%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SYN999^1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.7.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/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 : Wed Sep 30 08:41:07 AM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.23s 0.27s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.23s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 2
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 11 ( 6 unt; 0 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 14 ( 3 equ; 0 cnn)
% Maximal formula atoms : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 41 ( 6 ~; 2 |; 2 &; 24 @)
% ( 0 <=>; 7 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 8 ( 4 avg)
% Number of types : 2 ( 0 usr)
% Number of type conns : 6 ( 6 >; 0 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of symbols : 6 ( 4 usr; 3 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 16 ( 4 ^; 12 !; 0 ?; 16 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thf(decl_23,type,
leibeq: $i > $i > $o ).
thf(decl_24,type,
esk1_0: $i ).
thf(decl_25,type,
esk2_0: $i ).
thf(decl_26,type,
epred1_0: $i > $o ).
thf(conj,conjecture,
! [X1: $i,X2: $i] :
( ( leibeq @ X1 @ X2 )
=> ( leibeq @ X2 @ X1 ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.CcqbPu3bZf/E---3.1_931964.p',conj) ).
thf(leibeq,axiom,
( leibeq
= ( ^ [X1: $i,X2: $i] :
! [X3: $i > $o] :
( ( X3 @ X1 )
=> ( X3 @ X2 ) ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.CcqbPu3bZf/E---3.1_931964.p',leibeq) ).
thf(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1: $i,X2: $i] :
( ( leibeq @ X1 @ X2 )
=> ( leibeq @ X2 @ X1 ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[conj]) ).
thf(c_0_3,plain,
( leibeq
= ( ^ [Z0: $i,Z1: $i] :
! [X3: $i > $o] :
( ( X3 @ Z0 )
=> ( X3 @ Z1 ) ) ) ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[leibeq]) ).
thf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
~ ! [X1: $i,X2: $i] :
( ! [X6: $i > $o] :
( ( X6 @ X1 )
=> ( X6 @ X2 ) )
=> ! [X7: $i > $o] :
( ( X7 @ X2 )
=> ( X7 @ X1 ) ) ),
inference(apply_def,[status(thm)],[c_0_2,c_0_3]) ).
thf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
! [X10: $i > $o] :
( ( ~ ( X10 @ esk1_0 )
| ( X10 @ esk2_0 ) )
& ( epred1_0 @ esk2_0 )
& ~ ( epred1_0 @ esk1_0 ) ),
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_4])])])])]) ).
thf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
! [X3: $i > $o] :
( ( X3 @ esk2_0 )
| ~ ( X3 @ esk1_0 ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
thf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
~ ( epred1_0 @ esk1_0 ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
thf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
esk1_0 = esk2_0,
inference(eliminate_leibniz_eq,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[]),c_0_6]) ).
thf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
epred1_0 @ esk2_0,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
thf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8]),c_0_9])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SYN999^1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.7.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.07/0.19 % Computer : n006.cluster.edu
% 0.07/0.19 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.07/0.19 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.07/0.19 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.07/0.19 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.07/0.19 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.07/0.19 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.07/0.19 % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 16:20:24 UTC 2026
% 0.07/0.19 % CPUTime :
% 0.07/0.19 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.07/0.24 Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.07/0.25 Running: /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/eprover-ho --delete-bad-limit=2000000000 --definitional-cnf=24 -s --print-statistics -R --print-version --proof-object --auto-schedule=8 --cpu-limit=300 /export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.CcqbPu3bZf/E---3.1_931964.p
% 0.23/0.27 % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 0.23/0.27 % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSLSNSFN.
% 0.23/0.27 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/0.27 % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.23/0.27 % Starting post_as_ho5 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.27 % Starting sh4l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.27 % Starting ho_unfolding_2 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.27 % ho_unfolding_3 with pid 931996 completed with status 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Result found by ho_unfolding_3
% 0.23/0.27 % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSLSNSFN.
% 0.23/0.27 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/0.27 % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.23/0.27 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.23/0.27 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.23/0.27 % Search class: HHUNF-FFSF00-SSFFMSBN
% 0.23/0.27 % partial match(1): HHUNF-FFSF00-SSSFMSBN
% 0.23/0.27 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.23/0.27 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 151s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.27 % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 901s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.27 % Starting ehoh_best_sine_rwall with 151s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.27 % Starting sh5l with 151s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.27 % Starting new_bool_3 with 146s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.27 % SubtermCWHack with pid 932001 completed with status 10
% 0.23/0.27 % ehoh_best_sine_rwall with pid 932006 completed with status 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Result found by ehoh_best_sine_rwall
% 0.23/0.27 % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSLSNSFN.
% 0.23/0.27 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.23/0.27 % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.23/0.27 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.23/0.27 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.23/0.27 % Search class: HHUNF-FFSF00-SSFFMSBN
% 0.23/0.27 % partial match(1): HHUNF-FFSF00-SSSFMSBN
% 0.23/0.27 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.23/0.27 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 151s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.27 % Starting ho_unfolding_3 with 901s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.27 % Starting ehoh_best_sine_rwall with 151s (1) cores
% 0.23/0.27 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.23/0.27 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.23/0.27
% 0.23/0.27 % Proof found!
% 0.23/0.27 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.23/0.27 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.23/0.27 % Parsed axioms : 3
% 0.23/0.27 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Initial clauses : 4
% 0.23/0.27 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 1
% 0.23/0.27 % Initial clauses in saturation : 3
% 0.23/0.27 % Processed clauses : 7
% 0.23/0.27 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % ...remaining for further processing : 7
% 0.23/0.27 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Backward-rewritten : 2
% 0.23/0.27 % Generated clauses : 4
% 0.23/0.27 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 2
% 0.23/0.27 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Paramodulations : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % NegExts : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Total rewrite steps : 2
% 0.23/0.27 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.27 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.27 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.27 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.27 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.27 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.23/0.27 % Current number of processed clauses : 2
% 0.23/0.27 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 2
% 0.23/0.27 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 1
% 0.23/0.27 % ...number of literals in the above : 1
% 0.23/0.27 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Current number of archived clauses : 5
% 0.23/0.27 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.23/0.27 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.23/0.27 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.23/0.27 % Termbank termtop insertions : 342
% 0.23/0.27 % Search garbage collected termcells : 124
% 0.23/0.27
% 0.23/0.27 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.23/0.27 % User time : 0.001 s
% 0.23/0.27 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.23/0.27 % Total time : 0.006 s
% 0.23/0.27 % Maximum resident set size: 3884 pages
% 0.23/0.27
% 0.23/0.27 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.23/0.27 % User time : 0.006 s
% 0.23/0.27 % System time : 0.010 s
% 0.23/0.27 % Total time : 0.016 s
% 0.23/0.27 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.23/0.27 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------