%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SYN273-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.1.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n018.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 03:23:32 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.25s 0.47s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.25s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 7
% Number of leaves : 12
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 41 ( 18 unt; 0 nHn; 37 RR)
% Number of literals : 74 ( 0 equ; 37 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 1 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 11 ( 10 usr; 1 prp; 0-3 aty)
% Number of functors : 3 ( 3 usr; 3 con; 0-0 aty)
% Number of variables : 59 ( 19 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(rule_021,axiom,
( ~ k0(X2)
| ~ l0(X1)
| m1(X1,X2,X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SYN001-0.ax',rule_021) ).
cnf(axiom_28,axiom,
k0(e),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SYN001-0.ax',axiom_28) ).
cnf(rule_110,axiom,
( ~ m0(X2,X3,X1)
| q1(X1,X1,X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SYN001-0.ax',rule_110) ).
cnf(rule_127,axiom,
( ~ k2(X4,X2)
| ~ k1(X4)
| ~ m1(X3,X2,X1)
| k2(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SYN001-0.ax',rule_127) ).
cnf(axiom_24,axiom,
l0(c),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SYN001-0.ax',axiom_24) ).
cnf(rule_129,axiom,
( ~ q1(X2,X1,X1)
| k2(X1,X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SYN001-0.ax',rule_129) ).
cnf(axiom_19,axiom,
m0(X1,d,X2),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SYN001-0.ax',axiom_19) ).
cnf(rule_001,axiom,
( ~ n0(X2,X1)
| k1(X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SYN001-0.ax',rule_001) ).
cnf(axiom_30,axiom,
n0(e,e),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SYN001-0.ax',axiom_30) ).
cnf(prove_this,negated_conjecture,
~ p4(e,c,e),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_this) ).
cnf(rule_287,axiom,
( ~ k3(X1,X1,X2)
| p4(X1,X2,X1) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SYN001-0.ax',rule_287) ).
cnf(rule_194,axiom,
( ~ k2(X2,X1)
| k3(X1,X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/Axioms/SYN001-0.ax',rule_194) ).
cnf(c_0_12,plain,
( ~ k0(X2)
| ~ l0(X1)
| m1(X1,X2,X1) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[rule_021]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,plain,
( ~ k0(X2)
| ~ l0(X1)
| m1(X1,X2,X1) ),
c_0_12 ).
cnf(c_0_14,axiom,
k0(e),
axiom_28 ).
cnf(c_0_15,plain,
( ~ m0(X2,X3,X1)
| q1(X1,X1,X1) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[rule_110]) ).
cnf(c_0_16,plain,
( ~ k2(X4,X2)
| ~ k1(X4)
| ~ m1(X3,X2,X1)
| k2(X1,X2) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[rule_127]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,plain,
( ~ l0(X1)
| m1(X1,e,X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_18,axiom,
l0(c),
axiom_24 ).
cnf(c_0_19,plain,
( ~ q1(X2,X1,X1)
| k2(X1,X1) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[rule_129]) ).
cnf(c_0_20,plain,
( ~ m0(X2,X3,X1)
| q1(X1,X1,X1) ),
c_0_15 ).
cnf(c_0_21,axiom,
m0(X1,d,X2),
axiom_19 ).
cnf(c_0_22,plain,
( ~ n0(X2,X1)
| k1(X1) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[rule_001]) ).
cnf(c_0_23,plain,
( ~ k2(X4,X2)
| ~ k1(X4)
| ~ m1(X3,X2,X1)
| k2(X1,X2) ),
c_0_16 ).
cnf(c_0_24,plain,
m1(c,e,c),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_17,c_0_18]) ).
cnf(c_0_25,plain,
( ~ q1(X2,X1,X1)
| k2(X1,X1) ),
c_0_19 ).
cnf(c_0_26,plain,
q1(X1,X1,X1),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_20,c_0_21]) ).
cnf(c_0_27,plain,
( ~ n0(X2,X1)
| k1(X1) ),
c_0_22 ).
cnf(c_0_28,axiom,
n0(e,e),
axiom_30 ).
cnf(c_0_29,negated_conjecture,
~ p4(e,c,e),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[prove_this]) ).
cnf(c_0_30,plain,
( ~ k3(X1,X1,X2)
| p4(X1,X2,X1) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[rule_287]) ).
cnf(c_0_31,plain,
( ~ k2(X2,X1)
| k3(X1,X1,X2) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[rule_194]) ).
