%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SYO160^5 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n017.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 08:42:28 AM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.25s 0.33s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.25s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 7
% Number of leaves : 1
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 11 ( 2 unt; 0 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 42 ( 0 equ; 0 cnn)
% Maximal formula atoms : 9 ( 3 avg)
% Number of connectives : 83 ( 11 ~; 14 |; 11 &; 41 @)
% ( 0 <=>; 6 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 11 ( 5 avg)
% Number of types : 2 ( 0 usr)
% Number of type conns : 0 ( 0 >; 0 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of symbols : 7 ( 6 usr; 4 con; 0-1 aty)
% Number of variables : 21 ( 0 ^; 21 !; 0 ?; 21 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thf(decl_23,type,
c: $i ).
thf(decl_24,type,
cR: $i > $o ).
thf(decl_25,type,
b: $i ).
thf(decl_26,type,
a: $i ).
thf(decl_27,type,
cQ: $i > $o ).
thf(decl_28,type,
cP: $i > $o ).
thf(cDISJ_THIRD,conjecture,
( ( ( ! [X1: $i] : ( cP @ X1 )
| ! [X1: $i] : ( cQ @ X1 ) )
& ! [X1: $i] :
( ( cP @ X1 )
=> ( cR @ X1 ) )
& ! [X1: $i] :
( ( cQ @ X1 )
=> ( cR @ X1 ) ) )
=> ( ( cR @ a )
& ( cR @ b )
& ( cR @ c ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.kzE71nl4N3/E---3.1_559878.p',cDISJ_THIRD) ).
thf(c_0_1,negated_conjecture,
~ ( ( ( ! [X1: $i] : ( cP @ X1 )
| ! [X1: $i] : ( cQ @ X1 ) )
& ! [X1: $i] :
( ( cP @ X1 )
=> ( cR @ X1 ) )
& ! [X1: $i] :
( ( cQ @ X1 )
=> ( cR @ X1 ) ) )
=> ( ( cR @ a )
& ( cR @ b )
& ( cR @ c ) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[cDISJ_THIRD]) ).
thf(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
! [X6: $i,X7: $i,X8: $i,X9: $i] :
( ( ( cP @ X6 )
| ( cQ @ X7 ) )
& ( ~ ( cP @ X8 )
| ( cR @ X8 ) )
& ( ~ ( cQ @ X9 )
| ( cR @ X9 ) )
& ( ~ ( cR @ a )
| ~ ( cR @ b )
| ~ ( cR @ c ) ) ),
inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(shift_quantors,[status(thm)],[inference(variable_rename,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_1])])])]) ).
thf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
! [X1: $i] :
( ( cR @ X1 )
| ~ ( cQ @ X1 ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
thf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
! [X1: $i,X2: $i] :
( ( cP @ X1 )
| ( cQ @ X2 ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
thf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
! [X1: $i] :
( ( cR @ X1 )
| ~ ( cP @ X1 ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
thf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
! [X1: $i,X2: $i] :
( ( cP @ X1 )
| ( cR @ X2 ) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_3,c_0_4]) ).
thf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
! [X1: $i,X2: $i] :
( ( cR @ X1 )
| ( cR @ X2 ) ),
inference(spm,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).
thf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
( ~ ( cR @ a )
| ~ ( cR @ b )
| ~ ( cR @ c ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
thf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
! [X1: $i] : ( cR @ X1 ),
inference(ef,[status(thm)],[c_0_7]) ).
thf(c_0_10,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_8,c_0_9]),c_0_9]),c_0_9])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.04 % Problem : SYO160^5 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/0.23 % Computer : n017.cluster.edu
% 0.11/0.23 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/0.23 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/0.23 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/0.23 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/0.23 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/0.23 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/0.23 % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 16:31:22 UTC 2026
% 0.11/0.23 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/0.23 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.25/0.30 Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.25/0.31 Running: /export/starexec/sandbox2/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/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.kzE71nl4N3/E---3.1_559878.p
% 0.25/0.33 % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 0.25/0.33 % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.33 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.33 % Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.33 % Starting ho_unfolding_6 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.33 % Starting sh4l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.33 % Starting ehoh_best_nonlift_rwall with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.33 % sh4l with pid 559893 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Result found by sh4l
% 0.25/0.33 % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.33 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.33 % Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.33 % Starting ho_unfolding_6 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.33 % Starting sh4l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.33 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.25/0.33 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.25/0.33 % Search class: HGHNF-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.33 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.33 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.33 % SubtermCWHack with pid 559898 completed with status 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.25/0.33 % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.25/0.33 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.25/0.33 % Starting new_ho_10 with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.25/0.33 % Starting ho_unfolding_6 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.33 % Starting sh4l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.33 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.25/0.33 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.25/0.33 % Search class: HGHNF-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.25/0.33 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.25/0.33 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.25/0.33 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.25/0.33
% 0.25/0.33 % Proof found!
% 0.25/0.33 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.25/0.33 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.25/0.33 % Parsed axioms : 7
% 0.25/0.33 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Initial clauses : 10
% 0.25/0.33 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 6
% 0.25/0.33 % Initial clauses in saturation : 4
% 0.25/0.33 % Processed clauses : 8
% 0.25/0.33 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % ...remaining for further processing : 7
% 0.25/0.33 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Backward-subsumed : 3
% 0.25/0.33 % Backward-rewritten : 2
% 0.25/0.33 % Generated clauses : 6
% 0.25/0.33 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 6
% 0.25/0.33 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Paramodulations : 4
% 0.25/0.33 % Factorizations : 2
% 0.25/0.33 % NegExts : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Total rewrite steps : 5
% 0.25/0.33 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.33 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.33 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.33 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.33 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.33 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.25/0.33 % Current number of processed clauses : 2
% 0.25/0.33 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 1
% 0.25/0.33 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Negative unit clauses : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Non-unit-clauses : 1
% 0.25/0.33 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.25/0.33 % ...number of literals in the above : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Current number of archived clauses : 5
% 0.25/0.33 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 2
% 0.25/0.33 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% 0.25/0.33 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 3
% 0.25/0.33 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % BW rewrite match attempts : 2
% 0.25/0.33 % BW rewrite match successes : 2
% 0.25/0.33 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.25/0.33 % Termbank termtop insertions : 551
% 0.25/0.33 % Search garbage collected termcells : 124
% 0.25/0.33
% 0.25/0.33 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.33 % User time : 0.003 s
% 0.25/0.33 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.25/0.33 % Total time : 0.006 s
% 0.25/0.33 % Maximum resident set size: 3628 pages
% 0.25/0.33
% 0.25/0.33 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.25/0.33 % User time : 0.003 s
% 0.25/0.33 % System time : 0.008 s
% 0.25/0.33 % Total time : 0.012 s
% 0.25/0.33 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.25/0.33 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------