%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SYN057+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n004.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 03:22:47 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.15s 16.26s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.15s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 8
% Number of leaves : 5
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 26 ( 7 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 58 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 4 ( 2 avg)
% Number of connectives : 62 ( 30 ~; 16 |; 7 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 9 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 7 ( 3 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 6 ( 5 usr; 1 prp; 0-1 aty)
% Number of functors : 2 ( 2 usr; 2 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 22 ( 0 sgn 11 !; 4 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(pel27,conjecture,
! [X1] :
( big_j(X1)
=> ~ big_i(X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',pel27) ).
fof(pel27_4,axiom,
( ? [X1] :
( ~ big_g(X1)
& big_h(X1) )
=> ! [X2] :
( big_i(X2)
=> ~ big_h(X2) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',pel27_4) ).
fof(pel27_2,axiom,
! [X1] :
( big_f(X1)
=> big_h(X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',pel27_2) ).
fof(pel27_3,axiom,
! [X1] :
( ( big_i(X1)
& big_j(X1) )
=> big_f(X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',pel27_3) ).
fof(pel27_1,axiom,
? [X1] :
( ~ big_g(X1)
& big_f(X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',pel27_1) ).
fof(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1] :
( big_j(X1)
=> ~ big_i(X1) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[pel27]) ).
fof(c_0_6,plain,
( ? [X1] :
( ~ big_g(X1)
& big_h(X1) )
=> ! [X2] :
( big_i(X2)
=> ~ big_h(X2) ) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[pel27_4]) ).
fof(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1] :
( big_j(X1)
=> ~ big_i(X1) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
fof(c_0_8,plain,
! [X6,X7] :
( ~ big_h(X7)
| ~ big_i(X7)
| big_g(X6)
| ~ big_h(X6) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_6])])])]) ).
fof(c_0_9,plain,
! [X4] :
( big_h(X4)
| ~ big_f(X4) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[pel27_2])])]) ).
fof(c_0_10,plain,
! [X5] :
( big_f(X5)
| ~ big_i(X5)
| ~ big_j(X5) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[pel27_3])])]) ).
fof(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
( big_i(esk2_0)
& big_j(esk2_0) ),
inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_7])])]) ).
fof(c_0_12,plain,
? [X1] :
( ~ big_g(X1)
& big_f(X1) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[pel27_1]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
( ~ big_h(X2)
| ~ big_i(X2)
| ~ big_h(X1)
| big_g(X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
( ~ big_f(X1)
| big_h(X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_9]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
( ~ big_i(X1)
| ~ big_j(X1)
| big_f(X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
big_j(esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
big_i(esk2_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_11]) ).
fof(c_0_18,plain,
( ~ big_g(esk1_0)
& big_f(esk1_0) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(skolemize,[status(esa)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[c_0_12])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,plain,
( ~ big_f(X2)
| ~ big_h(X1)
| ~ big_i(X2)
| big_g(X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,negated_conjecture,
big_f(esk2_0),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16]),c_0_17])]) ).
cnf(c_0_21,plain,
~ big_g(esk1_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_18]) ).
cnf(c_0_22,negated_conjecture,
( ~ big_h(X1)
| big_g(X1) ),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_19,c_0_17]),c_0_20])]) ).
cnf(c_0_23,negated_conjecture,
~ big_h(esk1_0),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_21,c_0_22]) ).
cnf(c_0_24,plain,
big_f(esk1_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_18]) ).
cnf(c_0_25,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_23,c_0_14]),c_0_24])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SYN057+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.0.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/16.19 % Computer : n004.cluster.edu
% 0.12/16.19 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/16.19 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/16.19 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.12/16.19 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.12/16.19 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/16.19 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.12/16.19 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 10:41:22 UTC 2026
% 0.12/16.19 % CPUTime :
% 0.12/16.19 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/16.24 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/16.24 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
% 0.15/16.26 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.15/16.26 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/16.26 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/16.26 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/16.26 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/16.26 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/16.26 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/16.26 % G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with pid 2935481 completed with status 0
% 0.15/16.26 % Result found by G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN
% 0.15/16.26 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/16.26 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/16.26 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/16.26 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.15/16.26 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.15/16.26 % Search class: FHUNF-FFSS00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/16.26 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.15/16.26 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/16.26 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.15/16.26 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/16.26 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/16.26 % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/16.26 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2935486 completed with status 0
% 0.15/16.26 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.15/16.26 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/16.26 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/16.26 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/16.26 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.15/16.26 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.15/16.26 % Search class: FHUNF-FFSS00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/16.26 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.15/16.26 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.15/16.26 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.15/16.26
% 0.15/16.26 % Proof found!
% 0.15/16.26 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.15/16.26 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.15/16.26 % Parsed axioms : 5
% 0.15/16.26 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.15/16.26 % Initial clauses : 7
% 0.15/16.26 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.15/16.26 % Initial clauses in saturation : 7
% 0.15/16.26 % Processed clauses : 11
% 0.15/16.26 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.15/16.26 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.15/16.26 % ...remaining for further processing : 11
% 0.15/16.26 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.15/16.26 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.15/16.26 % Backward-subsumed : 2
% 0.15/16.26 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.15/16.26 % Generated clauses : 5
% 0.15/16.26 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 4
% 0.15/16.26 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.15/16.26 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.15/16.26 % Paramodulations : 5
% 0.15/16.26 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.15/16.26 % NegExts : 0
% 0.15/16.26 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.15/16.26 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.15/16.26 % Total rewrite steps : 3
% 0.15/16.26 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.15/16.26 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.15/16.26 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.15/16.26 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.15/16.26 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.15/16.26 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.15/16.26 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.15/16.26 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.15/16.26 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/16.26 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/16.26 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.15/16.26 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/16.26 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/16.26 % Current number of processed clauses : 9
% 0.15/16.26 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 4
% 0.15/16.26 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.15/16.26 % Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.15/16.26 % Non-unit-clauses : 3
% 0.15/16.26 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.15/16.26 % ...number of literals in the above : 0
% 0.15/16.26 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.15/16.26 % Current number of archived clauses : 2
% 0.15/16.26 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 3
% 0.15/16.26 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3
% 0.15/16.26 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 2
% 0.15/16.26 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.15/16.26 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.15/16.26 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.15/16.26 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.15/16.26 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.15/16.26 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.15/16.26 % Termbank termtop insertions : 443
% 0.15/16.26 % Search garbage collected termcells : 80
% 0.15/16.26
% 0.15/16.26 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/16.26 % User time : 0.004 s
% 0.15/16.26 % System time : 0.001 s
% 0.15/16.26 % Total time : 0.005 s
% 0.15/16.26 % Maximum resident set size: 3576 pages
% 0.15/16.26
% 0.15/16.26 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/16.26 % User time : 0.012 s
% 0.15/16.26 % System time : 0.008 s
% 0.15/16.26 % Total time : 0.021 s
% 0.15/16.26 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.15/16.26 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------