%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : SYN326+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 : 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 03:33:04 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.13s 0.41s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.13s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 1
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 10 ( 4 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 40 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 12 ( 4 avg)
% Number of connectives : 38 ( 8 ~; 8 |; 6 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 16 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 9 ( 4 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 4 ( 3 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 2 ( 2 usr; 0 con; 1-1 aty)
% Number of variables : 13 ( 2 sgn 5 !; 2 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(church_46_12_1,conjecture,
? [X1] :
! [X2,X3] :
( ( ( big_f(X2,X3)
=> ( big_g(X2)
=> big_h(X1) ) )
=> big_f(X1,X1) )
=> ( ( ( big_f(X3,X1)
=> big_g(X1) )
=> big_h(X3) )
=> ( big_f(X1,X2)
=> big_f(X3,X3) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',church_46_12_1) ).
fof(c_0_1,negated_conjecture,
~ ? [X1] :
! [X2,X3] :
( ( ( big_f(X2,X3)
=> ( big_g(X2)
=> big_h(X1) ) )
=> big_f(X1,X1) )
=> ( ( ( big_f(X3,X1)
=> big_g(X1) )
=> big_h(X3) )
=> ( big_f(X1,X2)
=> big_f(X3,X3) ) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[church_46_12_1]) ).
fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
! [X4] :
( ~ big_f(esk2_1(X4),esk2_1(X4))
& big_f(X4,esk1_1(X4))
& ( big_h(esk2_1(X4))
| ~ big_g(X4) )
& ( big_h(esk2_1(X4))
| big_f(esk2_1(X4),X4) )
& ( big_f(X4,X4)
| ~ big_h(X4) )
& ( big_f(X4,X4)
| big_g(esk1_1(X4)) )
& ( big_f(X4,X4)
| big_f(esk1_1(X4),esk2_1(X4)) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[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(esk2_1(X1),esk2_1(X1)),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
( big_f(X1,X1)
| big_g(esk1_1(X1)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
( ~ big_h(X1)
| big_f(X1,X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( ~ big_g(X1)
| big_h(esk2_1(X1)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
big_g(esk1_1(esk2_1(X1))),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_3,c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
~ big_g(X1),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]),c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : SYN326+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.0.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.35 % Computer : n014.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.35 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.35 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.35 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.35 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.35 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.35 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.35 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 10:49:34 UTC 2026
% 0.13/0.35 % CPUTime :
% 0.13/0.35 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.13/0.40 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.13/0.40 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
% 0.13/0.41 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.13/0.41 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.41 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.41 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.41 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41 % G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with pid 3882575 completed with status 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Result found by G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN
% 0.13/0.41 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.41 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.41 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.41 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.13/0.41 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.13/0.41 % Search class: FGUNF-FFSF11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.13/0.41 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.13/0.41 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41 % Starting SAT001_CA_MinMin_p005000_rr with 136s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41 % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3882579 completed with status 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.13/0.41 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.13/0.41 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.13/0.41 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.13/0.41 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.13/0.41 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.13/0.41 % Search class: FGUNF-FFSF11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.13/0.41 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.13/0.41 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.13/0.41 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.13/0.41
% 0.13/0.41 % Proof found!
% 0.13/0.41 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.13/0.41 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.13/0.41 % Parsed axioms : 1
% 0.13/0.41 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Initial clauses : 7
% 0.13/0.41 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Initial clauses in saturation : 7
% 0.13/0.41 % Processed clauses : 9
% 0.13/0.41 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % ...remaining for further processing : 9
% 0.13/0.41 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Backward-subsumed : 2
% 0.13/0.41 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Generated clauses : 5
% 0.13/0.41 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 4
% 0.13/0.41 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Paramodulations : 3
% 0.13/0.41 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % NegExts : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Total rewrite steps : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.13/0.41 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.41 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.41 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.41 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.41 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.41 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.13/0.41 % Current number of processed clauses : 5
% 0.13/0.41 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 2
% 0.13/0.42 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.13/0.42 % Non-unit-clauses : 1
% 0.13/0.42 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 1
% 0.13/0.42 % ...number of literals in the above : 2
% 0.13/0.42 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Current number of archived clauses : 4
% 0.13/0.42 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1
% 0.13/0.42 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.13/0.42 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% 0.13/0.42 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % BW rewrite match attempts : 2
% 0.13/0.42 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.13/0.42 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.13/0.42 % Termbank termtop insertions : 462
% 0.13/0.42 % Search garbage collected termcells : 137
% 0.13/0.42
% 0.13/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.13/0.42 % User time : 0.002 s
% 0.13/0.42 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.13/0.42 % Total time : 0.004 s
% 0.13/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 3628 pages
% 0.13/0.42
% 0.13/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.13/0.42 % User time : 0.005 s
% 0.13/0.42 % System time : 0.012 s
% 0.13/0.42 % Total time : 0.016 s
% 0.13/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.13/0.42 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------