%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SYO352^5 : 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 : 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 08:42:48 AM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.27s 0.38s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.27s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 5
% Number of leaves : 1
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 9 ( 5 unt; 0 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 7 ( 2 equ; 0 cnn)
% Maximal formula atoms : 2 ( 0 avg)
% Number of connectives : 42 ( 6 ~; 2 |; 2 &; 26 @)
% ( 0 <=>; 6 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 9 ( 5 avg)
% Number of types : 2 ( 0 usr)
% Number of type conns : 8 ( 8 >; 0 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of symbols : 5 ( 3 usr; 1 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 11 ( 0 ^; 11 !; 0 ?; 11 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thf(decl_23,type,
n: $i > $i ).
thf(decl_24,type,
m: $i > $i ).
thf(decl_25,type,
epred1_0: ( $i > $i ) > $o ).
thf(cE5EXT,conjecture,
( ! [X1: $i,X2: $i > $o] :
( ( X2 @ ( m @ X1 ) )
=> ( X2 @ ( n @ X1 ) ) )
=> ! [X3: ( $i > $i ) > $o] :
( ( X3 @ m )
=> ( X3 @ n ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/tmp/tmp.YtZ2a5kXcc/E---3.1_1497776.p',cE5EXT) ).
thf(c_0_1,negated_conjecture,
~ ( ! [X1: $i,X2: $i > $o] :
( ( X2 @ ( m @ X1 ) )
=> ( X2 @ ( n @ X1 ) ) )
=> ! [X3: ( $i > $i ) > $o] :
( ( X3 @ m )
=> ( X3 @ n ) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[cE5EXT]) ).
thf(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
! [X7: $i,X8: $i > $o] :
( ( ~ ( X8 @ ( m @ X7 ) )
| ( X8 @ ( n @ X7 ) ) )
& ( epred1_0 @ m )
& ~ ( epred1_0 @ n ) ),
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,
~ ( epred1_0 @ n ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
thf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
epred1_0 @ m,
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
thf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
! [X2: $i > $o,X1: $i] :
( ( X2 @ ( n @ X1 ) )
| ~ ( X2 @ ( m @ X1 ) ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
thf(c_0_6,plain,
m != n,
inference(ext_sup,[status(thm)],[c_0_3,c_0_4]) ).
thf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
! [X1: $i] :
( ( m @ X1 )
= ( n @ X1 ) ),
inference(eliminate_leibniz_eq,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[]),c_0_5]) ).
thf(c_0_8,plain,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(neg_ext,[status(thm)],[c_0_6]),c_0_7])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.04 % Problem : SYO352^5 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.07 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.13/0.27 % Computer : n001.cluster.edu
% 0.13/0.27 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.13/0.27 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.13/0.27 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.13/0.27 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.13/0.27 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.13/0.27 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.13/0.27 % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 16:54:05 UTC 2026
% 0.13/0.27 % CPUTime :
% 0.13/0.27 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.27/0.34 Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.27/0.35 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.YtZ2a5kXcc/E---3.1_1497776.p
% 0.27/0.38 % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 0.27/0.38 % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNHHA.
% 0.27/0.38 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.27/0.38 % Starting sh2lt with 1200s (4) cores
% 0.27/0.38 % Starting new_ho_10_unif with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.38 % Starting full_lambda_6 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.38 % Starting post_as_ho1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.38 % Starting ehoh_best3_rw with 300s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.38 % sh2lt with pid 1497789 completed with status 0
% 0.27/0.38 % Result found by sh2lt
% 0.27/0.38 % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNHHA.
% 0.27/0.38 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.27/0.38 % Starting sh2lt with 1200s (4) cores
% 0.27/0.38 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,5,,4,20000,1.0,true))
% 0.27/0.38 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,5,,4,20000,1.0,true)
% 0.27/0.38 % Search class: HHUNF-FFSF11-SHHFFSBN
% 0.27/0.38 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 4 cores with 1200 seconds (1200 total)
% 0.27/0.38 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 109s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.38 % Starting sh2lt with 121s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.38 % Starting ehoh_best_sine_rwall with 109s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.38 % Starting sh5l with 109s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.38 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1497794 completed with status 10
% 0.27/0.38 % Starting new_bool_3 with 109s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.38 % sh2lt with pid 1497795 completed with status 0
% 0.27/0.38 % Result found by sh2lt
% 0.27/0.38 % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNHHA.
% 0.27/0.38 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.27/0.38 % Starting sh2lt with 1200s (4) cores
% 0.27/0.38 % (lift_lambdas = 1, lambda_to_forall = 1,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,5,,4,20000,1.0,true))
% 0.27/0.38 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,5,,4,20000,1.0,true)
% 0.27/0.38 % Search class: HHUNF-FFSF11-SHHFFSBN
% 0.27/0.38 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 4 cores with 1200 seconds (1200 total)
% 0.27/0.38 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 109s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.38 % Starting sh2lt with 121s (1) cores
% 0.27/0.38 % Preprocessing time : 0.002 s
% 0.27/0.38 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.27/0.38
% 0.27/0.38 % Proof found!
% 0.27/0.38 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.27/0.38 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.27/0.38 % Parsed axioms : 3
% 0.27/0.38 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 2
% 0.27/0.38 % Initial clauses : 3
% 0.27/0.38 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.27/0.38 % Initial clauses in saturation : 3
% 0.27/0.38 % Processed clauses : 8
% 0.27/0.38 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.27/0.38 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.27/0.38 % ...remaining for further processing : 8
% 0.27/0.38 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.27/0.38 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.27/0.38 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.27/0.38 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.27/0.38 % Generated clauses : 7
% 0.27/0.38 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 4
% 0.27/0.38 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.27/0.38 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.27/0.38 % Paramodulations : 0
% 0.27/0.38 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.27/0.38 % NegExts : 1
% 0.27/0.38 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.27/0.38 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.27/0.38 % Total rewrite steps : 2
% 0.27/0.38 % ...of those cached : 0
% 0.27/0.38 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.27/0.38 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.27/0.38 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.27/0.38 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.27/0.38 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.27/0.38 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.27/0.38 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.38 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.38 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.38 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.38 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.38 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.27/0.38 % Current number of processed clauses : 4
% 0.27/0.38 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 2
% 0.27/0.38 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.27/0.38 % Negative unit clauses : 2
% 0.27/0.38 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.27/0.38 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 2
% 0.27/0.38 % ...number of literals in the above : 2
% 0.27/0.38 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.27/0.38 % Current number of archived clauses : 4
% 0.27/0.38 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.27/0.38 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.27/0.38 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.27/0.38 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.27/0.38 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.27/0.38 % BW rewrite match attempts : 2
% 0.27/0.38 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.27/0.38 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.27/0.38 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.27/0.38 % Termbank termtop insertions : 330
% 0.27/0.38 % Search garbage collected termcells : 86
% 0.27/0.38
% 0.27/0.38 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.27/0.38 % User time : 0.004 s
% 0.27/0.38 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.27/0.38 % Total time : 0.010 s
% 0.27/0.38 % Maximum resident set size: 3580 pages
% 0.27/0.38
% 0.27/0.38 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.27/0.38 % User time : 0.013 s
% 0.27/0.38 % System time : 0.014 s
% 0.27/0.38 % Total time : 0.027 s
% 0.27/0.38 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.27/0.38 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------