%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SYN555-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.5.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/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 03:25:36 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.25s 0.58s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.25s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 6
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 19 ( 11 unt; 0 nHn; 14 RR)
% Number of literals : 33 ( 0 equ; 17 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 1 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 6 ( 6 usr; 4 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 26 ( 0 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(p4_8,negated_conjecture,
( ~ p4(X3,X2)
| ~ p4(X3,X1)
| p4(X1,X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',p4_8) ).
cnf(p4_2,negated_conjecture,
p4(X1,X1),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',p4_2) ).
cnf(p4_12,negated_conjecture,
( ~ p4(f5(c7,f6(X1,X3,X2),X3),f5(c7,f6(X1,X3,X2),X2))
| ~ p4(f5(c7,X1,X3),X3)
| p4(f5(c7,X1,X2),X2) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',p4_12) ).
cnf(p4_6,negated_conjecture,
p4(f5(c7,X1,c8),f5(c7,X1,c9)),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',p4_6) ).
cnf(not_p4_5,negated_conjecture,
~ p4(f5(c7,c10,c8),c8),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',not_p4_5) ).
cnf(p4_4,negated_conjecture,
p4(f5(c7,c10,c9),c9),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',p4_4) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( ~ p4(X3,X2)
| ~ p4(X3,X1)
| p4(X1,X2) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[p4_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
( ~ p4(X3,X2)
| ~ p4(X3,X1)
| p4(X1,X2) ),
c_0_6 ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
p4(X1,X1),
p4_2 ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
( ~ p4(f5(c7,f6(X1,X3,X2),X3),f5(c7,f6(X1,X3,X2),X2))
| ~ p4(f5(c7,X1,X3),X3)
| p4(f5(c7,X1,X2),X2) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[p4_12]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
( ~ p4(X2,X1)
| p4(X1,X2) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
p4(f5(c7,X1,c8),f5(c7,X1,c9)),
p4_6 ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
~ p4(f5(c7,c10,c8),c8),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[not_p4_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
( ~ p4(f5(c7,f6(X1,X3,X2),X3),f5(c7,f6(X1,X3,X2),X2))
| ~ p4(f5(c7,X1,X3),X3)
| p4(f5(c7,X1,X2),X2) ),
c_0_9 ).
cnf(c_0_14,negated_conjecture,
p4(f5(c7,X1,c9),f5(c7,X1,c8)),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]) ).
cnf(c_0_15,negated_conjecture,
~ p4(f5(c7,c10,c8),c8),
c_0_12 ).
cnf(c_0_16,negated_conjecture,
( ~ p4(f5(c7,X1,c9),c9)
| p4(f5(c7,X1,c8),c8) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_13,c_0_14]) ).
cnf(c_0_17,negated_conjecture,
p4(f5(c7,c10,c9),c9),
p4_4 ).
cnf(c_0_18,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_15,c_0_16]),c_0_17])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.05 % Problem : SYN555-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v2.5.0.
% 0.00/0.08 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.19/0.46 % Computer : n005.cluster.edu
% 0.19/0.46 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.19/0.46 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.19/0.46 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.19/0.46 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.19/0.46 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.19/0.46 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.19/0.46 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 11:08:03 UTC 2026
% 0.19/0.47 % CPUTime :
% 0.19/0.47 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.25/0.53 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.25/0.53 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
% 0.25/0.58 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.25/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % new_bool_3 with pid 3314004 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.25/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.25/0.58 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.25/0.58 % Search class: FHUNM-FFSF33-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.58 % partial match(1): FHUNM-FFMF33-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.58 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % SubtermCWHack with pid 3314008 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.25/0.58 % Preprocessing class: FSMSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.58 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SOS_SP_PS_S5PRR_RG_S04AN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.25/0.58 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.25/0.58 % Search class: FHUNM-FFSF33-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.58 % partial match(1): FHUNM-FFMF33-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.58 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.58 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.58 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.25/0.58
% 0.25/0.58 % Proof found!
% 0.25/0.58 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.25/0.58 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.25/0.58 % Parsed axioms : 12
% 0.25/0.58 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Initial clauses : 12
% 0.25/0.58 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Initial clauses in saturation : 12
% 0.25/0.58 % Processed clauses : 61
% 0.25/0.58 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % ...subsumed : 26
% 0.25/0.58 % ...remaining for further processing : 35
% 0.25/0.58 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Generated clauses : 106
% 0.25/0.58 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 79
% 0.25/0.58 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Paramodulations : 106
% 0.25/0.58 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % NegExts : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Total rewrite steps : 39
% 0.25/0.58 % ...of those cached : 25
% 0.25/0.58 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.58 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.58 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.58 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.58 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.58 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.58 % Current number of processed clauses : 35
% 0.25/0.58 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 9
% 0.25/0.58 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.25/0.58 % Non-unit-clauses : 24
% 0.25/0.58 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 24
% 0.25/0.58 % ...number of literals in the above : 97
% 0.25/0.58 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Current number of archived clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 215
% 0.25/0.58 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 207
% 0.25/0.58 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 26
% 0.25/0.58 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 4
% 0.25/0.58 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % BW rewrite match attempts : 3
% 0.25/0.58 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.25/0.58 % Termbank termtop insertions : 1766
% 0.25/0.58 % Search garbage collected termcells : 42
% 0.25/0.58
% 0.25/0.58 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.58 % User time : 0.007 s
% 0.25/0.58 % System time : 0.004 s
% 0.25/0.58 % Total time : 0.011 s
% 0.25/0.58 % Maximum resident set size: 3640 pages
% 0.25/0.58
% 0.25/0.58 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.58 % User time : 0.009 s
% 0.25/0.58 % System time : 0.008 s
% 0.25/0.58 % Total time : 0.016 s
% 0.25/0.58 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.25/0.58 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------