cons(X2,X4)) = eq(X3,X4) ),
c_0_27 ).
cnf(c_0_30,axiom,
eq(nil,cons(X1,X2)) = bfalse,
axiom_023 ).
cnf(c_0_31,axiom,
eq3(X1,X1) = btrue,
axiom_020 ).
cnf(c_0_32,axiom,
eq2(X1,X1) = btrue,
axiom_019 ).
cnf(c_0_33,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_28,c_0_29]),c_0_30]),c_0_31]),c_0_32])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : SWX228-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v9.3.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.20/11.52 % Computer : n006.cluster.edu
% 0.20/11.52 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.20/11.52 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.20/11.52 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.20/11.52 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.20/11.52 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.20/11.52 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.20/11.52 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 10:36:27 UTC 2026
% 0.20/11.52 % CPUTime :
% 0.20/11.52 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.20/11.59 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.20/11.59 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
% 0.24/11.62 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.24/11.62 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/11.62 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/11.62 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/11.62 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/11.62 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/11.62 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.24/11.62 % G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with pid 2638952 completed with status 0
% 0.24/11.62 % Result found by G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN
% 0.24/11.62 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/11.62 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/11.62 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/11.62 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.24/11.62 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.24/11.62 % Search class: FHUPM-FFSS32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.24/11.62 % partial match(1): FUUPM-FFSS32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.24/11.62 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.24/11.62 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.24/11.62 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.24/11.62 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 136s (1) cores
% 0.24/11.62 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.24/11.62 % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.24/11.62 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2638956 completed with status 0
% 0.24/11.62 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.24/11.62 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.24/11.62 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.24/11.62 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.24/11.62 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.24/11.62 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.24/11.62 % Search class: FHUPM-FFSS32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.24/11.62 % partial match(1): FUUPM-FFSS32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.24/11.62 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.24/11.62 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.24/11.62 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.24/11.62
% 0.24/11.62 % Proof found!
% 0.24/11.62 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.24/11.62 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.24/11.62 % Parsed axioms : 26
% 0.24/11.62 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.24/11.62 % Initial clauses : 26
% 0.24/11.62 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 1
% 0.24/11.62 % Initial clauses in saturation : 25
% 0.24/11.62 % Processed clauses : 78
% 0.24/11.62 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.24/11.62 % ...subsumed : 24
% 0.24/11.62 % ...remaining for further processing : 54
% 0.24/11.62 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.24/11.62 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.24/11.62 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.24/11.62 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.24/11.62 % Generated clauses : 123
% 0.24/11.62 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 100
% 0.24/11.62 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.24/11.62 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.24/11.62 % Paramodulations : 123
% 0.24/11.62 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.24/11.62 % NegExts : 0
% 0.24/11.62 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.24/11.62 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.24/11.62 % Total rewrite steps : 104
% 0.24/11.62 % ...of those cached : 38
% 0.24/11.62 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.24/11.62 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.24/11.62 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.24/11.62 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.24/11.62 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.24/11.62 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.24/11.62 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.24/11.62 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/11.62 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/11.62 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.24/11.62 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.24/11.62 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.24/11.62 % Current number of processed clauses : 53
% 0.24/11.62 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 37
% 0.24/11.62 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 2
% 0.24/11.62 % Negative unit clauses : 11
% 0.24/11.62 % Non-unit-clauses : 3
% 0.24/11.62 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 45
% 0.24/11.62 % ...number of literals in the above : 45
% 0.24/11.62 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.24/11.62 % Current number of archived clauses : 2
% 0.24/11.62 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1
% 0.24/11.62 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.24/11.62 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 1
% 0.24/11.62 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 46
% 0.24/11.62 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 16
% 0.24/11.62 % BW rewrite match attempts : 12
% 0.24/11.62 % BW rewrite match successes : 3
% 0.24/11.62 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.24/11.62 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.24/11.62 % Termbank termtop insertions : 2279
% 0.24/11.62 % Search garbage collected termcells : 8
% 0.24/11.62
% 0.24/11.62 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/11.62 % User time : 0.008 s
% 0.24/11.62 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.24/11.62 % Total time : 0.014 s
% 0.24/11.62 % Maximum resident set size: 3388 pages
% 0.24/11.62
% 0.24/11.62 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.24/11.62 % User time : 0.037 s
% 0.24/11.62 % System time : 0.020 s
% 0.24/11.62 % Total time : 0.057 s
% 0.24/11.62 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.24/11.62 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------