%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : SYO033^1 : 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 : n001.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 08:43:38 AM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.21s 0.28s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.21s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 8
% Number of leaves : 1
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 12 ( 2 unt; 0 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 20 ( 0 equ; 0 cnn)
% Maximal formula atoms : 4 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 81 ( 10 ~; 9 |; 1 &; 59 @)
% ( 2 <=>; 0 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 10 ( 7 avg)
% Number of types : 2 ( 0 usr)
% Number of type conns : 25 ( 25 >; 0 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of symbols : 4 ( 3 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 45 ( 13 ^; 30 !; 2 ?; 45 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thf(decl_23,type,
epred1_1: ( ( $i > $o ) > $o ) > $i > $o ).
thf(decl_24,type,
esk1_1: ( ( $i > $o ) > $o ) > $i ).
thf(decl_25,type,
esk2_0: $i ).
thf(conj,conjecture,
? [X1: ( $i > $o ) > $o] :
! [X2: $i > $o] :
( ( X1 @ X2 )
<=> ! [X3: $i] : ( X2 @ X3 ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.3NHTvbMQrJ/E---3.1_1450800.p',conj) ).
thf(c_0_1,negated_conjecture,
~ ? [X1: ( $i > $o ) > $o] :
! [X2: $i > $o] :
( ( X1 @ X2 )
<=> ! [X3: $i] : ( X2 @ X3 ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[conj]) ).
thf(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
! [X7: ( $i > $o ) > $o,X10: $i] :
( ( ~ ( X7 @ ( epred1_1 @ X7 ) )
| ~ ( epred1_1 @ X7 @ ( esk1_1 @ X7 ) ) )
& ( ( X7 @ ( epred1_1 @ X7 ) )
| ( epred1_1 @ X7 @ X10 ) ) ),
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])])])])]) ).
thf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
! [X1: ( $i > $o ) > $o,X3: $i] :
( ( X1 @ ( epred1_1 @ X1 ) )
| ( epred1_1 @ X1 @ X3 ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
thf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
! [X3: $i] :
( ! [X44: $i] :
( epred1_1
@ ^ [Z0: $i > $o] :
! [X45: $i] : ( Z0 @ X45 )
@ X44 )
| ( epred1_1
@ ^ [Z0: $i > $o] :
! [X46: $i] : ( Z0 @ X46 )
@ X3 ) ),
inference(primitive_enumeration,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
thf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
! [X1: ( $i > $o ) > $o] :
( ~ ( X1 @ ( epred1_1 @ X1 ) )
| ~ ( epred1_1 @ X1 @ ( esk1_1 @ X1 ) ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
thf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
! [X3: $i,X6: $i] :
( ( epred1_1
@ ^ [Z0: $i > $o] :
! [X47: $i] : ( Z0 @ X47 )
@ X3 )
| ( epred1_1
@ ^ [Z0: $i > $o] :
! [X48: $i] : ( Z0 @ X48 )
@ X6 ) ),
inference(dynamic_cnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
thf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
( ~ ( epred1_1
@ ^ [Z0: $i > $o] :
! [X49: $i] : ( Z0 @ X49 )
@ ( esk1_1
@ ^ [Z0: $i > $o] :
! [X50: $i] : ( Z0 @ X50 ) ) )
| ~ ! [X51: $i] :
( epred1_1
@ ^ [Z0: $i > $o] :
! [X52: $i] : ( Z0 @ X52 )
@ X51 ) ),
inference(primitive_enumeration,[status(thm)],[c_0_5]) ).
thf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
! [X3: $i] :
( ( epred1_1
@ ^ [Z0: $i > $o] :
! [X53: $i] : ( Z0 @ X53 )
@ X3 )
| ~ ! [X54: $i] :
( epred1_1
@ ^ [Z0: $i > $o] :
! [X55: $i] : ( Z0 @ X55 )
@ X54 ) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).
thf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
( ~ ( epred1_1
@ ^ [Z0: $i > $o] :
! [X56: $i] : ( Z0 @ X56 )
@ ( esk1_1
@ ^ [Z0: $i > $o] :
! [X57: $i] : ( Z0 @ X57 ) ) )
| ~ ( epred1_1
@ ^ [Z0: $i > $o] :
! [X58: $i] : ( Z0 @ X58 )
@ esk2_0 ) ),
inference(dynamic_cnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
thf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
! [X3: $i] :
( epred1_1
@ ^ [Z0: $i > $o] :
! [X59: $i] : ( Z0 @ X59 )
@ X3 ),
inference(csr,[status(thm)],[inference(dynamic_cnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_8]),c_0_6]) ).
thf(c_0_11,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_9,c_0_10]),c_0_10])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : SYO033^1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v3.7.0.
