%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SYN965+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 : n006.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 03:30:59 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.12s 0.44s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.12s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 7
% Number of leaves : 1
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 11 ( 4 unt; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 34 ( 0 equ)
% Maximal formula atoms : 12 ( 3 avg)
% Number of connectives : 33 ( 10 ~; 10 |; 9 &)
% ( 0 <=>; 4 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 11 ( 4 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; 1-1 aty)
% Number of variables : 28 ( 12 sgn 5 !; 6 ?)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fof(prove_this,conjecture,
? [X1] :
! [X2] :
? [X3] :
( ( ( p(X3,X1)
& p(X1,X3) )
=> p(X3,X2) )
& ( p(X3,X2)
=> ? [X4] : p(X4,X3) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',prove_this) ).
fof(c_0_1,negated_conjecture,
~ ? [X1] :
! [X2] :
? [X3] :
( ( ( p(X3,X1)
& p(X1,X3) )
=> p(X3,X2) )
& ( p(X3,X2)
=> ? [X4] : p(X4,X3) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[prove_this]) ).
fof(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
! [X5,X7,X8] :
( ( ~ p(X8,X7)
| ~ p(X7,esk1_1(X5)) )
& ( ~ p(X8,X7)
| p(X7,X5) )
& ( ~ p(X8,X7)
| p(X5,X7) )
& ( p(X7,esk1_1(X5))
| ~ p(X7,esk1_1(X5)) )
& ( p(X7,esk1_1(X5))
| p(X7,X5) )
& ( p(X7,esk1_1(X5))
| p(X5,X7) ) ),
inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[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,
( p(X2,esk1_1(X1))
| p(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
( ~ p(X3,X1)
| p(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
p(X1,esk1_1(X2)),
inference(csr,[status(thm)],[c_0_3,c_0_4]) ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( ~ p(X3,X2)
| p(X1,X2) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
p(esk1_1(X1),X2),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_5]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
( ~ p(X3,X1)
| ~ p(X1,esk1_1(X2)) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
cnf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
p(X1,X2),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_7]) ).
cnf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]),c_0_9])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SYN965+1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.1.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.36 % Computer : n006.cluster.edu
% 0.12/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.12/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.12/0.36 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.12/0.36 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.12/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.12/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.12/0.36 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 11:30:57 UTC 2026
% 0.12/0.37 % CPUTime :
% 0.12/0.37 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.12/0.42 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.12/0.42 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
% 0.12/0.44 % 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 % G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with pid 2736194 completed with status 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Result found by G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN
% 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 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.12/0.44 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.12/0.44 % Search class: FGHNF-FFSF11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.12/0.44 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.12/0.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.44 % Starting G-E--_302_C18_F1_URBAN_RG_S04BN with 151s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.44 % Starting G-E--_208_C18_F1_SE_CS_SP_PS_S5PRR_S0Y with 136s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.44 % Starting new_bool_3 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.44 % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.12/0.44 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2736198 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 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.12/0.44 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.12/0.44 % Search class: FGHNF-FFSF11-SFFFFFNN
% 0.12/0.44 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.12/0.44 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (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
% 0.12/0.44 % Parsed axioms : 1
% 0.12/0.44 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Initial clauses : 6
% 0.12/0.44 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 1
% 0.12/0.44 % Initial clauses in saturation : 5
% 0.12/0.44 % Processed clauses : 7
% 0.12/0.44 % ...of these trivial : 1
% 0.12/0.44 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % ...remaining for further processing : 5
% 0.12/0.44 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Backward-rewritten : 4
% 0.12/0.44 % Generated clauses : 4
% 0.12/0.44 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 3
% 0.12/0.44 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 1
% 0.12/0.44 % Paramodulations : 4
% 0.12/0.44 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % NegExts : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Total rewrite steps : 11
% 0.12/0.44 % ...of those cached : 5
% 0.12/0.44 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.44 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.44 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.44 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.44 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.44 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.12/0.44 % Current number of processed clauses : 1
% 0.12/0.44 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 1
% 0.12/0.44 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.12/0.44 % ...number of literals in the above : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Current number of archived clauses : 4
% 0.12/0.44 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 3
% 0.12/0.44 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3
% 0.12/0.44 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 1
% 0.12/0.44 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % BW rewrite match attempts : 5
% 0.12/0.44 % BW rewrite match successes : 5
% 0.12/0.44 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.12/0.44 % Termbank termtop insertions : 278
% 0.12/0.44 % Search garbage collected termcells : 79
% 0.12/0.44
% 0.12/0.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.12/0.44 % User time : 0.003 s
% 0.12/0.44 % System time : 0.001 s
% 0.12/0.44 % Total time : 0.005 s
% 0.12/0.44 % Maximum resident set size: 3628 pages
% 0.12/0.44
% 0.12/0.44 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.12/0.44 % User time : 0.007 s
% 0.12/0.44 % System time : 0.012 s
% 0.12/0.44 % Total time : 0.018 s
% 0.12/0.44 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.12/0.44 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------