%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SYN317-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.2.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n014.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 03:23:38 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Satisfiable 0.34s 0.66s
% Output : Saturation 0.34s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : ERROR: Analysing output (Could not find formula named c_0_2ERROR: Could not build tree for root c_0_3ERROR: MakeTreeStats fails)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
~ g(X1),
c_0_2,
[final] ).
cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
f(X1),
clause1,
[final] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.04 % Problem : SYN317-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v1.2.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.24/0.51 % Computer : n014.cluster.edu
% 0.24/0.51 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.24/0.51 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.24/0.51 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.24/0.51 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.24/0.51 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.24/0.51 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.24/0.51 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 10:49:04 UTC 2026
% 0.24/0.52 % CPUTime :
% 0.24/0.52 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.28/0.61 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.28/0.61 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
% 0.34/0.66 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.34/0.66 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.34/0.66 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.34/0.66 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.34/0.66 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.34/0.66 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.34/0.66 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.34/0.66 % new_bool_1 with pid 3881459 completed with status 1
% 0.34/0.66 % Result found by new_bool_1
% 0.34/0.66 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.34/0.66 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.34/0.66 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.34/0.66 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.34/0.66 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.34/0.66 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.34/0.66 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.34/0.66 % Search class: FGUNF-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.34/0.66 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.34/0.66 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.34/0.66 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3881463 completed with status 1
% 0.34/0.66 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.34/0.66 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.34/0.66 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.34/0.66 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.34/0.66 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.34/0.66 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.34/0.66 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.34/0.66 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.34/0.66 % Search class: FGUNF-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.34/0.66 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.34/0.66 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.34/0.66 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.34/0.66
% 0.34/0.66 % No proof found!
% 0.34/0.66 % SZS status Satisfiable
% 0.34/0.66 % SZS output start Saturation
% See solution above
% 0.34/0.66 % Parsed axioms : 3
% 0.34/0.66 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.34/0.66 % Initial clauses : 3
% 0.34/0.66 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.34/0.66 % Initial clauses in saturation : 3
% 0.34/0.66 % Processed clauses : 3
% 0.34/0.66 % ...of these trivial : 1
% 0.34/0.66 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.34/0.66 % ...remaining for further processing : 2
% 0.34/0.66 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.34/0.66 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.34/0.66 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.34/0.66 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.34/0.66 % Generated clauses : 0
% 0.34/0.66 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 0
% 0.34/0.66 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.34/0.66 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.34/0.66 % Paramodulations : 0
% 0.34/0.66 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.34/0.66 % NegExts : 0
% 0.34/0.66 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.34/0.66 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.34/0.66 % Total rewrite steps : 2
% 0.34/0.66 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.34/0.66 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.34/0.66 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.34/0.66 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.34/0.66 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.34/0.66 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.34/0.66 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.34/0.66 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.34/0.66 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.34/0.66 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.34/0.66 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.34/0.66 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.34/0.66 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.34/0.66 % Current number of processed clauses : 2
% 0.34/0.66 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 1
% 0.34/0.66 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.34/0.66 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.34/0.66 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.34/0.66 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.34/0.66 % ...number of literals in the above : 0
% 0.34/0.66 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.34/0.66 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.34/0.66 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.34/0.66 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.34/0.66 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.34/0.66 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.34/0.66 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.34/0.66 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.34/0.66 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.34/0.66 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.34/0.66 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.34/0.66 % Termbank termtop insertions : 63
% 0.34/0.66 % Search garbage collected termcells : 5
% 0.34/0.66
% 0.34/0.66 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.34/0.66 % User time : 0.004 s
% 0.34/0.66 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.34/0.66 % Total time : 0.007 s
% 0.34/0.66 % Maximum resident set size: 3884 pages
% 0.34/0.66
% 0.34/0.66 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.34/0.66 % User time : 0.007 s
% 0.34/0.66 % System time : 0.010 s
% 0.34/0.66 % Total time : 0.017 s
% 0.34/0.66 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.34/0.66 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------