%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : SYN082+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 : n026.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 03:32:28 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.18s 0.57s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.18s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 1
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 10 ( 3 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 33 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 11 ( 3 avg)
% Number of connectives : 37 ( 14 ~; 14 |; 5 &)
% ( 2 <=>; 2 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 8 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 4 ( 4 usr; 2 con; 0-1 aty)
% Number of variables : 11 ( 0 sgn 6 !; 2 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(pel60,conjecture,
! [X1] :
( big_f(X1,f(X1))
<=> ? [X2] :
( big_f(X1,X2)
& ! [X3] :
( big_f(X3,X2)
=> big_f(X3,f(X1)) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',pel60) ).
fof(c_0_1,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1] :
( big_f(X1,f(X1))
<=> ? [X2] :
( big_f(X1,X2)
& ! [X3] :
( big_f(X3,X2)
=> big_f(X3,f(X1)) ) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[pel60]) ).
fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
! [X5,X8] :
( ( big_f(esk1_0,f(esk1_0))
| big_f(esk1_0,esk3_0) )
& ( big_f(esk1_0,f(esk1_0))
| big_f(X8,f(esk1_0))
| ~ big_f(X8,esk3_0) )
& ( ~ big_f(esk1_0,f(esk1_0))
| ~ big_f(esk1_0,X5)
| ~ big_f(esk2_1(X5),f(esk1_0)) )
& ( ~ big_f(esk1_0,f(esk1_0))
| ~ big_f(esk1_0,X5)
| big_f(esk2_1(X5),X5) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[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_1])])])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
( ~ big_f(esk1_0,f(esk1_0))
| ~ big_f(esk1_0,X1)
| ~ big_f(esk2_1(X1),f(esk1_0)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
( ~ big_f(esk1_0,f(esk1_0))
| ~ big_f(esk1_0,X1)
| big_f(esk2_1(X1),X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
( big_f(esk1_0,f(esk1_0))
| big_f(esk1_0,esk3_0) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
~ big_f(esk1_0,f(esk1_0)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_3,c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
( ~ big_f(X1,esk3_0)
| big_f(esk1_0,f(esk1_0))
| big_f(X1,f(esk1_0)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
big_f(esk1_0,esk3_0),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]),c_0_6]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : SYN082+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.0.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.51 % Computer : n026.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.51 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.51 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.51 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.51 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.51 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.51 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.51 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 10:45:23 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.51 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/0.51 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.18/0.56 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.18/0.56 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
% 0.18/0.57 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.18/0.57 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.18/0.57 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.18/0.57 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.18/0.57 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.18/0.57 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.18/0.57 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.18/0.57 % new_bool_1 with pid 2062292 completed with status 0
% 0.18/0.57 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.18/0.57 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.18/0.57 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.18/0.57 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.18/0.57 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.18/0.57 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.18/0.57 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.18/0.57 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.18/0.57 % Search class: FGHNF-FFSF11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.18/0.57 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.18/0.57 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.18/0.57 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2062294 completed with status 0
% 0.18/0.57 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.18/0.57 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.18/0.57 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.18/0.57 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.18/0.57 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.18/0.57 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.18/0.57 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.18/0.57 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.18/0.57 % Search class: FGHNF-FFSF11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.18/0.57 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.18/0.57 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.18/0.57 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.18/0.57
% 0.18/0.57 % Proof found!
% 0.18/0.57 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.18/0.57 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.18/0.57 % Parsed axioms : 1
% 0.18/0.57 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.18/0.57 % Initial clauses : 4
% 0.18/0.57 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.18/0.57 % Initial clauses in saturation : 4
% 0.18/0.57 % Processed clauses : 6
% 0.18/0.57 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.18/0.57 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.18/0.57 % ...remaining for further processing : 6
% 0.18/0.57 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.18/0.57 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.18/0.57 % Backward-subsumed : 2
% 0.18/0.57 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.18/0.57 % Generated clauses : 4
% 0.18/0.57 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 2
% 0.18/0.57 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.18/0.57 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.18/0.57 % Paramodulations : 3
% 0.18/0.57 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.18/0.57 % NegExts : 0
% 0.18/0.57 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.18/0.57 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.18/0.57 % Total rewrite steps : 0
% 0.18/0.57 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.18/0.57 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.18/0.57 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.18/0.57 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.18/0.57 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.18/0.57 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.18/0.57 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.18/0.57 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.18/0.57 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.18/0.57 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.18/0.57 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.18/0.57 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.18/0.57 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.18/0.57 % Current number of processed clauses : 3
% 0.18/0.57 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 1
% 0.18/0.57 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.18/0.57 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.18/0.57 % Non-unit-clauses : 1
% 0.18/0.57 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.18/0.57 % ...number of literals in the above : 0
% 0.18/0.57 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.18/0.57 % Current number of archived clauses : 3
% 0.18/0.57 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 2
% 0.18/0.57 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.18/0.57 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.18/0.57 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% 0.18/0.57 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.18/0.57 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.18/0.57 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.18/0.57 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.18/0.57 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.18/0.57 % Termbank termtop insertions : 441
% 0.18/0.57 % Search garbage collected termcells : 122
% 0.18/0.57
% 0.18/0.57 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.18/0.57 % User time : 0.001 s
% 0.18/0.57 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.18/0.57 % Total time : 0.004 s
% 0.18/0.57 % Maximum resident set size: 3628 pages
% 0.18/0.57
% 0.18/0.57 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.18/0.57 % User time : 0.004 s
% 0.18/0.57 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.18/0.57 % Total time : 0.010 s
% 0.18/0.57 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.18/0.57 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------