%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SYN332+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 : n004.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 03:23:42 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.12s 0.44s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.12s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 10
% Number of leaves : 1
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 16 ( 3 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 97 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 34 ( 6 avg)
% Number of connectives : 109 ( 28 ~; 32 |; 16 &)
% ( 16 <=>; 15 =>; 0 <=; 2 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 18 ( 5 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 1 ( 1 usr; 0 con; 2-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 32 ( 2 sgn 5 !; 6 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(church_46_14_4,conjecture,
? [X1,X2] :
! [X3] :
( ( ( big_f(X2,X1)
& big_f(X1,X2) )
<~> big_f(X1,X3) )
=> ( ( big_f(X1,X3)
<=> big_f(X3,X1) )
=> ( ( big_f(X1,X3)
<=> big_f(X2,X3) )
=> ( ( ( big_f(X2,X1)
=> big_f(X1,X2) )
<=> big_f(X3,X3) )
=> ( ( big_f(X1,X2)
<=> big_f(X2,X1) )
<=> big_f(X3,X2) ) ) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',church_46_14_4) ).
fof(c_0_1,negated_conjecture,
~ ? [X1,X2] :
! [X3] :
( ( ( big_f(X2,X1)
& big_f(X1,X2) )
<~> big_f(X1,X3) )
=> ( ( big_f(X1,X3)
<=> big_f(X3,X1) )
=> ( ( big_f(X1,X3)
<=> big_f(X2,X3) )
=> ( ( ( big_f(X2,X1)
=> big_f(X1,X2) )
<=> big_f(X3,X3) )
=> ( ( big_f(X1,X2)
<=> big_f(X2,X1) )
<=> big_f(X3,X2) ) ) ) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[church_46_14_4]) ).
fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ ? [X1,X2] :
! [X3] :
( ~ ( ( big_f(X2,X1)
& big_f(X1,X2) )
<=> big_f(X1,X3) )
=> ( ( big_f(X1,X3)
<=> big_f(X3,X1) )
=> ( ( big_f(X1,X3)
<=> big_f(X2,X3) )
=> ( ( ( big_f(X2,X1)
=> big_f(X1,X2) )
<=> big_f(X3,X3) )
=> ( ( big_f(X1,X2)
<=> big_f(X2,X1) )
<=> big_f(X3,X2) ) ) ) ) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[c_0_1]) ).
fof(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
! [X4,X5] :
( ( big_f(esk1_2(X4,X5),X5)
| big_f(X4,X5)
| ~ big_f(X5,X4) )
& ( big_f(esk1_2(X4,X5),X5)
| big_f(X5,X4)
| ~ big_f(X4,X5) )
& ( ~ big_f(esk1_2(X4,X5),X5)
| big_f(X5,X4)
| big_f(X4,X5) )
& ( ~ big_f(esk1_2(X4,X5),X5)
| ~ big_f(X5,X4)
| ~ big_f(X4,X5) )
& ( big_f(X4,X5)
| ~ big_f(X5,X4)
| ~ big_f(esk1_2(X4,X5),esk1_2(X4,X5)) )
& ( big_f(esk1_2(X4,X5),esk1_2(X4,X5))
| ~ big_f(X4,X5) )
& ( big_f(esk1_2(X4,X5),esk1_2(X4,X5))
| big_f(X5,X4) )
& ( big_f(X4,esk1_2(X4,X5))
| ~ big_f(X5,esk1_2(X4,X5)) )
& ( big_f(X5,esk1_2(X4,X5))
| ~ big_f(X4,esk1_2(X4,X5)) )
& ( big_f(X4,esk1_2(X4,X5))
| ~ big_f(esk1_2(X4,X5),X4) )
& ( big_f(esk1_2(X4,X5),X4)
| ~ big_f(X4,esk1_2(X4,X5)) )
& ( big_f(X4,esk1_2(X4,X5))
| big_f(X5,X4) )
& ( big_f(X4,esk1_2(X4,X5))
| big_f(X4,X5) )
& ( ~ big_f(X4,esk1_2(X4,X5))
| ~ big_f(X5,X4)
| ~ big_f(X4,X5) ) ),
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_2])])])])]) ).
cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
( ~ big_f(X1,esk1_2(X1,X2))
| big_f(X2,esk1_2(X1,X2)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
( big_f(X1,esk1_2(X1,X2))
| big_f(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( ~ big_f(esk1_2(X1,X2),X2)
| big_f(X2,X1)
| big_f(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
( ~ big_f(X1,esk1_2(X1,X2))
| big_f(esk1_2(X1,X2),X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
( big_f(X2,X1)
| big_f(X1,esk1_2(X2,X1)) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
( ~ big_f(X2,X1)
| ~ big_f(esk1_2(X1,X2),esk1_2(X1,X2))
| big_f(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
big_f(X1,X1),
inference(csr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]),c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
( ~ big_f(X2,X1)
| big_f(X1,X2) ),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10])]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
( big_f(X1,X2)
| big_f(esk1_2(X1,X2),X2) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_11,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
( ~ big_f(X1,esk1_2(X1,X2))
| ~ big_f(X2,X1)
| ~ big_f(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
big_f(X1,X2),
inference(csr,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_12]),c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]),c_0_14]),c_0_14])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SYN332+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.0.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.38 % Computer : n004.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 10:50:05 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
% 0.12/0.44 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.12/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.44 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.12/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.44 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.44 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.44 % new_bool_3 with pid 2961451 completed with status 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.12/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.44 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN 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: FGHNF-FFSF22-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 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2961463 completed with status 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.12/0.44 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.12/0.44 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.12/0.44 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN 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: FGHNF-FFSF22-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 Theorem
% 0.12/0.44 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.12/0.45 % Parsed axioms : 1
% 0.12/0.45 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Initial clauses : 14
% 0.12/0.45 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Initial clauses in saturation : 14
% 0.12/0.45 % Processed clauses : 26
% 0.12/0.45 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % ...subsumed : 6
% 0.12/0.45 % ...remaining for further processing : 20
% 0.12/0.45 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Backward-subsumed : 4
% 0.12/0.45 % Backward-rewritten : 15
% 0.12/0.45 % Generated clauses : 33
% 0.12/0.45 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 16
% 0.12/0.45 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 2
% 0.12/0.45 % Paramodulations : 33
% 0.12/0.45 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % NegExts : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Total rewrite steps : 23
% 0.12/0.45 % ...of those cached : 12
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.45 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.45 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.45 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.45 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.45 % Current number of processed clauses : 1
% 0.12/0.45 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 1
% 0.12/0.45 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 4
% 0.12/0.45 % ...number of literals in the above : 8
% 0.12/0.45 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Current number of archived clauses : 19
% 0.12/0.45 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 99
% 0.12/0.45 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 85
% 0.12/0.45 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 12
% 0.12/0.45 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 18
% 0.12/0.45 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % BW rewrite match attempts : 18
% 0.12/0.45 % BW rewrite match successes : 10
% 0.12/0.45 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.12/0.45 % Termbank termtop insertions : 1366
% 0.12/0.45 % Search garbage collected termcells : 278
% 0.12/0.45
% 0.12/0.45 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.12/0.45 % User time : 0.004 s
% 0.12/0.45 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.12/0.45 % Total time : 0.006 s
% 0.12/0.45 % Maximum resident set size: 3628 pages
% 0.12/0.45
% 0.12/0.45 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.12/0.45 % User time : 0.005 s
% 0.12/0.45 % System time : 0.007 s
% 0.12/0.45 % Total time : 0.012 s
% 0.12/0.45 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.12/0.45 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------