%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : SYN101-1.002.002 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v1.2.1.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n008.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 03:32:31 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.12s 0.44s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.12s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 6
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 18 ( 8 unt; 0 nHn; 18 RR)
% Number of literals : 38 ( 0 equ; 23 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 2 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 6 ( 5 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 1 ( 1 usr; 1 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 20 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(n_s2_type11_1,axiom,
( ~ p_1_1(X1,X2)
| ~ p_2_2(X1,X2)
| p_1_2(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',n_s2_type11_1) ).
cnf(n_t2_1,axiom,
( ~ nq_2(X2)
| ~ nq_1(X1)
| p_1_1(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',n_t2_1) ).
cnf(n_t2_3,axiom,
( ~ nq_2(X2)
| ~ nq_1(X1)
| p_2_2(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',n_t2_3) ).
cnf(n_s2_goal_1,negated_conjecture,
~ p_1_2(a,a),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',n_s2_goal_1) ).
cnf(n_3,axiom,
nq_2(a),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',n_3) ).
cnf(n_1,axiom,
nq_1(a),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',n_1) ).
cnf(c_0_6,plain,
( ~ p_1_1(X1,X2)
| ~ p_2_2(X1,X2)
| p_1_2(X1,X2) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[n_s2_type11_1]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ nq_2(X2)
| ~ nq_1(X1)
| p_1_1(X1,X2) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[n_t2_1]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ nq_2(X2)
| ~ nq_1(X1)
| p_2_2(X1,X2) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[n_t2_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
~ p_1_2(a,a),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[n_s2_goal_1]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,plain,
( ~ p_1_1(X1,X2)
| ~ p_2_2(X1,X2)
| p_1_2(X1,X2) ),
c_0_6 ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( ~ nq_2(X2)
| ~ nq_1(X1)
| p_1_1(X1,X2) ),
c_0_7 ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( ~ nq_2(X2)
| ~ nq_1(X1)
| p_2_2(X1,X2) ),
c_0_8 ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
~ p_1_2(a,a),
c_0_9 ).
cnf(c_0_14,plain,
( ~ nq_1(X1)
| ~ nq_2(X2)
| p_1_2(X1,X2) ),
inference(csr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]),c_0_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,axiom,
nq_2(a),
n_3 ).
cnf(c_0_16,axiom,
nq_1(a),
n_1 ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]),c_0_15]),c_0_16])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SYN101-1.002.002 : TPTP v9.3.1. Bugfixed v1.2.1.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.38 % Computer : n008.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.38 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.38 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.38 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.12/0.38 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.12/0.38 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.38 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.12/0.38 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 10:44:08 UTC 2026
% 0.12/0.38 % CPUTime :
% 0.12/0.38 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.42 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.12/0.42 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
% 0.12/0.43 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.12/0.43 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.43 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.43 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.43 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.43 % new_bool_3 with pid 783726 completed with status 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.12/0.43 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.43 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.43 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.43 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.43 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.12/0.43 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.12/0.43 % Search class: FHUNF-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.12/0.43 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.12/0.43 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.43 % SubtermCWHack with pid 783731 completed with status 0
% 0.12/0.43 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.12/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.44 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.44 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.12/0.44 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.12/0.44 % Search class: FHUNF-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.12/0.44 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.12/0.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.44 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.12/0.44
% 0.12/0.44 % Proof found!
% 0.12/0.44 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.12/0.44 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.12/0.44 % Parsed axioms : 17
% 0.12/0.44 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 2
% 0.12/0.44 % Initial clauses : 15
% 0.12/0.44 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Initial clauses in saturation : 15
% 0.12/0.44 % Processed clauses : 18
% 0.12/0.44 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % ...remaining for further processing : 18
% 0.12/0.44 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Generated clauses : 10
% 0.12/0.44 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 6
% 0.12/0.44 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 2
% 0.12/0.44 % Paramodulations : 10
% 0.12/0.44 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % NegExts : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Total rewrite steps : 2
% 0.12/0.44 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.44 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.44 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.44 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.44 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.44 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.44 % Current number of processed clauses : 18
% 0.12/0.44 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 2
% 0.12/0.44 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.12/0.44 % Non-unit-clauses : 15
% 0.12/0.44 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 3
% 0.12/0.44 % ...number of literals in the above : 12
% 0.12/0.44 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 28
% 0.12/0.44 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 26
% 0.12/0.44 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 2
% 0.12/0.44 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Termbank termtop insertions : 543
% 0.12/0.44 % Search garbage collected termcells : 37
% 0.12/0.44
% 0.12/0.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.12/0.44 % User time : 0.002 s
% 0.12/0.44 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.12/0.44 % Total time : 0.004 s
% 0.12/0.44 % Maximum resident set size: 3636 pages
% 0.12/0.44
% 0.12/0.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.12/0.44 % User time : 0.002 s
% 0.12/0.44 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.12/0.44 % Total time : 0.007 s
% 0.12/0.44 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.12/0.44 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------