%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SYN943+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.1.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n019.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 03:30:56 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.15s 0.65s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.15s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 1
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 14 ( 4 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 63 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 14 ( 4 avg)
% Number of connectives : 66 ( 17 ~; 23 |; 18 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 8 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 15 ( 5 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of predicates : 6 ( 5 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 2 ( 2 usr; 1 con; 0-1 aty)
% Number of variables : 23 ( 0 sgn 7 !; 10 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(prove_this,conjecture,
! [X1] :
? [X2,X3,X4,X5,X6] :
( ( ( s(X1,X6)
=> p(X6) )
& ( e(X3)
=> ( c(f(X3))
| g(X3) ) )
& ( e(X2)
=> ( s(X2,f(X2))
| g(X2) ) )
& e(X1)
& p(X1) )
=> ( ( c(X5)
& p(X5) )
| ( g(X4)
& p(X4) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_this) ).
fof(c_0_1,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1] :
? [X2,X3,X4,X5,X6] :
( ( ( s(X1,X6)
=> p(X6) )
& ( e(X3)
=> ( c(f(X3))
| g(X3) ) )
& ( e(X2)
=> ( s(X2,f(X2))
| g(X2) ) )
& e(X1)
& p(X1) )
=> ( ( c(X5)
& p(X5) )
| ( g(X4)
& p(X4) ) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[prove_this]) ).
fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
! [X8,X9,X10,X11,X12] :
( ( ~ c(X11)
| ~ p(X11) )
& ( ~ g(X10)
| ~ p(X10) )
& ( p(X12)
| ~ s(esk1_0,X12) )
& ( c(f(X9))
| g(X9)
| ~ e(X9) )
& ( s(X8,f(X8))
| g(X8)
| ~ e(X8) )
& e(esk1_0)
& p(esk1_0) ),
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,
( ~ c(X1)
| ~ p(X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
( ~ e(X1)
| c(f(X1))
| g(X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
( ~ s(esk1_0,X1)
| p(X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( ~ e(X1)
| s(X1,f(X1))
| g(X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
e(esk1_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
( ~ p(f(X1))
| ~ e(X1)
| g(X1) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_3,c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
( p(f(esk1_0))
| g(esk1_0) ),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]),c_0_7])]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
( ~ g(X1)
| ~ p(X1) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
g(esk1_0),
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]),c_0_7])]) ).
cnf(c_0_12,negated_conjecture,
p(esk1_0),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_13,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_10,c_0_11]),c_0_12])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SYN943+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.59 % Computer : n019.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.59 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.59 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.59 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.12/0.59 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.12/0.59 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.59 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.12/0.59 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 11:30:50 UTC 2026
% 0.12/0.59 % CPUTime :
% 0.12/0.59 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/0.64 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/0.64 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
% 0.15/0.65 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.15/0.65 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.65 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.65 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.65 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.65 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.65 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.65 % new_bool_3 with pid 2450735 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.65 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.15/0.65 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.65 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.65 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.65 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.65 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.15/0.65 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.15/0.65 % Search class: FGHNF-FFSF11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.65 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.15/0.65 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.65 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2450741 completed with status 0
% 0.15/0.65 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.15/0.65 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/0.65 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/0.65 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.15/0.65 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.65 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.15/0.65 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.15/0.65 % Search class: FGHNF-FFSF11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.15/0.65 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.15/0.65 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.15/0.65 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.15/0.65
% 0.15/0.65 % Proof found!
% 0.15/0.65 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.15/0.65 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.15/0.65 % Parsed axioms : 1
% 0.15/0.65 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.15/0.65 % Initial clauses : 7
% 0.15/0.65 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.15/0.65 % Initial clauses in saturation : 7
% 0.15/0.65 % Processed clauses : 10
% 0.15/0.65 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.15/0.65 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.15/0.65 % ...remaining for further processing : 10
% 0.15/0.65 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.15/0.65 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.15/0.65 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.15/0.65 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.15/0.65 % Generated clauses : 4
% 0.15/0.65 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 3
% 0.15/0.65 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.15/0.65 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.15/0.65 % Paramodulations : 4
% 0.15/0.65 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.15/0.65 % NegExts : 0
% 0.15/0.65 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.15/0.65 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.15/0.65 % Total rewrite steps : 4
% 0.15/0.65 % ...of those cached : 1
% 0.15/0.65 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.15/0.65 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.15/0.65 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.15/0.65 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.15/0.65 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.15/0.65 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.15/0.66 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.66 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.66 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.66 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.66 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.66 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/0.66 % Current number of processed clauses : 9
% 0.15/0.66 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 3
% 0.15/0.66 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.15/0.66 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.15/0.66 % Non-unit-clauses : 6
% 0.15/0.66 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.15/0.66 % ...number of literals in the above : 0
% 0.15/0.66 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.15/0.66 % Current number of archived clauses : 1
% 0.15/0.66 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1
% 0.15/0.66 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.15/0.66 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.15/0.66 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.15/0.66 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.15/0.66 % BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.15/0.66 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.15/0.66 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.15/0.66 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.15/0.66 % Termbank termtop insertions : 579
% 0.15/0.66 % Search garbage collected termcells : 174
% 0.15/0.66
% 0.15/0.66 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.66 % User time : 0.001 s
% 0.15/0.66 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.15/0.66 % Total time : 0.004 s
% 0.15/0.66 % Maximum resident set size: 3632 pages
% 0.15/0.66
% 0.15/0.66 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/0.66 % User time : 0.003 s
% 0.15/0.66 % System time : 0.007 s
% 0.15/0.66 % Total time : 0.010 s
% 0.15/0.66 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.15/0.66 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------