cnf(c_0_32,plain,
( ~ k1(X1)
| ~ k2(X1,e)
| k2(c,e) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_23,c_0_24]) ).
cnf(c_0_33,plain,
k2(X1,X1),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_25,c_0_26]) ).
cnf(c_0_34,plain,
k1(e),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_27,c_0_28]) ).
cnf(c_0_35,negated_conjecture,
~ p4(e,c,e),
c_0_29 ).
cnf(c_0_36,plain,
( ~ k3(X1,X1,X2)
| p4(X1,X2,X1) ),
c_0_30 ).
cnf(c_0_37,plain,
( ~ k2(X2,X1)
| k3(X1,X1,X2) ),
c_0_31 ).
cnf(c_0_38,plain,
k2(c,e),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_32,c_0_33]),c_0_34])]) ).
cnf(c_0_39,negated_conjecture,
~ k3(e,e,c),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_35,c_0_36]) ).
cnf(c_0_40,plain,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_37,c_0_38]),c_0_39]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SYN273-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.1.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.37 % Computer : n018.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.37 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.37 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.37 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.37 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.37 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.37 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/0.37 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 10:49:44 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.42 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.11/0.42 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
% 0.25/0.47 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.25/0.47 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.47 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.47 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.47 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.47 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.47 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.47 % new_bool_1 with pid 1690807 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.47 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.25/0.47 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.47 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.47 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.47 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.47 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.47 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.25/0.47 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.25/0.47 % Search class: FHUNM-FSLM00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.47 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.47 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.47 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1690811 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.47 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.25/0.47 % Preprocessing class: FSLSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.47 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.47 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S5PRR_S2S with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.47 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.47 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.47 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.25/0.47 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.25/0.47 % Search class: FHUNM-FSLM00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.47 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.47 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.47 % Preprocessing time : 0.003 s
% 0.25/0.47
% 0.25/0.47 % Proof found!
% 0.25/0.47 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.25/0.47 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.25/0.47 % Parsed axioms : 369
% 0.25/0.47 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 39
% 0.25/0.47 % Initial clauses : 330
% 0.25/0.47 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 6
% 0.25/0.47 % Initial clauses in saturation : 324
% 0.25/0.47 % Processed clauses : 573
% 0.25/0.47 % ...of these trivial : 87
% 0.25/0.47 % ...subsumed : 14
% 0.25/0.47 % ...remaining for further processing : 472
% 0.25/0.47 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.25/0.47 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.25/0.47 % Backward-subsumed : 31
% 0.25/0.47 % Backward-rewritten : 159
% 0.25/0.47 % Generated clauses : 581
% 0.25/0.47 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 404
% 0.25/0.47 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.47 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.25/0.47 % Paramodulations : 581
% 0.25/0.47 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.25/0.47 % NegExts : 0
% 0.25/0.47 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.25/0.47 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.25/0.47 % Total rewrite steps : 551
% 0.25/0.47 % ...of those cached : 320
% 0.25/0.47 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.25/0.47 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.25/0.47 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.25/0.47 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.47 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.25/0.47 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.25/0.47 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.47 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.47 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.47 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.47 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.47 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.47 % Current number of processed clauses : 282
% 0.25/0.47 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 142
% 0.25/0.47 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.25/0.47 % Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.25/0.47 % Non-unit-clauses : 138
% 0.25/0.47 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 101
% 0.25/0.47 % ...number of literals in the above : 375
% 0.25/0.47 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.25/0.47 % Current number of archived clauses : 190
% 0.25/0.47 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 6402
% 0.25/0.47 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 5706
% 0.25/0.47 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 39
% 0.25/0.47 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 549
% 0.25/0.47 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.25/0.47 % BW rewrite match attempts : 234
% 0.25/0.47 % BW rewrite match successes : 137
% 0.25/0.47 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.25/0.47 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.25/0.47 % Termbank termtop insertions : 17404
% 0.25/0.47 % Search garbage collected termcells : 1510
% 0.25/0.47
% 0.25/0.47 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.47 % User time : 0.022 s
% 0.25/0.47 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.25/0.47 % Total time : 0.025 s
% 0.25/0.47 % Maximum resident set size: 4472 pages
% 0.25/0.47
% 0.25/0.47 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.47 % User time : 0.025 s
% 0.25/0.47 % System time : 0.007 s
% 0.25/0.47 % Total time : 0.032 s
% 0.25/0.47 % Maximum resident set size: 5120 pages
% 0.25/0.47 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------