%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SYN186-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.1.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n005.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 03:23:19 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.40s 0.46s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.40s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 7
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 21 ( 13 unt; 0 nHn; 17 RR)
% Number of literals : 39 ( 0 equ; 21 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 7 ( 6 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 3 ( 3 usr; 3 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 26 ( 9 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(rule_092,axiom,
( ~ p0(X4,X1)
| ~ n0(X3,X2)
| q1(X1,X2,X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SYN001-0.ax',rule_092) ).
cnf(rule_124,axiom,
( ~ q1(d,X2,d)
| ~ s0(d)
| ~ q0(X1,X2)
| r1(X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SYN001-0.ax',rule_124) ).
cnf(axiom_14,axiom,
p0(b,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SYN001-0.ax',axiom_14) ).
cnf(axiom_1,axiom,
s0(d),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SYN001-0.ax',axiom_1) ).
cnf(axiom_15,axiom,
n0(a,b),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SYN001-0.ax',axiom_15) ).
cnf(prove_this,negated_conjecture,
~ r1(a),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_this) ).
cnf(axiom_36,axiom,
q0(a,b),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/Axioms/SYN001-0.ax',axiom_36) ).
cnf(c_0_7,plain,
( ~ p0(X4,X1)
| ~ n0(X3,X2)
| q1(X1,X2,X1) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[rule_092]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,plain,
( ~ q1(d,X2,d)
| ~ s0(d)
| ~ q0(X1,X2)
| r1(X1) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[rule_124]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,plain,
( ~ p0(X4,X1)
| ~ n0(X3,X2)
| q1(X1,X2,X1) ),
c_0_7 ).
cnf(c_0_10,axiom,
p0(b,X1),
axiom_14 ).
cnf(c_0_11,plain,
( ~ q1(d,X2,d)
| ~ s0(d)
| ~ q0(X1,X2)
| r1(X1) ),
c_0_8 ).
cnf(c_0_12,axiom,
s0(d),
axiom_1 ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
( ~ n0(X3,X2)
| q1(X1,X2,X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,axiom,
n0(a,b),
axiom_15 ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
~ r1(a),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_this]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
( ~ q0(X1,X2)
| ~ q1(d,X2,d)
| r1(X1) ),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_12])]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,axiom,
q0(a,b),
axiom_36 ).
cnf(c_0_18,plain,
q1(X1,b,X1),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_19,negated_conjecture,
~ r1(a),
c_0_15 ).
cnf(c_0_20,plain,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_16,c_0_17]),c_0_18])]),c_0_19]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SYN186-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.1.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.36 % Computer : n005.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.36 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.36 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/0.36 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 10:45:18 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.41 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.11/0.41 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
% 0.40/0.46 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.40/0.46 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.40/0.46 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.40/0.46 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.40/0.46 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.40/0.46 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.40/0.46 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.40/0.46 % new_bool_1 with pid 3265921 completed with status 0
% 0.40/0.46 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.40/0.46 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.40/0.46 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.40/0.46 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.40/0.46 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.40/0.46 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.40/0.46 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.40/0.46 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.40/0.46 % Search class: FHUNM-FSLM00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.40/0.46 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.40/0.46 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.40/0.46 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3265923 completed with status 0
% 0.40/0.46 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.40/0.46 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.40/0.46 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.40/0.46 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.40/0.46 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.40/0.46 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.40/0.46 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.40/0.46 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.40/0.46 % Search class: FHUNM-FSLM00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.40/0.46 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.40/0.46 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.40/0.46 % Preprocessing time : 0.004 s
% 0.40/0.46
% 0.40/0.46 % Proof found!
% 0.40/0.46 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.40/0.46 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.40/0.46 % Parsed axioms : 369
% 0.40/0.46 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 53
% 0.40/0.46 % Initial clauses : 316
% 0.40/0.46 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 5
% 0.40/0.46 % Initial clauses in saturation : 311
% 0.40/0.46 % Processed clauses : 473
% 0.40/0.46 % ...of these trivial : 73
% 0.40/0.47 % ...subsumed : 7
% 0.40/0.47 % ...remaining for further processing : 393
% 0.40/0.47 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.40/0.47 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.40/0.47 % Backward-subsumed : 25
% 0.40/0.47 % Backward-rewritten : 140
% 0.40/0.47 % Generated clauses : 452
% 0.40/0.47 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 294
% 0.40/0.47 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.40/0.47 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 1
% 0.40/0.47 % Paramodulations : 452
% 0.40/0.47 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.40/0.47 % NegExts : 0
% 0.40/0.47 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.40/0.47 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.40/0.47 % Total rewrite steps : 471
% 0.40/0.47 % ...of those cached : 269
% 0.40/0.47 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.40/0.47 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.40/0.47 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.40/0.47 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.40/0.47 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.40/0.47 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.40/0.47 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.40/0.47 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.40/0.47 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.40/0.47 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.40/0.47 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.40/0.47 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.40/0.47 % Current number of processed clauses : 228
% 0.40/0.47 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 129
% 0.40/0.47 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.40/0.47 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.40/0.47 % Non-unit-clauses : 98
% 0.40/0.47 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 93
% 0.40/0.47 % ...number of literals in the above : 356
% 0.40/0.47 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.40/0.47 % Current number of archived clauses : 165
% 0.40/0.47 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 3439
% 0.40/0.47 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3111
% 0.40/0.47 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 24
% 0.40/0.47 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 436
% 0.40/0.47 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.40/0.47 % BW rewrite match attempts : 207
% 0.40/0.47 % BW rewrite match successes : 121
% 0.40/0.47 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.40/0.47 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.40/0.47 % Termbank termtop insertions : 15372
% 0.40/0.47 % Search garbage collected termcells : 1532
% 0.40/0.47
% 0.40/0.47 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.40/0.47 % User time : 0.023 s
% 0.40/0.47 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.40/0.47 % Total time : 0.028 s
% 0.40/0.47 % Maximum resident set size: 4472 pages
% 0.40/0.47
% 0.40/0.47 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.40/0.47 % User time : 0.029 s
% 0.40/0.47 % System time : 0.011 s
% 0.40/0.47 % Total time : 0.040 s
% 0.40/0.47 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.40/0.47 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------