% 0.00/0.04 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.07/0.19 % Computer : n001.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 16:29:06 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.3NHTvbMQrJ/E---3.1_1450800.p
% 0.21/0.28 % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 0.21/0.28 % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNHHA.
% 0.21/0.28 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.28 % Starting sh2lt with 1200s (4) cores
% 0.21/0.28 % Starting new_ho_10_unif with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.28 % Starting full_lambda_6 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.28 % Starting post_as_ho1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.28 % Starting ehoh_best3_rw with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.28 % sh2lt with pid 1450813 completed with status 0
% 0.21/0.28 % Result found by sh2lt
% 0.21/0.28 % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNHHA.
% 0.21/0.28 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.28 % Starting sh2lt with 1200s (4) cores
% 0.21/0.28 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,5,,4,20000,1.0,true))
% 0.21/0.28 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,5,,4,20000,1.0,true)
% 0.21/0.28 % Search class: HGHNF-FFSF11-SHHFFMBN
% 0.21/0.28 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 4 cores with 1200 seconds (1200 total)
% 0.21/0.28 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 109s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.28 % Starting sh2lt with 121s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.28 % Starting post_as_ho1 with 109s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.28 % Starting ehoh_best_sine_rwall with 109s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.28 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1450819 completed with status 10
% 0.21/0.28 % Starting lpo1_def_fix with 109s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.28 % post_as_ho1 with pid 1450822 completed with status 10
% 0.21/0.28 % Starting ehoh_best3_rw with 109s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.28 % sh2lt with pid 1450820 completed with status 0
% 0.21/0.28 % Result found by sh2lt
% 0.21/0.28 % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNHHA.
% 0.21/0.28 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.28 % Starting sh2lt with 1200s (4) cores
% 0.21/0.28 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,5,,4,20000,1.0,true))
% 0.21/0.28 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,5,,4,20000,1.0,true)
% 0.21/0.28 % Search class: HGHNF-FFSF11-SHHFFMBN
% 0.21/0.28 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 4 cores with 1200 seconds (1200 total)
% 0.21/0.28 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 109s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.28 % Starting sh2lt with 121s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.28 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.21/0.28 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.21/0.28
% 0.21/0.28 % Proof found!
% 0.21/0.28 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.21/0.28 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.21/0.28 % Parsed axioms : 1
% 0.21/0.28 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.21/0.28 % Initial clauses : 2
% 0.21/0.28 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.21/0.28 % Initial clauses in saturation : 2
% 0.21/0.28 % Processed clauses : 22
% 0.21/0.28 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.21/0.28 % ...subsumed : 2
% 0.21/0.28 % ...remaining for further processing : 20
% 0.21/0.28 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.21/0.28 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.21/0.28 % Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.21/0.28 % Backward-rewritten : 3
% 0.21/0.28 % Generated clauses : 28
% 0.21/0.28 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 24
% 0.21/0.28 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.21/0.28 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 2
% 0.21/0.28 % Paramodulations : 11
% 0.21/0.28 % Factorizations : 2
% 0.21/0.28 % NegExts : 0
% 0.21/0.28 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.21/0.28 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.21/0.28 % Total rewrite steps : 5
% 0.21/0.28 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.21/0.28 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.21/0.28 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.21/0.28 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.21/0.28 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.21/0.28 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.21/0.28 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.21/0.28 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.28 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.28 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.28 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.28 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.28 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.21/0.28 % Current number of processed clauses : 7
% 0.21/0.28 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 3
% 0.21/0.28 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.21/0.28 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.21/0.28 % Non-unit-clauses : 3
% 0.21/0.28 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 6
% 0.21/0.28 % ...number of literals in the above : 10
% 0.21/0.28 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.21/0.28 % Current number of archived clauses : 13
% 0.21/0.28 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 28
% 0.21/0.28 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 25
% 0.21/0.28 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 4
% 0.21/0.28 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.21/0.28 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.21/0.28 % BW rewrite match attempts : 9
% 0.21/0.28 % BW rewrite match successes : 5
% 0.21/0.28 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.21/0.28 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.21/0.28 % Termbank termtop insertions : 3431
% 0.21/0.28 % Search garbage collected termcells : 75
% 0.21/0.28
% 0.21/0.28 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.28 % User time : 0.012 s
% 0.21/0.28 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.21/0.28 % Total time : 0.015 s
% 0.21/0.28 % Maximum resident set size: 3884 pages
% 0.21/0.28
% 0.21/0.28 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.28 % User time : 0.021 s
% 0.21/0.28 % System time : 0.011 s
% 0.21/0.28 % Total time : 0.033 s
% 0.21/0.28 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.21/0.28 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------