%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SYO236^5 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 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 08:42:37 AM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.27s 0.26s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.27s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 1
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 7 ( 3 unt; 0 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 9 ( 8 equ; 0 cnn)
% Maximal formula atoms : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 36 ( 6 ~; 7 |; 1 &; 18 @)
% ( 0 <=>; 4 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 8 ( 5 avg)
% Number of types : 3 ( 2 usr)
% Number of type conns : 10 ( 10 >; 0 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of symbols : 4 ( 2 usr; 1 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 9 ( 0 ^; 9 !; 0 ?; 9 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thf(decl_sort1,type,
b: $tType ).
thf(decl_sort2,type,
a: $tType ).
thf(decl_23,type,
g: b > a ).
thf(decl_24,type,
f: b > a ).
thf(cTHM504,conjecture,
( ( ! [X1: ( b > a ) > $o] :
( ( X1 @ f )
=> ( X1 @ g ) )
| ! [X2: b] :
( ( f @ X2 )
= ( g @ X2 ) ) )
=> ( f = g ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.3vBNRobWaW/E---3.1_1483339.p',cTHM504) ).
thf(c_0_1,negated_conjecture,
~ ( ( ! [X1: ( b > a ) > $o] :
( ( X1 @ f )
=> ( X1 @ g ) )
| ! [X2: b] :
( ( f @ X2 )
= ( g @ X2 ) ) )
=> ( f = g ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[cTHM504]) ).
thf(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
! [X5: ( b > a ) > $o,X6: b] :
( ( ~ ( X5 @ f )
| ( X5 @ g )
| ( ( f @ X6 )
= ( g @ X6 ) ) )
& ( f != g ) ),
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,
! [X2: b,X1: ( b > a ) > $o] :
( ( X1 @ g )
| ( ( f @ X2 )
= ( g @ X2 ) )
| ~ ( X1 @ f ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
thf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
f != g,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
thf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
! [X1: ( b > a ) > $o] :
( ( X1 @ g )
| ~ ( X1 @ f ) ),
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(pos_ext,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]),c_0_4]) ).
thf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(eliminate_leibniz_eq,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[]),c_0_5]),c_0_4]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SYO236^5 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.19 % Computer : n001.cluster.edu
% 0.10/0.19 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.10/0.19 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.10/0.19 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.10/0.19 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.10/0.19 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.10/0.19 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.10/0.19 % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 16:46:20 UTC 2026
% 0.10/0.19 % CPUTime :
% 0.10/0.19 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.10/0.23 Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.10/0.24 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.3vBNRobWaW/E---3.1_1483339.p
% 0.27/0.26 % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 0.27/0.26 % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNHHA.
% 0.27/0.26 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.27/0.26 % Starting sh2lt with 1200s (4) cores
% 0.27/0.26 % Starting new_ho_10_unif with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.26 % Starting full_lambda_6 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.26 % Starting post_as_ho1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.26 % Starting ehoh_best3_rw with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.26 % sh2lt with pid 1483368 completed with status 0
% 0.27/0.26 % Result found by sh2lt
% 0.27/0.26 % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNHHA.
% 0.27/0.26 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.27/0.26 % Starting sh2lt with 1200s (4) cores
% 0.27/0.26 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,5,,4,20000,1.0,true))
% 0.27/0.26 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,5,,4,20000,1.0,true)
% 0.27/0.26 % Search class: HGUSF-FFSF11-SHHFFMBN
% 0.27/0.26 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 4 cores with 1200 seconds (1200 total)
% 0.27/0.26 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 109s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.26 % Starting sh2lt with 121s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.26 % Starting ehoh_best_sine_rwall with 109s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.26 % Starting sh5l with 109s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.26 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1483373 completed with status 10
% 0.27/0.26 % Starting new_bool_3 with 109s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.26 % sh2lt with pid 1483374 completed with status 0
% 0.27/0.26 % Result found by sh2lt
% 0.27/0.26 % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNHHA.
% 0.27/0.26 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.27/0.26 % Starting sh2lt with 1200s (4) cores
% 0.27/0.26 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,5,,4,20000,1.0,true))
% 0.27/0.26 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,5,,4,20000,1.0,true)
% 0.27/0.26 % Search class: HGUSF-FFSF11-SHHFFMBN
% 0.27/0.26 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 4 cores with 1200 seconds (1200 total)
% 0.27/0.26 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 109s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.26 % Starting sh2lt with 121s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.26 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.27/0.26 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.27/0.26
% 0.27/0.26 % Proof found!
% 0.27/0.26 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.27/0.26 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.27/0.26 % Parsed axioms : 5
% 0.27/0.26 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 4
% 0.27/0.26 % Initial clauses : 2
% 0.27/0.26 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.27/0.26 % Initial clauses in saturation : 2
% 0.27/0.26 % Processed clauses : 6
% 0.27/0.26 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.27/0.26 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.27/0.26 % ...remaining for further processing : 6
% 0.27/0.26 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.27/0.26 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.27/0.26 % Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.27/0.26 % Backward-rewritten : 0
% 0.27/0.26 % Generated clauses : 10
% 0.27/0.26 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 4
% 0.27/0.26 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.27/0.26 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.27/0.26 % Paramodulations : 0
% 0.27/0.26 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.27/0.26 % NegExts : 1
% 0.27/0.26 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.27/0.26 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.27/0.26 % Total rewrite steps : 0
% 0.27/0.26 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.27/0.26 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.27/0.26 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.27/0.26 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.27/0.26 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.27/0.26 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.27/0.26 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.27/0.26 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.26 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.26 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.26 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.26 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.26 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.26 % Current number of processed clauses : 3
% 0.27/0.26 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 0
% 0.27/0.26 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.27/0.26 % Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.27/0.26 % Non-unit-clauses : 1
% 0.27/0.26 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 2
% 0.27/0.26 % ...number of literals in the above : 2
% 0.27/0.26 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.27/0.26 % Current number of archived clauses : 3
% 0.27/0.26 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1
% 0.27/0.26 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.27/0.26 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 1
% 0.27/0.26 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.27/0.26 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.27/0.26 % BW rewrite match attempts : 0
% 0.27/0.26 % BW rewrite match successes : 0
% 0.27/0.26 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.27/0.26 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.27/0.26 % Termbank termtop insertions : 347
% 0.27/0.26 % Search garbage collected termcells : 67
% 0.27/0.26
% 0.27/0.26 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.27/0.26 % User time : 0.003 s
% 0.27/0.26 % System time : 0.002 s
% 0.27/0.26 % Total time : 0.005 s
% 0.27/0.26 % Maximum resident set size: 3628 pages
% 0.27/0.26
% 0.27/0.26 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.27/0.26 % User time : 0.005 s
% 0.27/0.26 % System time : 0.010 s
% 0.27/0.26 % Total time : 0.016 s
% 0.27/0.26 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.27/0.26 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------